ID: nht88-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TERRY K. BROCK -- NATIONAL SALES MANAGER COONS MANUFACTURING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM TERRY K BROCK TO STEVE KRATZKE RE CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE 217; OCC 1009; LETTER DATED 08/20/87 FROM TERRY K BROCK TO SABASTIAN MESSINA; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brock:

This is a response to your letter of last year seeking an interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you asked whether the front entrance door of a bus may be considered as an emergency exit under Standard 217. You stated that some of your company's buses have the front entrance door labeled as an emergency exit, and equipped with the emergency release mechanism required by Standard 217. You enclosed an August 28, 1987 letter from the New Jersey Department of Transportation referencing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that "require . . . emergency exits (to) comply with" Standard 217. The letter from New Jersey states that a "front entrance d oor cannot be considered (as an emergency exit) since the intent of the regulations is to provide emergency escape through push out windows and roof escape hatches."

You asked whether we interpret Standard 217 as precluding front entrance doors from also serving as emergency exits. The answer to your question is no. As long as the front door meets all applicable requirements for emergency exits under Standard 217, the door can be considered as an emergency exit. Contrary to the opinion stated in the New Jersey letter, it never has been this agency's position that only push-out window and roof exits may be used to satisfy Standard 217 requirements. (See 37 FR 939 4, 9395, May 10, 1972; copy enclosed.)

The question of whether a front entrance door may be a required emergency exit under Standard 217 depends upon (1) the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR); and (2) whether the vehicle is a school bus, or a bus other than a school bus. I will ad dress each of the possibilities separately.

Bus Other Than a School Bus, and With a GVWR of More Than 10,000 Lbs.

A front entrance door can serve as a required emergency exit under Standard 217 in a bus that is not a school bus, and that has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, paragraphs S5.2.1 and S5.2.1.1 of Standard 217 generally require the bus t o have "side exits and at least one rear exit," or "one side door for each three passenger seating positions." If the bus configuration precludes installing an accessible rear exit, then a manufacturer may install a roof exit under the conditions set out in S5.2.1.

Bus Other Than a School Bus, and With a GVWR of 10,000 Lbs. or Less

A front entrance door can also serve as a required emergency exit for buses other than school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. For these buses, the vehicle must have windows or other emergency exits that meet the requirements set out in parag raphs S5.2.2, or S5.3 through 5.5 of the Standard. If the vehicle's emergency exits are standard, roll-down windows, or the vehicle's entrance and exit doors, then these exits must meet the specifications of S5.2.2(b). Under that provision, the windows and doors must be manually operable, and must open to a position that provides a specified area for getting out. Note that under S5.5.1, these exits do not have to meet Standard 217 marking requirements. The agency has determined that people who are ol d enough to read instructions generally are familiar with the operation of standard, roll-down windows and doors, and that there is little justification for requiring emergency exit markings for these exits. (40 FR 17266, April 18, 1975.)

If the vehicle's emergency exits are push-out windows or some other emergency exit, then the vehicle must comply with paragraphs S5.3 through S5.5. A manufacturer must label these exits under S5.5 because they are specially-installed emergency exits who se means of operation may not be obvious to the passengers.

School Buses

A front entrance door can not serve as a required emergency exit in a school bus, regardless of the vehicle's weight. Paragraph S5.2.3 of Standard 217 requires all school buses to have either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) "one emergency door on th e vehicle's left side that is in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment and is hinged on its forward side, and one push-out window." A manufacturer who chooses to meet school bus emergency exit requirements under the second option could not use t he front entrance door as a required emergency exit under Standard 217, since that door would not be in the rear half of the passenger compartment. However, if a manufacturer chose to install an "additional" emergency exit such as a front entrance door, NHTSA regulations would not prohibit installing this exit. As the agency long has held, any "extra" emergency exit installed in a school bus must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Please understand that this letter addresses only Standard 217, and does not address or interpret any Federal Motor Carrier regulations. If you have any questions about those regulations, you should contact the Federal Highway Administration.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/07/88

FROM: MAMORU ARISAKA -- MANAGER AUTOMOTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED

TO: MS. ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 FROM MAMORU ARISAKA FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sirs,

We, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. are, as one of the leading manufacturers of automotive lamps and associated equipment in Japan, devoted to development of new lighting systems representative of our state-of-the-art technology.

One of such innovative lighting systems we are developing is a headlamp called "Rolling Headlamp". The central feature of this new headlamp is its mechanism to change automatically the mounting angle of lamp vis-a-vis the motorcycle, in order to assure stable photometric performance of the headlamp. Please refer to the figure below.

(DRAWINGS OMITTED)

The headlamp is designed to have its vertical plane always perpendicular to the ground surface regardless of inclination of the motorcycle. In other words, the headlamp keeps its geometrical position independently of the motorcycle movement.

With regard to this new headlamp, we would like to ask you if it is acceptable (legally permissible) in your country. As you see, this headlamp is designed exclusively to be mounted on two-wheel vehicles.

Your prompt reply will be highly appreciated. Thanking you in advance for your kind cooperation,

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht88-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/08/88 EST

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

TO: DONALD FRIEDMAN -- PRESIDENT-LIABILITY RESEARCH, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is a response to your letter dated November 17, 1987, asking whether two child restraint systems you have designed comply with certain requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 213, Child Restraint Systems. You call one system "Cradle S afe," and describe it as an inclined, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed to restrain new-born infants from 4.5 to 14 lbs. The second system you call "Premie Cradle," and describe it as a recumbent, rear-facing, defor mable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed for premature infants from 4 to 6 lbs.

Your letter assesses the performance attributes of these systems as follows:

"In an accident the baby is oriented and cushioned to avoid injury and ejection by a deformable, energy absorbing 'bed' and 'shell' without harnessing the infant.

The bed and its crushable extensions (wings) cause the infant to rotate and take acceleration forces through its back and limit those applied to the head. After rotation, the infant is cushioned by the collapsing bed."

You state your belief that both systems comply with applicable provisions of Standard 213, but ask for our comment because "the designs are innovative and make the applicability and interpretation of certain paragraphs of the standard not entirely obviou s." To help the agency better understand your products and the methods you used to test performance, you requested that agency staff meet with you, and your colleague, Mr. David Shinn.

On April 12, 1988, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Shinn, and agency staff from the following offices: Chief Counsel, Enforcement, Plans and Policy, Research and Development, Rulemaking, and Traffic Safety

Programs. At that meeting, you and Mr. Shinn presented a video-film showing two sled-tests of your cradle-safe restraint system, one with a NHTSA-specified, 17 pound dummy, and one with an EEC eight pound dummy. In the video film, your child restraint system broke apart in the 30 mph test with the 17 pound dummy, but appeared to maintain its structural integrity when tested with the eight pound dummy. You did not show a sled-test with your "Premie Cradle" product.

By a letter dated June 8, 1988, you informed this agency that you had performed tests of a "modified" Cradle-Safe restraint system, and that this system will contain the NHTSA-specified 17 pound dummy in simulated barrier-impact testing under Standard 21 3. You state further that a restraint system you call "One-ride" also will contain a 17 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. (You did not address the "One-ride" restraint in your November 17, 1987, correspondence, nor did you present it during the Apri l 12, 1988 meeting.) Your June 8 letter also references a letter of July 22, 1987, addressed to Mr. Val Radovich of this agency; a June 3, 1988 video tape showing a simulated barrier impact test of your Cradle-Safe seat with a 17 pound dummy; and submiss ions of patent documents in support of a patent application for your products.

As NHTSA staff understood from your November 17, 1987 letter, and the April 12, 1988 meeting, your principal question was whether you could test a Standard 213 child restraint system with an eight or 14 pound dummy (rather than the specified 17 pound dum my), if you intended to label the restraint as appropriate for children from 4.5 to 10 pounds. You briefly addressed the other matters raised in your November 17, letter, clarifying a reference to an "unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicl e and not required in (Standard 213) testing." You explained that the "belt" to which you refer is a two-piece, cloth wrap that anchors at either side of the restraint, and fastens over the child with a velcro attachment.

I shall respond to your comments in the order that you present them in your letter, also discussing new matters raised in the meeting, in the June 8, 1988 letter, and in your other submissions where appropriate. I will not discuss the patent materials b ecause they are not relevant to a determination of whether your restraint systems comply with Standard 213. In responding to your comments, I assume that we are discussing only those child restraint systems designed for children weighing less than 20 po unds (infant restraints).

Your First Comment. Paragraph 5.1.1.a dealing with Child Restraint System Integrity specifies "no complete . . . and no partial separation" of surfaces. Our design is deformable and involves materials of 1/4" thickness which in deforming, tear slight ly. However when torn these materials are not lacerating and not likely to come into contact with the infant.

Response. Paragraph S5.1.1(a) states that when a child restraint is tested as specified in the Standard, the system shall:

Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of

less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system.

If the system failure you describe as tearing of materials at the system surface does not result in a failure of the load-bearing structure of the system, then paragraph S5.1.1(a) is inapplicable. In 1978, NHTSA proposed adding this language to 213 as o ne of a number of amendments to the Standard that would upgrade performance requirements, improve performance criteria, and require dynamic testing of child restraint systems using anthropomorphic test dummies. (43 FR 21470, 21473, May 18, 1978.) In the preamble of that document, we stated that our objectives in promulgating the system integrity requirements were to prevent a child's excessive excursion or ejection from the system, and to ensure that the system does not fracture or separate in such a wa y as to harm the child. (43 FR 21470, 21473.) To accomplish this objective, Standard 213 requires that in dynamic testing, any load-bearing, structural element of a child restraint system must not separate completely; and that any partial separation must not expose surfaces with sharp edges that may contact the child. Id. Your letter states that some materials at the surface of your system may tear during an impact. In promulgating S5.1.1(a), the agency intended to minimize dangers resulting from failures in the structural integrity of the syste m, rather than failures in the materials. The agency did not intend to preclude a manufacturer from designing some deformation into a child restraint system to improve the system's energy absorption performance.

Your Second Comment. Paragraph 5.2.3.2.b The system surface in contact with the infant's head shall be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. Although our system surfaces are not covered, they are fabricated out of such material. Th e system surface in contact with the infants head (the bed) is 3/16" woodfiber separated by air from a similar material in the shell. The system complies with the requirement and when dynamically tested exhibits deformation much better than a 25% compre ssion-deflection, but there is no appropriate ASTM Test Standard such as for open or closed cell foam.

Response. As I read your comment, you raise three issues which I shall address separately. The first is whether the material from which you fabricate your system can meet the S5.2.3.2(b) requirement that a child restraint system must be "covered" with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. The agency's long-standing position is that a given type of surface material is an acceptable "covering" if it is a flexible material that would meet the thickness and performance requirements for energy-absorbi ng padding set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.2. The surface needn't have a separate layer of energy-absorbing padding.

The second issue is whether 3/16 inch woodfiber is a sufficient thickness for a system surface. This thickness would not comply with S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard 213. That subparagraph requires thicknesses of at least 1/2 or 3/4 inch, depending on the mater ial's compression-deflection

performance as measured in the static testing specified in S6.3 of Standard 213.

You assert that the 3/16 inch thickness material used in your systems exceeds a 25% compression-deflection measurement in dynamic testing. In the preamble to the final rule amending Standard 213, NHTSA responded to commenters who suggested that specifyi ng a minimum thickness for the infant restraint surface was design-restrictive. (44 FR 72131, 72135, December 13, 1979.) We explained in that document that we set these minimum thickness requirements because there was no available test device to measure the energy absorption properties of either the surface or underlying structure of an infant restraint in dynamic testing. Consequently, the agency specified "long-established static tests" of the surface material, and established minimum thickness requ irements based on the results of those static tests. Therefore, a compression-deflection measurement derived from dynamic testing is not an acceptable test of compliance with paragraph S5.2.3.2.

The third issue is whether the compression-deflection measurement for this system must be derived from tests under one of the ASTM standards in S6.3, even though none of the ASTM titles expressly states that the test is for woodfiber, and all three proce dures are for static tests. Paragraph S5.2.3.2(b) requires that when one tests the energy absorption properties of child restraint materials, those tests must be conducted under one of three ASTM static test procedures set out in paragraph S6.3 of Stand ard 213.

Your restraint systems are made of woodfiber. Woodfiber - or any material that meets the Standard's requirements - can be an acceptable substance out of which to fabricate a child restraint. As NHTSA stated in the final rule preamble cited earlier, the agency wishes to allow restraint manufacturers to use a wide range of materials, provided that the material exhibits acceptable energy absorption properties. You may use any ASTM title specified in paragraph S6.3 to test your surface material, and the material is acceptable if it displays the required energy absorption properties when tested under one of those titles.

Your Third Comment. Paragraph 5.4.3.1 "Each belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system..." is interpreted to mean that a soft unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not r equired in testing, need not conform to this paragraph.

Response. As you explained in the April 12, meeting, the "belt" to which you refer is the cloth device described in the beginning of this letter. By its express terms, paragraph S5.4.3.1 is inapplicable to belts that are (1) not part of the child re straint system and (2) not designed to restrain a child using the system. On the other hand, I note that in the June 8, video tape, the narrative refers to a belt within the Cradle-Safe system as a belt for restraining the child. If you do intend any b elt in the system to be used for restraining the child, then various provisions of paragraph S5.4.3, Belt Restraint, will apply, depending on the design configuration of the belt assembly.

In the preamble to the May 1978 proposal cited earlier in this letter, the agency expressed its continuing concern that child restraint system designs minimize the prospect of system misuse. (43 FR 21470, 21471.) If there are belts in any of your child restraint systems that you do not intend as restraints for the child, then I hope you will consider whether these additional belts unreasonably increase the risk that some users will mistake the additional belt assembly as a Standard 213 belt intended fo r use in restraining a child.

Your Fourth Comment. Paragraph 6. This paragraph requires the CRADLE SAFE to be tested with a paragraph 7 dummy (17 lb.) for which it was not designed and which cannot be physically accommodated. We would prefer to use available 7.8 lb. and/or 14 l b. non-specified dummies. The PREMIE CRADLE falls in the car bed "travel crib" category and does not require dynamic testing.

Response. Paragraph S7.1 of Standard 213 requires testing an infant restraint system with the 6-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR @ 572.25. (An infant restraint system is one that is recommended "for use by children in a weight range that includes ch ildren weighing not more than 20 pounds.") That test device is 17.4 pounds. Because your child safety system meets the definition of infant restraint, it must be capable of meeting Standard 213 performance requirements when tested with the specified 17. 4 pound dummy. If an infant restraint can not accommodate this test device, then it can not be certified as complying with Standard 213. I understand from your June 8, 1988, letter that the Cradle-Safe and One-Ride systems will accommodate the specifie d 17.4 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. Further, your restraint systems must meet head excursions limits with the 17.4 pound dummy under paragraph S5.1.3.2, Rear-facing Child Restraint Systems.

The dummy specified in Part 572 is based on a simple design that represents a 6-month-old infant in dimensional, mass distribution, and dynamic response characteristics. NHTSA chose to use this test dummy after conducting extensive testing and evaluatio n of the dummy's responses. The testing, conducted by NHTSA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), showed that the specified dummy provided a consistent and repeatable measure of the structural integrity and confinement properties of a child res traint system, and was superior to a previous test version. (43 FR 21490, May 18, 1978; 44 FR 76527, December 27, 1979.) Before we can sanction use of another device to test an infant restraint system, the agency would have to determine that the dummy i s a reliable surrogate for measuring a system's performance in an actual crash. NHTSA can not now make that statement with respect to any unspecified dummy, instrumented or non-instrumented. The agency can make this kind of finding only through a rulem aking process.

Further, contrary to what you believe, infant car beds are subject to dynamic testing to ensure that the test dummy stays within the confines of the restraint system during impact. (Standard 213, S6.1.2.3.3.)

While you believe you have identified some potential problems with Standard 213, I am sure that you can appreciate the need to follow established procedures when considering any change to a safety standard.

Following established practices helps ensure that child restraint systems which comply with Federal standards continue to offer satisfactory crash protection for children. The agency has scheduled two public meetings this summer in order to explore the need for changes to Standard 213. I enclose a copy of the notice announcing these meetings, and invite you to participate in the forum.

Based on the information you provided, it appears that you would have to modify your systems, or the agency would have to amend Standard 213 in order for you to be able to certify your child restraint system as satisfying all the applicable requirements of that Standard. Title 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) sets out a procedure for petitioning the agency to amend a safety standard, and you have a right to file such a petition. If NHTSA grant s your petition, the agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard 213.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992. ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/08/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: NORMAN D. SHUMWAY -- CONGRESS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/89 ESTIMATED, FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA TO CONSTANCE A. MORELLA; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; INTERPRETATION STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shumway:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Ernest P. Crockett, who received a State of California citation for having tinted film on his car windows for medical reasons. You asked me to review Mr. Crockett's letter and provide a ny comments or assitance that I could. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

Mr. Crockett suffers from systemic lupus erythematosus and as a result needs protection from ultra-violet rays. He consulted with the California Highway Patrol and was told that the law allowed him to use tinting film on his car windows, if he had a med ical letter stating that this was necessary. Not known at this time to Mr. Crockett was a provision in the California law prohibiting the use of noncomplying medically-necessary devices during darkness. Mr. Crockett had Security Glass System's "Almost Clear" tinting permanently installed on his windshield and front windows and was subsequently given a citation by the California Patrol for not being in compliance with @ 26708(a)(2) of the California Vehicle Code. Upon further inquiry, Mr. Crockett lea rned that his film was unacceptable because it had been permanently affixed, and that a much darker tint (blocking 70 percent of light) film was allowable, if it was removable at darkness.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 pe rcent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the v ehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle's glazing are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of glazing, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device that would result in a light t ransmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of a passenger car, or result in the window no longer complying with any other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation. The materials enclosed with Mr. Crockett's letter appear to show that the business that installed the film on his car windows did not render inoperative compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, since the film installed on Mr. Crockett's car windows is said to have 70 percent light transmittance.

However, Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's glazing no longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. We do, however, urge vehicle owners not to take actions that degrade the performance of required safety features.

The individual States have the authority to govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners. In this case, the State of Californai has exercised its authority to establish requirements in this area. The wisdom and fairness of applying those requ irements to individuals in Mr. Crockett's situation is something to be decided by the State of California, not the Federal government.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/88

FROM: LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER -- SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, VEHICLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

TO: TAYLOR VINSON--ATTORNEY ADVISOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/15/88 TO LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) has been asked to help determine the desirability of adding a "deceleration" or "pre-braking" warning light to the light configuration which is normally used on automobiles. As presently envisioned, this light woul d be amber in color and would be illuminated when the driver removes pressure from the accelerator pedal sufficiently to cause the automobile speed to start to decrease, due to the effect of engine compression, and would be extinguished automatically whe never the driver reapplies pressure to the accelerator pedal.

SwRI considers that a "deceleration light" of this type has the potential to reduce the incidence of automobile rear-end collisions (see Attachment 1) and that this potential is maximized if the light is located in as conspicuou a location as possible . The "best" location is considered to be immediately adjacent (or as close as possible) to the location of the "high-mounted stoplamp" since this location appears to offer the highest degree of visibility and would also serve to attract attention to th e high-mounted stoplamp area.

This location appears to have already been considered by NHTSA for this purpose, since it is mentioned as a consideration in FMVSS No. 108 on page PRE 137, and the principle is in widespread use on schoolbuses which use a manually activated flashing a mber light to warn that the red stop lights are about to be turned on and that all traffic must stop.

A review of FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) has failed to locate any requirement which would preclude locating an additional light adjacent to the high-mounted stoplamp; however, this type of requirement was conside red at one time (FMVSS 108, pages PRE 132-133 and PRE 135) and SwRI would like to find out if any requirement exists now, or is contemplated for the future, which would prevent the use of this location.

If I can provide further information or answer any questions which might expedite the answer to this question, please call (512) 522-3017.

Sincerely,

DECELERATION LIGHT MAXIMUM BENEFIT SITUATIONS The following three categories of driving situations are considered to be the situations in which deceleration lights would be of maximum benefit in reducing rear-end collisions.

HEAVY TRAFFIC (High speed/high traffic density with decreased vehicle separation distances)

High traffic density, with the associated decrease in visibility and increased need for enhanced reaction time, leads to a situation where reaction times become additive and eventually reach the point where a following driver is placed in a situation where his vehicle has exceeded its physical capability of stopping in time to avoid an accident. Deceleration lights offer the potential for minimizing this progressive lengthening of reaction time and thereby permitting long strings of cars to stop saf ely. Deceleration lights would also provide valuable information about adjoining lane driver intentions, particularly in lane change situations where an apparent opening in an adjoining traffic lane may be about to vanish if the driver of the vehicle at the front of the opening has decided to slow down and has taken his foot off the accelerator preparatory to stepping on the brakes.

MERGING TRAFFIC (Converging situations between vehicles entering or leaving limited access roadways)

A particularly volatile and rapidly changing situation occurs when two streams of traffic merge and the driver of the vehicle with the right-of-way is often forced to guess whether or not a merging driver is going to yield, speed up, or slow down. Th is guess is made harder by the fact that most drivers control their merging maneuver by use of the accelerator pedal only, and thus leave only the rate-of-change of their speed as a clue to their intentions. The driver with the right-of-way is almost al ways driving the faster, overtaking, vehicle and would be able to see a deceleration light which could furnish valuable clues about the other driver's intentions. A deceleration light would also furnish valuable information to drivers following the vehi cle with the righ-of-way if that driver decides to "let up on the gas" and give a merging vehicle more room to complete the merging maneuver.

DECREASED TRACTION (Braking situations where low traction may cause skids or other loss of control situations if brakes are applied too heavily)

Many drivers fail to realize the need for increased spacing between car during slippery conditions (rain, snow, ice, etc.). At the same time most drivers are taught that the proper way to slow down in slippery conditions is to let up on the accelerat or and allow the vehicle to decelerate gradually. This combination is likely to cause accidents involving following cars which do not realize that they are following a car which is slowing down until it is too late for them to make a controlled stop. A deceleration light would provide this information for following drivers and allow them to initiate their own stop, or speed reduction, in time to remain in control.

ID: nht88-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM J. STEPHENSON -- PRESIDENT, PRO-FLITE OF VERO, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 5/6/88 letter from William J. Stephenson to Erika Jones ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ROD WILLAREDT; REDBOOK A33 [B] [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/17/89 FROM ROD WILLAREDT TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; LET TER DATED 04/18/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO WAYNE APPLE; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/19/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO CHARLES WILSON -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stephenson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 6, 1988, with respect to a new safety device designed to reduce turning accidents on large vehicles, known as "Pro-Lite".

As shown in photographs you enclosed, and as described in your letter, Pro-Lite is a device of red plastic, with arrow-shaped ends to the right and left, "internally lit with a series of clearance lights designed to flash in sequence with either turn sig nal", and connected to each turn signal by a single lead. It is unclear whether the whole device is illuminated when the turn signal is activated with a pulse indicating the direction of turn, but that appears to be the most logical method of operation. The device bears in its center the words "Wide Turn Stay Back", from the photographs it appears that the words remain dark when the red background is illuminated but that is not clear from your letter either, though it also appears the most logical meth od of operation. Although the device may be mounted at any height on the rear you believe the best location is on the rear center, for maximum visibility. You have asked for my thoughts and suggestions.

I enclose a copy of a recent letter of this Office concerning a similar device, one intended to indicate wide right turns. The views I have expressed would apply to your device as well, and I hope they are of assistance to you. If you intend to write t he American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the new address of that organization is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 11, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MGR., REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 210; SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-16-90 TO WILLIAM SHAPIRO FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 210). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-18-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO; (OCC-3422). TEXT:

Section 4.3.2 of FMVSS 210 sets forth the location requirements for the upper torso portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. This section requires the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint to be located within the acceptable r ange shown in Figure 1 of FMVSS 210.

Volvo is currently designing a Type 2 seat belt assembly that has its upper torso anchorage point located in the acceptable range as defined in Figure1. The function of the seat belt and all strength requirements specified in FMVSS 210 are met using thi s anchorage point.

Volvo believes that an extra set of hardware at the upper torso anchorage would increase the stability of the mounting. The location of this extra set of hardware would fall outside the acceptable range as specified in Figure 1.

Volvo believes that a correct interpretation of FMVSS 210, with respect to the extra set of hardware for the upper torso anchorage, would be that it is acceptable for it to fall outside the range as specified in Figure 1, because the extra set of hardwar e is not required for the seat belt assembly to comply with the strength requirements as specified in FMVSS 210. Please confirm this for us.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht88-2.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/88

FROM: WAYNE IVIE -- MANAGER, VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, NHTSA

TO: NHTSA, OFFICE OF SAFETY COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED DEC. 8, 1988 TO WAYNE IVIE, OREGON DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA

TEXT: On June 16th of this year, Oregon enacted a mandatory helmet law. Anyone riding on a motorcycle or moped on our highways must wear "approved" protective headgear.

Our agency adopted FMVSS 218, Motorcycle Helmets, as the minimum standard for helmets. Part S5.6.1 of the standard requires permanent and legible labeling of helmets, including the DOT symbol, to prove that a helmet meets that standard. Helmet manufactu rers apparently attach a sticker with the DOT symbol onto the back of the helmet.

Our office is receiving inquiries from individuals and police officers, who advise that on many helmets, this DOT sticker has fallen off or been removed by someone in order to paint the helmet, etc. They add that often there is no other labeling in or o n the helmet, so they can not determine that it meets any standard. (Is considered "approved" for use in Oregon.) To complicate this further, there is no manufacturer or brand name anywhere on the helmet, so contacting a dealer or manufacturer for infor mation is not possible. Advising someone to dispose of such a helmet and get another with proper labeling doesn't seem an appropriate answer, and may be just an undue expense for the motorcycle rider.

Are manufacturers allowed to use the DOT sticker only, with no other labeling, or is this being done in violation of FMVSS 218? (If the DOT sticker is now the only label used, we would definitely like to recommend that a permanently embossed DOT symbol somewhere in or on the helmet be also required.) Have you been advised of similar problems by other jurisdictions? Do you have suggestions on how we can resolve the situation of a helmet that appears to have been made in compliance with standard require ments, is in a good, undamaged condition, yet does not have any labeling?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

ID: nht88-2.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/88

FROM: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW

TO: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/ 07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FR OM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Egley:

In a letter dated June 9, 1988, you requested our interpretation as to whether a new motor vehicle device would comply with applicable Federal Standards. You also asked that details of the device be afforded confidential treatment.

Please be informed that this agency requires all of its interpretations to be made publicly available. Hence, you must decide if you still desire an interpretation to be issued in this matter, with the result that the confidential status of the informat ion will be compromised. I am prepared to delete any information specifically identifying you or your address from our analysis if you so request, but the substantive information describing the item of motor vehicle equipment will be made part of the pu blicly available analysis.

No further action will be taken in this matter until we have received a response from you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Parnell Webb -- General Manager, River Road Dodge (TN)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Parnell Webb General Manager River Road Dodge Rt.3 Ripley, TN 38063

This responds to your letter asking whether the original equipment bed on a half-ton pick-up truck can be taken off and replaced by a local government with a utility body and/or bed. I apologize for the delay in responding. The answer to your question if different, depending on the specific facts of the situation.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or stem of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applica ble Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety ct authorizes NHTSA to issue these safety standards (found in 49 CFR Chapter V), and each manufacturer is required to certify that its product(s) meet all applicable safety standards. Its not clear f rom your letter whether your dealership is proposing to make the modifi- cations for the local government agency or whether the local government agency will itself perform the modifications.

The local government agency can perform whatever modifications it desires to its own vehicles without violating any Federal laws or regulations. This is because neither the Safety Act nor any of our standards and regulations apply to modifications indivi dual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

However, if your dealership were to make these modifications, you would be responsible for complying with various providing of the Safety Act and applicable regulations. The provisions with which you would have to comply would depend on whether you modif y the vehicle before it is sold for the first time to the consumer (a new vehicle), or if you make the modifica- tions after it has been sold for the first time to a consumer (a used vehicle). I will address each of these situations separately.

If your dealership intends to perform the described modifications to new vehicles, you would be subject to the following requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits the sale of any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable s afety standards. This means that any vehicle that is modified before being sold for the first time to a consumer must continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after its modifications. In addition to these statutory considerations for modi fiers, this agency's certification regulations, set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, apply to any person who changes previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing ope rations or in such a manner that the weight ratings designed to the vehicle are no longer valid. Such a person is considered an 'alterer' for the purposes of Part 567 (copy enclosed). We consider the removal of a pickup bed and replacement with a utilit y body and/or bed to be something more than the substitution of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations. Therefore, a person making such a substitution on a new vehicle would be an alterer under Part 567.

In this case, S567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations Here completed (see S567.7(a));

(2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in S567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification l abel (see S567.7(b)); and

(3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certi- fication.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of notification and remedy of defects or noncompliances under the Safety not and if subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Non compliance Reports.

On the other hand, if your dealership proposes to modify used vehicles (already purchased by the consumer), different requirements would apply. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative' any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used ve hicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the first instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited 'rendering inope rative' violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination

in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Part 567 does not require modifiers of used vehicles to provide a separate certification label for the modified vehicle.

To help you determine which standards may apply to the modified vehicles and whether the proposed modifications would result in a prohibited 'rendering inoperative' violation, I am enclosing a publication entitled 'Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Pr ocedures.' This pamphlet indicates which standards apply to which vehicle types. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counselor NHSTA 400 7th St. S. West Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Erika Jones,

Can the original equipment bed on a 1/2 ton pick-up truck be taken off and replaced by a local government agency with a utility body and/or bed? Please send this information to:

River Road Dodge Rt. 3 Ripley, TN 38063

Thank you,

Parnell Webb General Manager

&assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel