ID: 86-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Koji Tokunaga

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

Thank you for your letter of December 19, 1985, to former Chief Counsel Prank Berndt, asking several questions about how the requirements of Standards No. 207, Seating Systems, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Achorages, apply to an airsuspension truck seat equipped with a safety belt and a tether belt. The diagrams you enclosed with your letter show that one end of the tether belt is connected to the floor behind the seat and the other end is connected to the frame of the air suspension seat. The safety belt is also connected to the frame of the seat. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked about which portion of the system is considered the safety belt anchorage for the purpose of Standard No. 210. S3 of the standard defines the term "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." Since, according to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the safety belt is directly attached to the seat, we would consider the attachment point on the seat to be the anchorage. It is that attachment point that transfers the seat belt load to the vehicle structure. Although not specifically discussed in your letter, we believe that the primary purpose of the tether belt is to hold the seat in position during a crash rather than to transfer the safety belt loads to the vehicle structure.

You next asked whether S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to the seat since the safety belt is secured to the seat. The answer is yes, S4.2(c) would apply. S4.2(c) sets requirements for any seat in which "a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat."

In your third question, you asked whether the seat would have to be tested to the requirements of Standard No. 210 if it meets the requirements of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207. The seat must meet the requirement of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 and the seat belt anchorages must separately meet the requirements of Standard No. 210. As a manufacturer, your responsibility is to certify that the seat and safety belt anchorages will meet each of those requirements. You may not have to conduct two separate tests if you can demonstrate compliance to both sets of requirements when the seat and seat belt anchorage are tested in accordance with S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207.

In your fourth question, you asked whether the struts specified in S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 can be used in testing the system. S5.1.1 provides that if "the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments," a strut can be secured on each side of the side for the purposes of securing a rigid crossmember used in loading the seat. In the case of your seat, the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments and thus use of the struts is permitted.

You then asked how the center of gravity of the seat is to be determined for the purpose of the test. You asked whether you are to determine the center of gravity of the entire system, including the seat stand with the air suspension and slide mechanism. In a July 14, 1983 letter to Mack Trucks, Inc., NHTSA addressed the issue of how to apply the loading required by Standard No. 207 to a heavy-duty truck seat which, as with yours, includes a suspension system and is mounted on a pedestal-like structure.

In its letter, Mack explained that it tests its seat in a two step process. First, the seat supplier for Mack mounts the seat cushion and the seat back on a rigid structure and tests the seat to the performance requirements of Standard No. 207 by applying 20 times the weight of the seat cushion and seat frame to the seat. Then, Mack conducts a separate test of the seat cushion and seat back with those components mounted on the pedestal used in its trucks. In that test, Mack subjects those components to 20 times the weight of the seat back, seat cushion and pedestal applied at the center of gravity of the entire seat system (seat back, seat cushion, and pedestal).

In responding to Mack, NHTSA said that a manufacturer can separately test the seat in the manner followed by Mack. Thus, a manufacturer can conduct one test of the upper section of the seat by applying 20 times the weight of those components to the upper section and then separately test the seat, as anchored to the vehicle floor, by applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal, at the center of gravity of the entire seat.

In your sixth and final question, you asked whether the tether belt would have to meet the seat belt assembly requirements of Standard No. 209. S3 of Standard No. 209 defines, in part, a seat belt assembly as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle to mitigate the results of any accident. . . ." Since your tether belt is not designed to restrain an occupant, it would not be required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

DET-85-258

December 19, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Subject: Test Procedures for Seat Belt With Tether Belt

Regarding the compliance with the requirements of FMVSS 207 and 210, we would request you to answer the following questions and provide necessary information on a seat belt with tether belt, which is used on an airsuspension truck seat. Please see Fig. 1 on the next page for the outline of the system.

1. We think that (1) the securing on the floor end or the tether belt, (2) the tether belt itself, and (3) the area where the seat belt and tether belt are together secured to the seat constitute the seat belt anchorage as defined in FMVSS 270 S3. Is this correct?

2. Since the seat belt is secured to the seat together with the tether belt, we think FMVSS 207 S4.2(c) is applicable. Is this understanding correct?

3. If your answer to the question 2 above is yes, there seems to be no necessity for testing the system separately to FMVSS 210 S4.2 if the system meets the requirements or FMVSS 207 S4.2(c). Is this correct?

4. If your answer to the question 2 above is yes, is the use of the struts mentioned in FMVSS 207 S5.1.1 permitted in testing the system? Then, how is the center of gravity or the seat determined? Is it the center or gravity or the entire system including the seat stand which incorporates the suspension and slide mechanisms?

5. If the center of gravity is to be determined as in para. 4 above, this center exists inside the suspension mechanism as shown in Fig. 2, and thus the crossmember for the struts cannot be installed.

Is there any established regulation or procedure which specifies what load is to be applied where? If no, please advise what action we are to take.

6. It is our understanding that the tether belt is to meet the requirements or FMVSS 209 as linked to the seat belt. Is this understanding correct?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

jj

ID: 86-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Flanagan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas J. Flanagan, Esq. Wiggin & Dana 195 Church Street P.O. Box 1832 New Haven, CT 06508

Dear Mr. Flanagan:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin, of our Rulemaking division, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You described a situation in which a client, Saab-Scania of America, imports cars subject to the theft prevention standard and uses them directly as company cars or leases them to employees for their personal use. After such use, the company sells the cars to dealers as used cars. On occasion, these vehicles may have an original equipment major part covered by the theft prevention standard that is so badly damaged during such use that the part must be replaced before the vehicle is delivered to a dealer or distributor. When this occurs, you asked whether the repair would be required to be made with a part marked with the full VIN or whether the repair could be made with a properly marked replacement part. We conclude that when a manufacturer uses a car as a company car in the manner you describe, it may make any necessary repairs to damaged major parts by installing parts marked as replacement parts. This conclusion is explained in detail below.

Section 2(7) of the Cost Savings Act (15 D.S.C. 1901(7)) defines a manufacturer as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of passenger motor vehicles or passenger motor vehicle equipment including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (Emphasis added). It is clear under this statutory definition that your client is a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the theft prevention standard, since it is importing motor vehicles for resale.

Section 606(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)(1)) requires vehicle manufacturers to certify that each vehicle complies with the requirements of the theft prevention standard "at the time of delivery of such vehicle". The preamble to the final rule establishing the theft prevention standard discussed this agency's conclusion that the "delivery" as used in this part of section 606(c)(1) means the delivery from the manufacturer to a dealer or distributor, and that the delivery occurs when the goods are delivered by the seller to a carrier. 50 FPR 43166, at 131B6-43187, October 24, 1985. In the next sentence, section 606(c)(1) specifies that the certification shall accompany the vehicle until delivery to the first purchaser. NHTSA believes that this statutory requirement means that each vehicle in the lines selected as high theft lines and listed in Appendix A of Part 541 must be delivered to the first purchaser with all covered major parts marked in accordance with the theft prevention standard. However, NHTSA does not interpret this statutory provision as requiring that every first purchaser be delivered a vehicle with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. Instead, the agency believes this means that the first purchaser may receive a vehicle with the undamaged covered original equipment major parts marked with the VIN, and with those covered major parts installed by a dealer or distributor to replace damaged original equipment parts marked as replacement parts.

In accordance with this interpretation, NHTSA does not believe that a manufacturer delivers a car to itself, when the car is sold to the public as a new car. However, you have noted a circumstance in which cars are bona fide used as company cars and are sold to the public as used cars, not new cars. Congress knew that used cars frequently have some replacement parts substituted for the original equipment parts. However, Title VI contains no requirement that used cars have all covered major parts marked with the VIN. In fact, Title VI presumes that when an original equipment major part is so badly damaged that it must be replaced, it will be replaced with a replacement part marked in conformity with Part 541. This reflects a legislative judgment that such replacement does not increase the opportunity for car thieves to steal the car without fear of being apprehended, or otherwise frustrate the purposes of Title VI, even though the car no longer has all major parts marked with the VIN.

On the other hand, a severe burden would be imposed on all manufacturers if they were required to deliver all bona fide company cars to distributors or dealers with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. If this were required and the company car were involved in an accident that required a covered major part to be replaced, the manufacturer would have a choice of either asking the factory to produce a replacement part with the VIN marked on the part and waiting to repair the vehicle until the part marked with the VIN arrived, or ending the vehicle's use as a company car and shipping the unrepaired vehicle to a dealer or distributor with the damaged major part marked with the VIN still on the vehicle. Nothing in the legislative history of Title VI explicitly or implicitly suggests that Congress intended such harsh treatment of company cars under the theft prevention standard.

Balancing the absence of negative policy consequences under Title VI if manufacturers are allowed to repair company cars with properly marked parts against the significant burdens that would be imposed on manufacturers if damaged major parts on company cars had to be replaced with parts marked with the full VIN, NHTSA concludes that Title VI of the Cost Savings Act permits cars damaged while in bona fide use as company cars and sold to the public as used cars, to be repaired by the manufacturer using properly marked replacement parts. This conclusion is based on NHTSA's interpretation that bona fide use of the car as a company car by the manufacturer is, for all practical and policy purposes, tantamount to a delivery of the vehicle under section 606(c)(1). The conclusion is reinforced by the fact that when a company car is later sold to the public as a used car, the consumer purchasing the company car Hill get a car with the same theft markings as any other used car.

NHTSA would like to note that this interpretation applies only to Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, and not to any other statutes administered by this agency. Those statutes may have different underlying policy considerations, which might mandate a different conclusion for cars used as company cars. Further, the agency wishes to emphasize that this interpretation applies only to bona fide company cars that are sold to the public as used cars, and not to most of the cars manufactured by the manufacturer.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions about our theft prevention standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 3, 1986

Mr. Brian McLaughlin Office of Market Incentives NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Theft Prevention Regulations

Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

As you suggested during our phone conversation on March 31, 1986, I am writing to request a more formal response to the question I asked during that conversation.

As you will recall, our client, Saab-Scania of America, Inc., uses some of the vehicles that it imports before selling these cars to dealers as used cars. The company either uses these cars directly or leases them to employees.

The question I asked was whether vehicles so employed by an importer that needed repairs before delivery to a dealer as a used car could be repaired with "R" marked parts or whether such vehicles must be repaired with parts market with the full VIN number.

My reading of the statute is that, under these circumstances, the importer itself becomes the "first purchaser" of tie vehicle thereby allowing the importer to repair the vehicle with "R" marked parts.

Please call if you require any more information to reply.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Flanagan

TJF:j1

ID: 86-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1986, asking for our advice on a decorative lighting device for motorcycles.

The general principle remains the same as when I last explained it to you. Please refer to my letter to you dated March 24, 1986 (copy enclosed) on the relationship of paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to auxiliary lighting devices for motorcycles. If you conclude that the device would not impair the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 then paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.

You may follow this guideline with reference to any future questions you may have about the permissibility of auxiliary motor vehicle lighting devices. The agency does not approve or disapprove of specific items of lighting equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 7, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re.: Instlallation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No.108

Dear Ms. Jones,

We would like to ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.

This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose an illustration and a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp. Lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Enc. Drawing 1 : The outlines of the device Drawing 2 : The details of the device (Graphics here)

ID: 86-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1986, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 212, Windshield Retention, apply to a passenger car that is equipped with a driver-only air bag system. As explained below, such a vehicle must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after being tested in accordance with Standard No. 212.

Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicle that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.

You noted that S4.1.3.4(b) of Standard No. 208 provides that, for purpose of calculating the number of passive restraint-equipped cars during the phase-in of passive restraints, a car with a driver-only, non-belt passive restraint will be counted as a vehicle complying with the passive restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1(a). Such a driver-only system can have a manual safety belt installed at the right front passenger position. You said that Volvo considers a vehicle with a driver-only, non-belt system to be a passive restraint vehicle and thus subject to the 50 percent windshield retention requirement of S5.1

As discussed in a July 5, 1977, Federal Register notice (42 FR 34288), one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles has because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield. In addition, there could be incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield. Because the same air bag-to-windshield and dummy-to-windshield contact is possible in a vehicle equipped with a driver-only air bag system, the agency believes that it is appropriate to apply the 50 percent retention requirement to a driver-only air bag system.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 5, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #212 Windshield Mounting

Dear Ms. Jones:

FMVSS #212 requires passive restraint equipped vehicles to retain not less than 50% of the portion of the windshield periphery on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline and vehicles not equipped with passive restraints to retain not less than 75% of the windshield periphery.

FMVSS #208 Section 4. 1.3.4(b) states, for purposes of calculating the numbers of cars manufactured under Section 4. 1.3. 1 .2, Section 4. 1.3.2.2, or Section 4.1.3.3.2 L; comply with Section 4.1.2.1. (first option - frontal/angular automatic protection system): "Each car whose driver's seating position with comply with the requirements of Section 4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type or seat belt ad whose front right seating position is equipped with a Type 2 seat belt is counted as a vehicle conforming to Section 4,1.2.1.",

During the period 1987-89MY, NHTSA has classified cars with a non-belt passive restraint on the driver's side and a Type 2 seat belt on the passenger's side as "passive restraint vehicles".

Volvo interprets that the vehicles covered under Section 4.1.3.4(b) are passive restraint vehicles ad the requirements of FMVSS #212 for those vehicles are the ones that apply to passive restraint vehicles, i.e. , minimum 50% windshield periphery retention on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline.

We would appreciate your confirmation of that position as soon as possible.

If additional information is required on this matter, don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA Product Planning and Development

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs

ID: 86-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Vincent H. Rose -- President, HI-Q Technology, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Vincent H. Rose President HI-Q Technology, Inc. Box 4836 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94596

This will confirm your understanding, as expressed in your letter of June 3, 1986, that Federal requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, do not apply to an aftermarket lamp that "will not replace parts originally governed by regulations".

It is not quite correct, however, to say that "no regulations apply"; a manufacturer of aftermarket lighting equipment to which no standard applies is nevertheless subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product.

Finally, even though Standard No. 108 does not cover an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp such as you propose to market, we encourage manufacturers to design their products as closely as possible to Federal specifications so that the full benefit of the device may be realized.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 3, 1986 Ref: 20nhtsa3

Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th St. SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Ms Jones:

We are planning to market a lighting product for passenger cars in the United States and wish to comply with pertinent regulations and safety standards.

The product is a high-mounted stoplamp. It will be sold in the aftermarket and is intended to be added by the consumer to older automobiles not originally equipped with this device. It is not intended for replacement of high-mounted stoplamps installed by the vehicle manufacturer in newer automobiles.

We need your advice regarding U.S. Government regulations, if any, that must be complied with. It is our understanding that perhaps no regulations apply because this product is an add-on and will not replace parts originally governed by regulations.

Your comments will be most helpful and appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Vincent H. Rose President HI-Q Technology, Inc.

ID: 86-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/86

FROM: LYNNE L. KEIL -- MANAGER, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT - CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA

TO: WCS SPRUNK -- MANAGER, SAF-TEE SIPING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: This is written in accordance with your request that we document the results experienced as a consequence of siping tires to increase handling performance on certain vehicles. Last year, we were experiencing severe handling problems on snow and ice with police vehicles in particular.

Approximately 20 patrol cruisers had been fitted with new Good Year Eagle GT Tires. With these tires, cornering and stopping on ice and snow was hazardous and in some instances, impossible. In an effort to improve performance, we siped the tires on several of these vehicles and ran tests.

On the test vehicles, we found that we could negotiate 90 degrees corners safely on ice at 25 to 30 miles per hour - after siping. Prior to siping, we could corner and maintain vehicle control only at speeds under 10 miles per hour. Braking efficiency was increased in all cases by 30 percent.

Given the inclemental weather and tire type, siping in this case was obviously necessary and functional. It was also a great deal less costly than replacing 20 sets of tires. We have since siped tires on Met Transit coaches with very good results. Should you have any questions, or wish further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.

ID: 86-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Davis C. Thekkanath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566

Dear Mr. Thekkanath:

This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1986, asking for a waiver from compliance with the headlamp mounting height requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to prototype and future production trucks you have developed for military application.

No federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.7(c)). This means that the headlamps on production models of your military truck may be mounted higher than 54 inches without creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. If the truck is also sold for commercial applications, however, it would be required to conform with the 54-inch limitation.

Although the exception quoted above applies to vehicles manufactured for sale, the agency has no objection to limited use on the public roads of nonconforming prototype vehicles that have been developed expressly for sale to the Armed Forces of the United States.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 23, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

SUBJECT: Waiver FMVSS1O8

We are manufacturers of heavy duty vehicles both commerical and military. We have recently developed a new vehicle - our model Z-1838. This will be used as a military cargo transport truck. These trucks have their head- lights located higher than the maximum allowable of 54 inches (FMVSS1O8). This is to protect the lamps from the brush and other objects during cross- country runs. Although we do not have a supply contract for the specific vehicles from the U.S. military at this time, we have built a few prototypes for tests, etc. We would, therefore, request you to exempt these vehicles, both the prototypes and any future production vehicles for the U.S. Government, under the Z-1838 configuration, from the headlight height requirements per FMVSS1O8.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer

DCT:lh

ID: 86-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. B.K. O'Neil

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you manufacture. Your letter and the literature you enclosed describe your product as a modified acrylic tinted shield which fits over the front end of a passenger car. According to the pictures you enclosed with your letter, your shield fits over the headlights of some vehicles, in others it apparently only covers the front turn signals. I regret the delay in our response. As discussed below, your product could be affected by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and marking requirements for glazing materials used in a vehicle. Auxillary wind deflectors are among the items of glazing materials covered by the standard. The agency has applied the standard to the type of wind deflector that is used at a location necessary for driving visibility. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that wind deflectors do not obstruct or distort the vision of a driver. Thus, for example, the agency has said in a letter of October 2, 1985, to Mr. Rosario Costanzo that the standard would apply to a wind deflector designed to be mounted in the side window of a vehicle. The literature you enclosed shows that your product, which is a type of plastic shield, is not mounted in a location necessary for driving visibility and thus would not be covered by Standard No. 205.

Installation of your product in a new vehicle prior to its first sale would be affected by Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which sets, among other things, minimum candle power requirements for headlamps and turn signals. In addition, paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Furthermore Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J580, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, which is incorporated by reference in paragraph S4.1.1.36 and Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, prohibits styling features in front of headlamps when the lamps have been activated. Thus, S4.1.3, S4.1.1.36, and Tables I and II prohibit the use of fixed transparent headlamp covers as original equipment on motor vehicles. Part 567, Certification, of our regulations provides that a person that alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards. Thus, an alterer could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If a version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the alterer must certify that the vehicle lights will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Persons violating the certification requirement are subject to a civil fine of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a commercial business could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If the version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the business must assure that the vehicle lamps will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Commercial businesses that violate section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to a civil penalty of $ 1,000 per violation.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law.

In addition, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which outlines those requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ENC.

January 22, 1986

Department of Transportation

Attn: Erika Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

I have been in contact with Mr. Ed Glassie of your department, and he suggested we contact you for clarification on our product.

AUTOBRA I manufactures a modified acrylic (Plexiglas DR(R)) auto bra, as per the enclosed literature.

I would like to find out if we are approved by D.O.T., or in fact, our product would need approval under your guidelines.

Please peruse our literature and samples, and advise me of your comments.

AUTOBRA I, INC.

B.K. O'Neill Vice President/Marketing

ENC.

P.S. Although there are presently four or five other manufacturers of auto bras in America right now, we are unfamiliar with their position as to D.O.T. compliance. The only difference between us is the type of plastic used.

(Graphics omitted)

Autobra shield has been designed to provide the following innovative features not available with most front end protection: STYLING Autobra shield's aerodynamic styling actually enhances your automobile's appearance.

MOUNTING Mounting Autobra shield is fast and secure without modification to your automobile.

ACCESS Autobra shield provides easy access to your hood or bonnet without total removal of the shield.

PROTECTION Autobra shield's solid acrylic construction provides maximum protection to your automobile from stones, bugs and other flying debris.

SAFETY Abrasion, mildew and damage to body finish of the covered area are eliminated because Autobra shield mounts away from the surface of the automobile.

MAINTENANCE Autobra shield wipes clean with soap and water providing easy maintenance.

Autobra shield's acrylic construction is resistant to the WEATHER elements; RESISTANCE consequently removal of the shield in inclement weather is virtually eliminated.

Autobra shield is available in light tint acrylic for Porsche 911, 930; BMW 318/325, 320; Toyota Celica, Tercel, Pick-Up; Fiero; Corvette; Mustang GT, and other select automobiles.

2177 Andrea Lane Ft. Myers, FL 33908 Florida (813) 482-5603 Toll Free 1-800-445-2886

Dealer inquiries welcomed

ID: 86-5.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Vincent Foster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Vincent Foster 146 Argilla Road Ipswich, Massachusetts 01938

Dear Mr. Foster:

This responds to your May 23, 1986, letter to Administrator Steed requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to your dealer to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

You explained that you are mildly hemiplegic and that your physical condition makes it difficult to use a key on the right side of the steering column. You wish to arrange with your dealer to move the ignition to a new position on the steering column which would enable you to engage the key with your left hand. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification by the dealer. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulations will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle dealer modify their used motor vehicle. Dealers are permitted to modify used vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a dealer who cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with handicaps. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers and dealers modifying certified vehicles are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

In general Section 108(a)(2)(A) would require dealers who modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular handicap, we have been willing to consider any violation of S108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a motor vehicle dealer that modifies the steering column on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the steering column to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle.

I suggest you show this letter to your dealer. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 27, 1986

Ms. Diane Steed Administrator Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: Mr. Vincent Foster 1985 Volvo 146 Argilla Road Vin # YVIFX884GG1013278 Ipswich, Mass. 01938

Dear Ms. Steed:

With reference to USA regulation #114 covering the ignition locking system.

Please consider this a request to waive the above regulation and for permission to modify the ignition locking system.

The reason for this is that it would be in the public interest since Mr.

Foster's right hand is totally disabled. He has great difficulty starting the car.

We are planning to install an additional keyed ignition switch in the let side of the steering column.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Mr. Fred Pomeroy or Ms. Karen Gardella at Congressman's Mavarolis Office.

Sincerely,

Mr. Fred Pomeroy Sales Department

FP/jw

Diane Steed Department of Transportation Office of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Room 5220 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

I am writing you to request permission to have the ignition of my and newly-purchased Volvo Sedan (1986 model year) changed from its present position additional/ on the right side of the steering column. I bought the car on January 13, 1986, from Sales, Incorporated, of 230 John Street, Reading , Mass. 01867. A mechanic employed by 128 Sales, Incorporated, will make this alteration if and when permission is granted.

I make this request because my right side is mildly hemiplegic as a result of cerebral palsy, due to a birth injury, a circumstance which makes possible turning the key in the ignition of any automobile with my right hand. Since January I have been driving the Volvo, but in order to start it, I must lean far enough over to reach the ignition with my left hand, which is affected by the cerebral palsy. Thus, I can drive with the ignition on the right, but its relocation to the left side of the steering column would be of great assistance.

As a resident of and a voter in the Massachusetts 6th Congressional District, I turned for help---as soon as I was informed that permission would be required---to the office of my Congressman, Mr. Nicholas Mavarolis, one of his aides, Ms. Karen Gardella, has given me all possible help with this matter. She had believed, until today, that the proper procedure for petitioning. Today, both Ms. Gardella and, through her, I learned that, according to Betsy Harrison, Chief Counsel of the Department of Transportation, petitions by the individuals in question. Hence this letter.

My car is an "86 Volvo, Model 744GEO Sedan. Its Vehicle Identification Number is YV1FX8846G1013278. The salesman with whom I dealt with is Fred Pomeroy. I have a Massachusetts Driver's License.

My legal address is 146 Argilla Road, Ipswich, Mass. 01938, and as I stated earlier, I am a registered voter in the Massachusetts Sixth Congressional District. However, for the next few months I will be in Jackson, Florida., where my telephone number, should you for any reason wish to contact me, (606) 356-5916. Your early attention to this question would be greatly appreciated. Thank You very much.

Sincerely,

Vincent Foster

ID: 86-5.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Binichi Doi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office P.O. Box 1507 Ann Arbor, MI 18106

Dear Mr. Doi:

Thank you for your letters concerning the automatic safety belt warning requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained in your letters and in conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff that NSK-Warner is developing a motorized automatic belt system that would be equipped with an emergency release buckle. You also plan to provide voluntarily a manual lap belt with the system. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked whether you can use an automatic belt warning system for your motorized belt system which would activate an audible signal under the following conditions: (1) the vehicle ignition is moved to the "on" or "start" position (2) the motorized automatic belt is not fastened and (3) the motorized belt has not reached its locked protective position. As explained below, such a system is permissible, but is not required by the standard.

S4.5.3 of the standard sets forth the requirements for automatic belt systems. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a motorized automatic belt system to have a warning system that sounds an audible signal for between 4 and 8 seconds if the automatic belt latchplate is not fastened or the emergency release is activated and the ignition is in the "on" or "start" position. However, S4.5.3.3(b) does not require the audible signal to be activated until a motorized belt has reached its locked protective mode. Your system would activate the audible signal while the motorized belt is moving to its locked position and it would sound again once it has reached its locked position. Thus, NSK is voluntarily providing a warning that is not required by the standard. As stated in the preamble to the November 6, 1985 notice (50 FR 16063) adopting the new warning system requirements for automatic safety belts, a manufacturer is free to provide additional features as long as the features required by the standard still continue to comply with all the applicable performance requirements. Thus, as long as the warning system provides the warning required by S4.5.3.3(b), NSK may voluntarily provide additional warnings as well.

You also said that NSK is planning to provide an automatic belt warning system for both the driver's and right front passenger's seating position. S4.5.3.3(b) requires an automatic belt warning system only at the left front designated seating position. Thus, the agency would consider the passenger side warning system as a voluntary system, which you may install as long as the driver'a warning system will continue to meet all applicable requirements.

You also asked several questions about when and how long the audible and light warning are to be activated. Specifically you asked whether the warnings must be reactivated when the tongue of an emergency release buckle (referred to as an ERB in your letter) is inserted into the latch mechanism and then removed again within a few seconds. You also asked if the warnings can be de-activated by insertion of the tongue of the emergency release buckle before expiration of the 4-8 seconds specification for the audible warning and the 60 second specification for activation of the warning light. As explained below, if the emergency release buckle has been fastened and then unfastened after a few seconds, the warning does not have to be re-activated until after the ignition switch has been turned "off" and then turned again to the "on" or "start" position. Also if the warning begins to activate and then the emergency release buckle is fastened, the warning may immediately be cancelled and thus does not have to be activated for the full time period specified in the standard.

S4.5.3.3(b) provides that the audible warning and the warning light are to be activated only under certain conditions. Thus, the standard provides that the warnings are to be activated when condition A (the ignition switch is in the "on" or "start" position) exists simultaneously with one of the other conditions, such as condition B (the emergency release buckle not being fastened). Thus, if the emergency release buckle is unfastened and, at the same time, the ignition is in the "on" or "start" position, the warnings must activate. However, if the ignition is not in the "on" or "start" position and the emergency buckle is released, then the warnings do not have to be activated. The agency has previously said, such as in a June 17, 1981 letter to Chrysler, that the warning is not to activate if the safety belt is buckled. Thus, the warning may be cancelled once the emergency release buckle is fastened.

Again, I regret the delay in our response. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 10, 1986

NHTSA Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20590

Stephen L. Oesch Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel For Rulemaking

Subject: Questions Regarding FMVSS 208, 4.5.3.3(b).

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It was nice meeting with you the other day although I walked into your office without prior notice.

Below is a few questions NSK-Warner would like to ask your office, in addition to the previous request for interpretation of rules stated in my letter of February 4, 1986.

1. When conditions A and B exist simultaneously the audible and light warnings are activated. Under the existance of such conditions (say for two seconds), when a tongue of ERB is inserted into and removed from a buckle within a short time.

a) Are warnings (or one of two types of warning) required to be re-activated?

b) Are warnings required for the initially set time, that is, 4-8 seconds for audio-warning and not less than 60 seconds for light-warning after a tongue is inserted into and removed from a buckle during the initial warning activation time periods?

In other words, are the warning(s) needs to be re-activated for a certain length of time after a tongue is inserted into a buckle (this action would eliminate both types of warning) and removed immediately afterward as long as this sequence of events occurs within 4-8 seconds and not less than 60 seconds of initial activation of warnings?

Yet in other words, can the warnings be de-activated before expiration of 4-8 seconds and not less than 60 seconds by insertion of a tongue, for example, and not required to be reactivated at all until ignition switch is turned off once and turned on again?

2. NSK-Warner is considering the implementation of 'Condition B Warning' on the passenger side, also.

In such case, depending on the timing of anchor point reaching protected-mode at anchor-point, audible warning could last for a total of 16 seconds, 8 seconds on drivers side and 8 seconds on passenger side. Does this cause any rule-related problem?

I only hope that above questions sufficiently are clearly stated so that we can receive your kind consideration and response.

Very truly yours,

Binichi Doi NSK Representative

BD/mt

P.S. We would appreciate it if you could combine above with our previous set of questions for your consideration.