ID: nht89-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/27/89

FROM: SHUICHI WATANABE -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO, JAPAN

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: MEASUREMENT OF INCIDENT LIGHT ANGLE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD OF NHTSA TO SHUICHI WATANABE OF STANLEY ELECTRIC CO OF JAPAN; REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

According to SAE J587 Oct 81 6.5 and Fig. 3 which is quoted by present FMVSS No. 108, it says,

This angle being measured from the edge of the light emitting surface of the device farthest from the surface of the plate.

In order to determine the farthest point on the light emitting surface, we understand that only the distance "1" between license plate and a plane runs parallel to it should be considered and not by distance "m" nor "n". (See Fig. A of attached paper.) This also means that in the case of round and dome shaped license plate light (Fig. B), you will easily find only one point "p" as the farthest point. But if the farthest point can exist so may on a line or a plane as described in Fig. C or D, how could it be determined? Should it be for instance, left end, right end or center of them? We also have same question for E and F.

It will be very much appreciated if you could give us a clear discrimination.

Yours faithfully,

ATTCH: [ATTACHED DIAGRAM OMITTED]

ID: nht89-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROBERT H. MUNSON -- DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY OFFICE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ENGINEERING STAFF FORD MOTOR COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/30/88 FROM R. H. MUNSON TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2860

TEXT: Dear Mr. Munson:

This responds to your letter in which you suggested that there are some apparently inconsistent provisions in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209). With respect to manual belt sy stems installed at front outboard seating positions in a vehicle which is certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208, you asked whether those belt systems may be equipped with load limiters, such that the belt assemb ly does not comply with the elongation requirements in Standard No. 209. For the reasons explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter suggested that Standard No. 209 contains two different provisions that yield inconsistent answers to this question. On the one hand, section S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 reads as follows: "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system." Section S3 of Standard No. 2 09 defines a "load limiter" as "a seat belt assembly component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt to modulate the forces that are imparted to occupants restrained by the belt assembly during a crash." These provisions of Standard No. 209 s eemingly preclude the use of a load limiter on manual belts, if the load limiter results in the belt assembly not complying with those elongation requirements, unless the seating position in which such manual belts is also equipped with an automatic rest raint system. Accordingly, dynamically tested manual belts installed at seating positions that do not include any automatic restraint system could not be equipped with a load limiter, if the load limiter resulted in the belt no longer complying with the elongation requirements.

On the other hand, section S4.6 of Standard No. 209 exempts dynamically tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of the standard, as well as the webbing width and strength requirements. This exemption applies without respect to whether the d ynamically tested manual belt is equipped with a load limiter. Ford suggests that this provision means that a manual belt installed at a front outboard seating position could be equipped with a load limiter, even if the load limiter resulted in the belt assembly not complying with the elongation requirements, provided that the vehicle in which the belt was installed was certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you said that it was Ford's interpretation that the requirements of S4.6 of Standard No. 209 were meant to limit the prohibition in S4.5 of Standard No. 209, by permitting the use of load limiters that result in the belt assembly no longe r complying with the elongation limits on either automatic belts or dynamically-tested manual belts. You suggested that the reasoning that caused the agency to limit the use of load limiters that result in the belt not complying with the elongation requ irements to automatic belts only, in section S4.5, does not apply to dynamically tested manual belts. You quoted the following language from the notice that established S4.5:

[There] are currently no dynamic performance requirements or injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. There are no requirements to ensure that a load-limiting belt system would protect vehicle occupants from impacting the steering wheel, i nstrument panel, and windshield, which would be very likely if the belts elongated beyond the limits specified in Standard No. 209. Therefore, the elongation requirements are necessary to ensure that manual belts used as the sole restraint system will a dequately restrain vehicle occupants. 46 FR 2618, at 2619; January 12, 1981.

You noted that this reasoning is now outmoded for some manual belts, because dynamic testing requirements have been established for certain manual belts. In fact, you asserted that the agency has expressly recognized this by exempting dynamically-tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209. Accordingly, you believe that S4.5 of Standard No. 209 should be interpreted to permit the use of load limiters that cause the belt to no longer comply with the elongation requirements on either automatic belts or dynamically tested manual belts.

As further support for this position, your letter suggested that the agency's notices establishing dynamic testing requirements for manual belt systems show an intent to treat dynamically-tested manual belts in the same way as automatic belts for the pur poses of Standard No. 209. You referred to our rule adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual safety belts in front outboard seating positions of passenger cars (51 FR 9800; March 21, 1986), the rule extending dynamic testing requirements to manu al belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (52 FR 44889; November 23, 1987), and the denial of petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to rescind the exemption of automatic belts and dynamically tested manual

belts from the webbing width, strength, and elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 (53 FR 5579; February 25, 1988). Because of the agency's consistent expression in these three notices of its intent to treat dynamically tested manual belts in the s ame way automatic belts are treated under Standard No. 209, you believe that the reference in S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 permitting load limiters on belts used "in conjunction with an automatic restraint system" should be interpreted to mean load limite rs may be installed on belts used in conjunction with an automatic or dynamically tested manual restraint system.

I do not concur with your suggested interpretation. I believe that sections S4.5 and S4.6 yield inconsistent answers to your question. Section S4.6(a) exempts manual belts from elongation requirements. However, it does not speak to the consequence of installing a load limiter on a belt that does not comply with those requirements. Section S4.5(b) does speak to this issue. It says that such a belt may be used only in conjunction with an automatic restraint. To be more specific, section S4.5 expressl y provides that a belt assembly that "includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in a motor vehicle only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupan t restraint system."

I appreciate that the discussion you quoted from the 1981 notice is consistent with your argument that load limiters should be permitted on any dynamically-tested manual belt. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make o r should have made such a change when in adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual belts, it is not possible to interpret the term "automatic restraint system," as used in S4.5, to mean "automatic restraint system or dynamically tested manual rest raint system." An interpretation cannot add or delete requirements that are not contained in the language of the standard itself. When the agency promulgates a safety standard specifying performance requirements for vehicles or items of equipment to acc omplish a particular safety purpose, that safety standard sets forth all the requirements with which the vehicles or equipment must comply. If the requirements in the safety standard do not fully address or ensure the implementation of some aspect of th e underlying safety purpose, that aspect is not part of the standard. Since an interpretation cannot amend the language of a safety standard, the agency's only recourse in these situations is to undertake rulemaking to amend the language of the standard .

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our re view of it.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/89

FROM: CHESTER G. ATKINS -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: NANCY BRUCE -- DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK 49 SORRENTO AVENUE METHUEN, MA 01844

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BLANCHE KOZAK; REDBOOK A33 [2]; VSA 108 [A] [1] [A]; LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM BLANCHE KOZAK TO BER RY FELRICE; LETTER DATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED; LETTER DATED 08/09/88 FROM BLANCHE G. KOZAK TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Ms. Bruce:

On behalf of my constituent, Blanche Kozak, I am enclosing a copy of letters which Mrs. Kozak sent last year to Barry Felrice, the Associate Administrator for Rulemaking for NHTSA and to the General Counsel of the DOT concerning the Cushman 404 vehicl e. As you will see from the enclosures, Mrs. Kozak's husband died following an accident in the Cushman 404 and she is interested in determining the regulatory status of this vehicle. Mrs. Kozak has not received a response to either of the enclosed lett ers. We would appreciate any assistance you could provide to prompt a response to these letters.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact Josie Gump in my district office.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht89-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SAMSON HELFGOTT -- HELFGOTT & KARAS, P.C.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/12/89 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2989; REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNING LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKIN G RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATON OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST ; SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS H-85-30 ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TEXT: Dear Mr. Helfgott:

This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1989, asking whether Federal regulations permit the use of an amberlamp either as original or aftermarket equipment. The lamp would be placed adjacent to the center highmounted stop lamp, but in a separate housing and wholly independent of it. It would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and deactivated whenever the stop lamps are illuminated. The purpose of the amber lamp is to improve conspicuity of the vehicle in order to lessen the braking r esponse time of drivers in vehicles following.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.108 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment allows a supplementary lighting device such as the amber lamp if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipmen t required by Standard No. 108. The decision regarding impairment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the supplementary device is installed, and which the manufacturer certifies as complying with all applicable Federal safety s tandards. In this instance you have indicated that the wiring of the amber lamp is independent of the center lamp, and that the amber lamp is inoperative when the stop lamps are on. While your lamp does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the cen ter lamp, you should consider whether your lamp, since it would be a steady-burning amber lamp, might confuse following drivers unused to seeing a steady burning amber lamp on the rear of a vehicle, or because of its brightness. Should the amber lamp cr eate confusion, it may impair the effectiveness of the other rear lamps required by Standard No. 108, each of which (other than the stop lamps) would when in use operate contemporaneously with it, such as an amber turn signal lamp, or a back up lamp. As part of the vehicle manufacturer's certification to Standard No. 108, it must certify that this situation would not occur, if the lamp is to be permissible as an item of original equipment.

As an aftermarket device, the amber lamp is not regulated by Standard No. 108, but is subject to the general prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) against rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a safety standa rd. The same considerations as discussed above should be taken into consideration when making this determination.

In addition, the use of this lamp is subject to local laws. We are not able to advise you as to these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MELVIN KREWALL -- DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION SERVICE FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/17/88 FROM MELVIN KREWALL TO NHTSA, OCC 2697

TEXT: Dear Mr. Krewall:

Thank you for your letter asking two questions about how this agency's regulations apply to vehicles used as school buses. Before I answer your specific questions, it may be helpful to discuss some background information.

Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses. A "school bus" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related event s, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture for sale a new school bus that does not comply with these safety standards. It is also a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may purchase or use a vehicle to transport school children even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. T his is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a retail purchaser or user of a school bus. (Note, however, that a dealer who sold a vehicle other than a school bus to a school district with knowledge that it is intended to be used to transport school children would violate the Federal law.)

With this background, I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter. First, you asked whether a "transit coach-type vehicle" that was manufactured prior to April 1, 1977 could be used to transport students to and from school. In a sub sequent telephone conversation with Joan Tilghman of my staff, you explained that you used the term "transit coach-type vehicle" to mean a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds. As explained above, Federal law does not

regulate the use of vehicles as school buses. If there are any limitations on the use of vehicles as school buses in your State, those limitations arise from the laws or regulations of the State of Oklahoma. NHTSA has repeatedly advised the States of o ur position that the safest way to transport students is in a vehicle that is certified as complying with Federal school bus regulations. We have encouraged States and school districts to consider this fact carefully when deciding what vehicle should be used to transport students to and from school and school-related events.

Your second question asked what must be done to bring a bus with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds "into compliance as a standard Type "D" school bus." In your telephone conversation with Ms. Tilgham, you explained that Oklahoma refers to school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds as "Type D" school buses. Please note that Federal school bus standards apply only to new school buses. Accordingly, there is no Federal requirement under NHTSA regulations that any person retrofit a used bus to make it comply with our standards for new school buses.

You may wish to know that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a separate agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, has proposed regulations to enhance the highway safety by regulating operations of "private motor carriers of passengers. " (54 Federal Register 7362, February 17, 1989, Private Carriage of Passengers.) FHWA is exploring whether it is appropriate to require retrofit of some buses owned by that category of operators to meet NHTSA vehicle safety standards. While the proposed rule does not address the operations of governmental entities, you may wish to consider the FHWA proposal or comment on it. I enclose a copy for your information, and direct your attention to the comment closing date of June 19, 1989.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of may staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: M. J. YOON -- DIRECTOR IN-ONE DEVELOPMENT CORP. SEOUL, KOREA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/26/88 FROM M. J. YOON TO STEVE KRATZTE -- NHTSA, 0CC 2864

TEXT: Dear Mr. Yoon:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke, asking whether a vehicle you are developing for a client would be classified as a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to be able to explain our law and regulations for you. I regret the delay in responding.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason , NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, ten tatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purpose of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements of classification are based on entirely on our understanding of the information pres ented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle referenced in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a moto r vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." In your letter, you describe the vehicle as having 4-wheel dri ve. Additionally, the approach and departure angles and the running

clearance dimensions for this vehicle show that it has high ground clearance. The combination of 4-wheel drive and high ground clearance would be considered "special features for occasional off-road operation." Hence, it appears to us that this vehicle c ould be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicles.

You also asked for a copy of the criteria for classifying vehicles for purposes of the safety standards. All of our classification definitions are set forth in 49 CFR @ 571.3. The information sheet I have enclosed explains how to obtain a copy of this and all of our other regulations, and provides other information relevant to new motor vehicle manufacturers. I have also enclosed a copy of our proposals for a new vehicle classification system for the safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSED

ID: nht89-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/89 EST

FROM: VERNON ROBERTS -- NHTSA NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TITLE: RESEARCH NOTES; CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1989

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/25/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HARRY REID -- SENATE. RED BOOK A33 [4] USA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/23/ 89 FROM HARRY REID -- SENATE TO DOT; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM STEVEN P. ELLIOTT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE, RE AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTOMOBILE AIR BAGS; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRA M A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLE CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985

TEXT: In 1983 and 1984, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began two air bag fleet programs. The purpose was to demonstrate that both original equipment and retrofit air bag systems would provide occupant crash protection, with no sign ificant operational problems.

The air bags in these fleets have performed well in service. There have been a total of 167 crash deployments. We know of no cases where the air bags failed to deploy as designed and only two non-crash deployments (neither of which resulted in any pers onal injury or crash damage).

NHTSA supported the development, procurement, installation, and evaluation of 539 retrofit air bag systems in state police vehicles. The agency also joined the General Services Administration (GSA) in the purchase of 5,000 1985 Ford Tempos that were fac tory-equipped with driver air bags for use as Federal government fleet vehicles. GSA subsequently purchased 1,500 1987 Ford Tempos with air bags. The Department of Defense purchased 300 air bag equipped 1985 Ford Tempos for its use.

Air bags are designed to protect drivers in frontal crashes in which the change in velocity is greater than approximately 10 miles per hour (mph): speeds at which serious injuries may occur. Both the car makers and NHTSA recommend that vehicle occupants also wear the available safety belts.

In the operation of these NHTSA sponsored air bag fleets through March 31, 1989:

* There were no severe or critical injuries in any of the 167 deployment crashes. The drivers of these cars typically had no injury or only minor injury. Only 14 had moderate to serious level injuries, but none received more serious injuries.

* The most severe deployment crash was a frontal collision with a velocity change of approximately 25 mph. The primary injury to the driver was a mild concussion.

* There was one catastrophic, fatal, non-deployment crash judged as non-survivable (see the third footnote on the summary table overleaf). In all other crashes where the air bags did not deploy, the crashes were of such a low severity that the air bags were not designed to deploy, and did not.

* There were two air bag deployments in the absence of a collision. In one case involving a police car, the air bag readiness indicator light on the dashboard gave adequate warning of a fault in the electrical system, but no action was taken. The bag d eployed while the car was parked with no occupant. In the other case involving a Tempo, the bag also deployed while the car was parked unoccupied. Design changes were made in both systems to prevent similar occurrences.

SUMMARY OF THE CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG EQUIPPED FLEET VEHICLES AS OF MARCH 31, 1989

Government Air Bag Fleets Originally Placed Currently in Vehicle Fleet in Fleet Service Fleet Service 1985 Ford Tempos - Federal Government 5,300 1,974 1987 Ford Tempo - Federal Government 1,500 1,3421983-1985 Police Cars (retrofit systems) 539 240

Air Bag Fleet Crash Experience Deployment Injuries to Drivers/Right Front Passengers n1 Crashes AIS-0 AIS-1 AIS-2 AIS-3 AIS-4 AIS-5 AIS-6 Unknown n2 Fed. Tempo 126 31/1 82/21 8/1 3/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 Police Cars n3 41 9/2 26/5 2/0 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 Total 167 40/3 108/26 10/1 4/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 n1 Injuries are classified according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS): AIS 1 = minor, AIS 2 = moderate, AIS 3 = serious, AIS 4 = severe, AIS 5 = critical, and AIS 6 = untreatable (usually fatal).

n2 One deployment occurred when a driverless, stolen Tempo was pushed off a river bank and struck a tree. Another stolen Tempo was recovered with frontal damage and a deployed air bag. Nothing else is known about the driver or crash.

n3 There were three deployments in unoccupied police cars. They were parked with engines running when struck by other vehicles.

Number of Vehicles Involved in Each Deployment Crash by Mode:

Front . . . 139 Side . . . 16 Rollover . . . 4 Undercarriage . . . 8 Non-Deployment n4 Injuries to Drivers & Right Front Passengers Crashes AIS-0 AIS-1 AIS-2 AIS-3 AIS-4 AIS-5 AIS-6 Fed. Tempos 764 713 50 0 0 0 0 1 Police Cars 29 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 793 741 51 0 0 0 0 1

n4 The information is incomplete because the crash notification criteria and injury information available on non-deployment crashes varies with each fleet. One Tempo crashed into a heavy truck at a closing speed of approximately 95 mph. This crash wa s so severe that the vehicle's electrical system was destroyed before the crash sensors could actuate the air bag. The car was catastrophically destroyed by the truck, fatally injuring the driver who could not have been protected by the air bag even had it deployed.

Air Bag Equipped Vehicle Exposure Vehicle Fleet Total Estimated Mileage Federal Tempos 250 million Police Cars 65 million

Results of Fleet Experience to Date

Experience with this current generation air bag fleet has been very positive. The air bags deployed in cases where the crash protection was needed. When air bags deployed, injuries typically were relatively minor.

ID: nht89-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/23/89

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA

TO: JIM BATES -- MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/19/88 FROM JIM BATES -- CONGRESS TO DIANE K. STEED

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bates:

This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1988, with reference to an invention by your constituent, Angelo R. Collica. You have asked for "the requirements necessary to install lighting devices on motor vehicles."

Since we do not have a description of Mr. Collica's device, our answer must therefore be general in nature. There are different answers, depending upon whether a device is installed before or after the first sale of a vehicle.

A supplementary lighting device installed on a vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or dealer before its first sale to a consumer is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment that are required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Examples of impairment are diminished brightness of a lamp due to interference with its wiring, or a confusion of its function through close proximity or signal of the supplementary devi ce. In general, also, all lighting equipment other than hazard warning/turn signals, and headlamps flashing for signalling purposes, must be steady-burning in use. Whether a device creates an impairment is a determination to be made by the vehicle manu facturer in its certification of compliance with the Federal safety standards, or by the dealer, before sale of the vehicle.

The installation of a supplementary lighting device on a vehicle after the vehicle's first sale to a consumer is acceptable under Federal law, provided that the installation does not degrade the performance of any device or element of design installed in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This prohibition applies to vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. It does not, however, apply if the supplementary lighting device is installed by the vehicle own er.

The legality of operating a supplementary device, installed after vehicle sale, is primarily determinable under the laws of any State in which a vehicle using it is registered or driven. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wil son Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203, is able to advise on State laws.

I hope that this has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RICHARD L. STORY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM RICHARD L. STORY TO NHTSA 0CC 2871

TEXT: Dear Mr. Story:

This responds to your letter asking whether manufacturers are required to install rear seat lap/shoulder belts in cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts at no additional cost to the consumer. The answer to this question is no.

The lap belts that are installed in the rear seat of your car are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on this agency's analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode, those belts would h ave saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this r eason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. For cars made in earlier model years, we have actively sought the car manufactur ers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. You indicated in your letter that Ford offers a rear seat lap and shoulder belt retrofit kit for your car, the 1988 Thunderbird.

We encourage consumers to consider having rear seat lap and shoulder belts fitted into their cars when manufacturers have made a retrofit kit available for the car, because of the additional crash protection afforded to rear seat passengers. However, NH TSA has no authority to require manufacturers to provide these retrofit kits and installation free of charge to the consumer. Thus, the individual consumer who desires the added protection of lap and shoulder belts in the rear seat will have to pay for that additional protection.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DERREL T. CRANCE -- AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEER SALT RIVER PROJECT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/14/88 FROM DERRAL T. CRANCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2310

TEXT: Dear Mr. Crance:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. I regret the delay in responding.

You stated that Salt River Project ordered 16 air-braked material/reel trailers and two air-braked transformer oil trailers. The trailers were built in 1987 and delivered by a vendor representing the manufacturer. You asked whether the trailers were re quired to conform to Standard No. 121 and, if so, whether a protected reservoir for parking brake release was required and whether the service reservoirs must be protected by check valves or the equivalent. In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the trailers receive daily use on the public highways, and were intended for such use. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its v ehicles comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and in the aforementioned telephone conversation.

Your first question was whether the trailers identified in your letter were subject to Standard No. 121. Section S3 of the standard provides that it applies to air-braked trailers, with certain exceptions. Thus, one issue raised by your letter is wheth er the trailers come within any of the exceptions. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the trailers do not come within any of the exceptions.

You indicated in the telephone conversation that the vendor and/or manufacturer suggested that the trailers come within the exception set forth in section S3(e). That section provides that the standard does not apply to "(a)ny trailer that has gross veh icle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 120,000 pounds and whose body conforms to that described in the definition of "Heavy hauler trailer" set forth in S4." (Emphasis added.) Thus, in order to come within the exception, a trailer must meet both of the c onditions set forth in that section, i.e., it must (1) have a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds, and (2) have a body that conforms to the standard's definition of heavy hauler trailer. Since the GVWR's of the two types of trailers identified in your lett er are well below 120,000 pounds, the trailers do not come within that exception. Moreover, while it is not apparent why the vendor and/or manufacturer would believe that the trailers conform to the standard's definition of heavy hauler trailer. In add ition, based on our review of the other portions of section S3, the trailers do not appear to come within any of the other exceptions to Standard No. 121. Thus, it is our opinion that the trailers were subject to Standard No. 121.

Your second question was whether a protected reservoir for parking brake release was required by Standard No. 121. The answer to that question is yes. Section S5.2.1.1 provides the trailers must have a reservoir that "is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system."

Your third question was whether the service reservoirs must be protected by check valves or the equivalent. The answer to that question is also yes. Section S5.2.1.5 provides that each service reservoir for trailers must "be protected against loss of ai r pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices."

Since your letter suggests that you purchased trailers that may not have complied with Standard No. 121, I have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action.

Sincerely,