ID: nht88-3.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/10/88

FROM: JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA VEHICLE REGISTRATION MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION

TO: DANIEL F. WIECHMANN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/05/89 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO FRED GRANDY, REDBOOK A33 (3); STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/09/89 FROM FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 05/05/89 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO ROBER T A. DETERMAN, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH; LETTER DATED 09/23/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RUTH SKLUZACEEK, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA; LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wiechmann:

Thank you for your letter inquiring on Iowa requirements pertaining to lighting requirements.

The department specifically does not approve head lamp covers. The reason for this is Iowa administrative rule chapter 450, 761 -- 450.1(321) adopts Federal Standards on equipment approval which implements Iowa Code section 321.424.

If the headlamp covers in question meet the Federal Standards they would qualify under Iowa law.

May I suggest contacting the following address to see if the headlamp covers in question comply with the Federal Standards.:

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standards

NRM-10

400 7th Street SW

Washington, D.C.

Phone: 202-366-0842

Mr. Hitchcock should be able to supply you with the information needed.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/13/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PAUL UTANS -- VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SUBARU OF AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/11/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM PAUL UTANS, OCC - 2405; LETTER DATED 12/01/86 TO FRANCOIS LOUIS FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 08/18/78 TO D. BLACK FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN, STANDARD 210, RE NOA 30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Specifically, you stated that Subaru would like to offer lap/shoulder belts at the rear outboard seating positions on mid-1989 mode l year station wagons sold in the United States. Standard No. 210 requires these station wagons to be equipped with an anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder belt assembly at each forward-facing outboard seating position (S4.1.1) and requires such anchorages to be located within a specified range (S4.3.2). You stated that the station wagons would have a complying anchorage located in the specified area.

However, the upper torso portion of the lap/shoulder belt assemblies would not be attached to the required anchorages in the vehicles. Instead, Subaru would provide another anchorage outside of the range specified in Standard No. 210, and the upper tors o portion of the rear seat lap/shoulder belt assemblies would be attached to these additional anchorages. You stated your belief that, since Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) does not require manufacturers to install lap/shou lder belts in rear seating positions of passenger cars, Subaru's voluntary installation of rear seat lap/shoulder belts and additional anchorages for those belts is not subject to any of this agency's regulations, provided that the voluntarily installed items do not impair the functioning of any devices or elements of design required to be installed in the vehicles. Your belief is correct.

The anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210 apply to all anchorages required by the safety standards, except for those anchorages explicitly exempted by S4.3 of Standard No. 210 (anchorages for automatic and dynamically tested manual belt ass emblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208). The question then becomes whether the voluntarily provided rear seat shoulder belts must be attached in these vehicles to the anchorage that is required by the

safety standards. As discussed below, we conclude that a voluntarily provided lap/shoulder belt may be attached to an anchorage located outside the area specified by Standard No. 210.

S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires shoulder belt anchorages to be installed for each forward-facing rear outboa rd seating position in passenger cars. This requirement has been interpreted as meaning that an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure had to be provided for such seating positions, and that required anchora ge point had to comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 210.

According to your letter, your station wagons would be equipped with an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, and that point would comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in S tandard No. 210. Thus, Subaru could satisfy all the requirements of the safety standards by installing lap belts only at the rear outboard seating positions in these cars. Subaru's decision to install lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions and a n additional anchorage point for the shoulder belts is a voluntary choice, not a response to any regulatory requirement.

NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis (copy enclosed), I said that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for voluntarily-installed lap belts outside of the area specified in Standa rd No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for the upper end of voluntarily installed shoulder belts outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed an chorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages and lap belts to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. There is no reason to believe that shoulder belts and the additional anchorages would in any way imp air the ability of required equipment to comply with the requirements of the safety standards.

You are already aware of the fact that NHTSA has initiated a rulemaking to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts; 52 FR 22818, June 16, 1987. You should note that if the agency adopts a final rule requiring rear seat lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, this interpretation would no longer apply, because it relies on the voluntary nature of the installation.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- SPECIFICATIONS MANAGER INDIANA MILLS & MANUFACTURING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/17/87 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM E. LAWLER, OCC - 1043

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

Specifically, you asked about a safety belt installation at the driver's seat of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. A customer of yours designed a lap/shoulder belt system with a continuous webbing feature and with a floor-mounted automatic locking retractor (ALR) for the belt system. Your company was concerned that this proposed design would not comply with the requirements of S4.3(i) and S5.2(i) of Standard No. 209, which limit the extent to which ALR's can move between locking positions and the retraction force that can be exerted by ALR's. Additionally, your letter stated that sections S4.1.2.3, S4.2.2, and S7.1 of Standard No. 208, "though dealing with lighter vehicles, seem to imply the intent of minimal u pper torso restriction."

To address these concerns, you made two modifications to the customer's proposed design. The first modification was to sew the latchplate to the webbing to convert the continuous webbing into a separate lap belt and upper torso restraint. The second mo dification was to place a manual adjusting device on the upper torso restraint. You asked for an opinion on these modifications.

The requirements for safety belts on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1990, with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds are set forth in section S4.3.1 of Standard No. 208 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles and in s ection S4.4.1 for buses. Both of these sections require that the driver's seating position in heavy vehicles be equipped with a complete automatic protection system or with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. The re quirements for safety belts on heavy vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are set forth in section S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208

for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles and in section S4.4.1 for buses. These heavy vehicles must either have a complete automatic protection system at the driver's seating position or be equipped with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly t hat conforms to Standard No. 209, S7.2 of Standard No. 208, and include either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor that satisfies some additional performance requirements.

Your customer has chosen to comply with Standard No. 208 by installing a belt system at the driver's seating position. Therefore, the vehicles in question would comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 208 if the belt assembly complies wi th the requirements of S4.3.1 or S4.4.1, if the vehicles are manufactured before September 1, 1990, or with the requirements of S4.3.2 or S4.4.2, if the vehicles are manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Your letter does not provide sufficient inf ormation for us to offer any opinion on whether your customer's design or your design would comply with S4.3(i) and S5.2(i) of Standard No. 209. If both comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 209, either may be installed at the driver's seating position in vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1990. If both comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 209 and the additional requirements set forth in S4.3.2 and S4.4.2 of Standard No. 208, either may be installed at the d river's seating position in vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1990.

You also referred to an implied agency intent of minimal upper torso restriction by the belt assemblies in heavy vehicles. When the agency promulgates a safety standard specifying performance requirements for vehicles or items of equipment to accomplish a particular safety purpose, that safety standard sets forth all requirements with which the vehicles or equipment must comply regarding that purpose. If those requirements do not fully address or ensure the implementation of some aspect of that purpos e, then to that extent, that aspect is not part of the standard, even if NHTSA intended it to be part of the standard. Any aspect of performance that is not set forth in the requirements of the standard is, therefore, not relevant to determining whether the vehicles or equipment comply with the performance requirements that are set forth in the standard.

We certainly appreciate your efforts to design a comfortable lap/shoulder belt system for these vehicles, because more comfortable belt systems should increase belt use. Increased use, in turn, helps prevent deaths and/or serious injuries.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: N. BOWYER -- SENIOR ENGINEER HOMOLOGATION AND LEGISLATION LAND ROVER UK LIMITED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER FROM N. BOWYER TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC 1909; LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM D. BRUCE HENDERSON TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC-1908

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bowyer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 199 1. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: "A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209."

Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: "A seat belt assembly that meets [the dynamic testing requirements] of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right'] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)]."

You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that t he labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed "into inappropriate vehicles." However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that al so comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This secti on contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b).

You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicl e. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case.

We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves; it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehic le combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900; November 23, 1987.

With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of S tandard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898 , at 44907; November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for t hese dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said:

NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804; March 21, 1986.

The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those bel t systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly

true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which i t would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of St andard No. 209.

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.

ID: nht88-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/16/88

FROM: RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC

TO: ROBERT KNAUFF DESIGN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ROBERT KNAUFF; REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 108; LETTER DATED 06/08/89 FROM ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN INC TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 12/07/87 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS TO ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knauff:

This is an evaluation of your school bus rear warning lamp demonstration with a pop-flash option.

I initially expected that we would have a problem with high intensity flash washing out the red lens and appearing white. Technically this is what happens and if you concentrate on it, the flash can appear white. The flash duration however was so brief and when used in concert with red in the cycle did not appear white to me. That should clear one obstacle, as white is prohibited in this type of lamp. Dual day/night intensity should not be necessary as long as you stick with red lamps.

You should also not have to restrict the pop to less than every flash, but in any case you will have to locate the discharge bulb so that the parabolic reflector and lens of the host lamp project the energy at very nearly about the H-Y point. Any large amount that occurs down at a level so as to be observed by a passenger car operator less than, let us approximate, 200 feet away would probably be objectionable to some, depending upon a number of factors that I need not go into at this point.

Generally, we have a basic concept that a signal is either required or not permitted. This keeps messages clear between vehicle operators. In this case however, I believe that we can consider this option since it is only an appendage modification of an existing warning system.

When you clear this modification with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compliance office and with the Minnesota Department of Education student transportation office, we would need to have a look at the finished product and your test da ta for purposes of commissioner's authorization or commissioner's approval certification depending upon the marketing approach that is possible and that you wish to take.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/88

FROM: DANIEL F. WIECHMANN

TO: RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA

TITLE: THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 (@ 321.424) OF THE CODE OF IOWA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/05/89 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO FRED GRANDY, REDBOOK A33 (3); STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/09/89 FROM FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 05/05/89 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO ROBER T A. DETERMAN, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH; LETTER DATED 09/23/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RUTH SKLUZACEEK, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA; LETTER DATED 10/10/88 FROM JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA DOT TO DANIEL F. WIECHMANN, REF NO 911.2

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

Please be advised I represent the above named Defendant, who was charged with the violation of Section 321.424 of the Code of Iowa, which is Sale of Lights-Approval, which basically states that no person shall have for sale, sell or offer sale for use upon or as a part of the equipment of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer, or use upon any such vehicle any headlight, auxilary or fog lamp, rear lamp, signal lamp, or relfector, which reflector is required hereunder, or parts of any of the foregoi ng which tend to change the original design or performance, unless of a type which has been submitted to the director and approved by the director.

The bottom line herein is the above named Defendant had headlight covers such as described in the information I have enclosed, which is pages 210 and 211 from an auto parts catalog.

On September 23, 1988, I wrote to Ruth Skluzaceek, Director of Vehicle Registration Office, Lucas State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 to inquire whether or not the headlight covers above described are approved by the State of Iowa, as Sectio n @ 321.428 of The Code of Iowa authorizes the Director to approve or disapprove lighting devices and to issue and enforce rules establishing standards and specifications for the approval of such lighting devices, their installation, adjustment and aimin g. This matter was taken up with the department on October 10, 1988, I received response from the Iowa Department of Transportation, Jody Johnson, Administrative Officer, Vehicle Registration, Motor Vehicle Division, citing Chapter 450 of the Iowa Admin istrative Code, Rule 450.1(321) which states that whenever the Code of Iowa requires the Department to establish standards for motor vehicle equipment or to approve types of motor vehicle equipment, the Department shall consider the item approved or stan dard established if it complies with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and 49CFR Parts 501-590 (October 1, 1987), stating that the headlight covers in question met Federal Standards then they would qualify under Iowa Law.

Ms. Johnson further went on to suggest that I contact you concerning my question, a copy of Jody Johnson's letter of October 10, 1988, being enclosed for your reference.

Therefore, I am wondering as to whether or not these headlights or covers are approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standards, and, if so, would you please be so kind as to set forth the fact these headlight covers are an approved device. If they are not so approved, please kindly so state.

I await your response.

Thank you very much.

Yours very truly,

Enclosures

[AUTO PARTS CATALOG FOR HEADLIGHT COVERS FROM BOWDOIN PRODUCTS INCORPORATED DELETED]

ID: nht88-3.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHARLES W. PIERSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06-2-88 RE DOT REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING OF SEATS (AUTOMOTIVE, TRACK, BUS, MASS TRANSIT); [OCC-2136; VCC-201]

TEXT: This responds to your letter in which you made several observations about dynamic testing requirements generally in our safety standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain those requirements for you.

You began by observing that this agency has been moving to replace static testing requirements (tests in which individual vehicle components are subjected to specified levels of slowly applied force in a laboratory test) with dynamic testing requirements (e.g., tests in which a vehicle is crashed into a barrier and anthropomorphic test dummies are used to measure the protection provided by the vehicle to occupants in a crash). You then suggested that there were several potential difficulties or misinte rpretations that could arise with dynamic testing.

First, you asked which of the several standardized human physical dimensions should be used to determine if a vehicle complies with our safety standards that refer to a specified percentile child or adult. For instance, section S7.1.1 of Standard No. 20 8, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) requires the lap belt portion of a seat belt assembly to adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 50th percentile 6 year old child to a 95th percentile adult male, while the shoulder belt portion of a seat belt assembly must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 5th percentile adult female to a 95th percentile adult male.

When our regulations refer to a specific size for a vehicle occupant, the regulations also clearly specify the dimensions and weights of the vehicle occupants to which we are referring. Section S7.1.3 of Standard No. 208 sets forth the critical weights and dimensions of all vehicle occupants referred to in that standard. The critical weights and physical dimensions for all of the anthropomorphic test dummies used to measure compliance with our safety standards are set forth in 49 CFR Part 572, Anthrop omorphic Test Dummies.

Second, you noted that testing facilities will conduct crash testing, but will not certify those results. This practice on the part of the testing

facilities is consistent with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) explicitly requires every manufacturer to certify that each of i ts vehicles or items of equipment conforms to all applicable safety standards. Hence, regardless of how a testing facility presents test results to a manufacturer, it is the manufacturer of the product, not the testing facility, that is statutorily resp onsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards.

Third, you stated that "laws requiring certification usually do not require the actual crash test to be performed." You are correct to the extent that you are suggesting that the Safety Act does not require manufacturers to conduct any testing before cer tifying that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. The Safety Act requires only that the manufacturer exercise due care in certifying its products compliance with the safety standards. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance what data, test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that each of its products comply with all applicable safety standards.

However, for purposes of enforcing the safety standards, this agency conducts spot checks of products after they have been certified by the manufacturer. NHTSA purchases the products and tests them according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the standard specifies a crash test, NHTSA conducts the crash test according to the specified procedures.

Fourth, you asked how you could obtain a copy of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J833. This and all other SAE materials can be obtained by writing to: Customer Service Department, Publications Group, SAE, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. The SAE's Customer Service Department can also be contacted by telephone at (402) 776-4970.

Fifth and finally, you suggested that the formula used to calculate the head injury criterion (HIC), set forth in sections S6.1.2 and S6.2.2 of Standard No. 208, is relatively complex, so the HIC could be miscalculated. It is true that any mathematical calculation can be performed incorrectly. Nevertheless, the formula for calculating the HIC yields only one correct result for any set of variables. This agency has not experienced any difficulties in calculating the proper HIC from any test results, a nd is not aware of any difficulties that have been encountered by any manufacturers in making such calculations. Hence, we do not believe there are any problems associated with the HIC formula.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information in this area, please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht88-3.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/88

FROM: MELVIN KREWALL -- DIRECTOR TRANSPORTATION SECTION FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION OKLAHOMA STATE DEPT OF EDUCATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/31/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MELVIN KREWALL, REDBOOK A33 (2), PART 571.3

TEXT: Dear Sir:

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Oklahoma asked me to submit two questions to your office for your consideration.

1. May a transit coach-type vehicle, manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, be used on a public school bus route to transport students to and from school?

2. What must be done to a transit coach-type vehicle to bring it into compliance as a standard Type "D" school bus?

We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/18/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- GENERAL COUNSEL IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CLIFFORD ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP; REDBOOK A34 [4]; INTERP SECTION 101 [3]; PART 571 [A]; LETTER FROM CLIFFORD T. ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP TO NHTSA DATED 09/07/88; OCC 2529; BROCH URE FROM ARROWPOINTE; DRAGOON PATROLLER ARMORED RESCUE AND SECURITY VEHICLE; 5/19/88 letter from Raymond M. Momboisse to Bwayne Vance

TEXT: Dear Mr. Momboisse:

Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver "exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchase d directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation."

This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured f or, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for you r request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, t he Border Patrol will save $ 5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs.

This agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). If a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicab ility of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 571(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be "motor vehicles" required to comply with the standards.

2

Under 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), a "motor vehicle" is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. . . ." The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibi kes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public ro ads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads.

You have informed us that the Hummer will "generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas." However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to c onsider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a "motor vehicle." However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operati ons and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original mil itary specifications.

Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that on e of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has becom e of paramount importance in the "war against drugs." In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-14 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United Sta tes, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a componen t of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the

3

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufacturers and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/19/88

FROM: JIM BATES -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/23/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA TO JIM BATES -- CONGRESS, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Steed:

I was recently contacted by a constituent, Angelo R. Collica, regarding a plan he has developed for a lighting safety device which is not currently authorized for motor vehicles.

Essentially, this device will promote driving safety, relieve lane changing tensions and create a more relaxed atmosphere on the highways. I would appreciate your providing me with information as to the requirements necessary to install lighting devices on motor vehicles. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Alice Lara of my district office at (619) 691-1166.

Thank you for your assistance. Please respond to me at 430 Davidson Street, Suite A, Chula Vista, California 92010.

Sincerely,