ID: nht92-6.27

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Dave Durenberger -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/28/92 from Dave Durenberger to Jerry R. Curry

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1992, concerning a product developed by your constituent, McNaughton Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The product is a device to prevent a child from opening the buckle of a safety belt without adult assistance. You requested information on any regulations that pertain to this product.

The agency has received inquiries about similar products in the past. While we understand parents' concerns that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about these types of products because they could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. I am enclosing an August 6, 1986, letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Ms. Ann Boriskie. As this letter explains, your constituent's product could not be installed by a commercial entity without violating Federal law. In addition, installation of your constituent's product by any person would be inconsistent with this agency's policy to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

You also asked for information on how McNaughton Incorporated could become involved in the national safety belt campaign. The Agency is currently working with a variety of public and private sector organizations to increase safety belt use to 70 percent by the end of 1992. The strategy focuses on increased law enforcement efforts coupled with aggressive community-based public information.

There are many ways McNaughton can support these efforts. They can consider developing and implementing an in-house safety belt education program targeting their employees or applying for the 70 percent Honor Roll Program. They might be interested in supporting community awareness initiatives that promote the campaign, including the posting of billboards and the inclusion of safety belt messages in their on-going advertising. An expanded list of ideas is attached. If McNaughton Incorporated is interested in additional campaign information, they can contact Susan Gorcowski, Office of Occupant Protection, (202) 366-2683.

I appreciate your interest in the safety of motor vehicles and hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-6.28

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Steven Rovtar -- General Manager, Blazer International Corp.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Steven Rovtar (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Our company, Blazer International Corp., intends to introduce a new product for the vehicle towing trailer market. Our purpose in writing is to request a written ruling that this product meets current SAE/DOT guidelines.

All trailer wiring assemblies currently available require the installer to splice into the vehicle's wire harness. Blazer's new product eliminates the need for this type of hard-wiring. Our product, which is solid-state, utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle.

More specifically, these photodetectors are embedded into suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. Our device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into our device. When the brake or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors in our device read the light emitted from the towing vehicle lamps, and the lamps on the towed vehicle are activated via the completed circuit.

Your prompt response in issuing a written ruling with respect to this product will be appreciated. I can be reached at the number listed below should you have any questions or require any additional information.

ID: nht92-6.29

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Christian Hammarskjold -- Vice President, USSC Group, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Dan Cohen

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Christian Hammarskjold to Paul J. Rice; Also attached to letter dated 8/10/92 from Paul J. Rice (signed by John Womack) to Christian Hammarskjold (A39; Std. 207; Std. 208)

TEXT:

On a separate issue, USSC requests clarification on when, if ever, shoulder belts (3 point systems) will be required on suspension seats.

ID: nht92-6.3

DATE: June 19, 1992

FROM: Tim Flagstad

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/92 from Paul J. Rice to Tim Flagstad (A39; Std. 115; Part 591)

TEXT:

I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Taylor Vincent, Legal Counsel, regarding the FMVSS 115 Standard and exemption from the seventeen digit Vehicle Identification Number requirement.

On February 12, 1990, I imported a 1981 Kenworth from Canada where it was manufactured by Kenworth of Canada. At the time of manufacture the vehicle complied with all applicable United States Federal Safety Standards and was labeled from the factory as such. I am faxing you a letter from Kenworth of Canada stating this, along with a letter form Catapillar Inc., the United States manufacturer of the motor, stating that the motor was in compliance with E.P.A. requirements.

The truck was brought into the United States through a licensed broker and all necessary declarations and papers were properly submitted. The vehicle was given Entry Number 551-1346915-3 by U.S. Customs.

I am faxing you another letter from Kenworth of Canada which states that until January 1, 1983 and the implementation of CMVSS 115, a seventeen digit vehicle Identification Number was not required in Canada. As this truck was manufactured prior to this date, it was given the seven digit Vehicle Identification Number M911042.

At my request, Joyce Chapman at the NHTSA office in Seattle faxed me a copy of the FMVSS 115. In paragraph S2, it states that "Vehicles imported into the United States under Article 591 are exempt from requirements of S4.2" which states "each Vehicle Identification Number shall consist of seventeen characters".

Does paragraph S2 of the FMVSS 115 exempt this vehicle from the seventeen digit number requirement and make it legal in the United States with a seven digit number?

United States Customs didn't question the number at time of entry. I subsequently titled the truck in California and the California Department of Motor Vehicles had no problem with the 1981 year model and the seven digit identification number. I have since sold the truck to someone in another state and he is having a problem registering it because the identification number consists of only seven digits.

On June 18, I discussed this situation with Mr. Taylor and his opinion was that the truck was exempt and could be legally imported into the United States with the seven digit number. When I asked for a written statement to that effect, he told me the procedure was to submit a written request for clarification and address it to your attention.

I also discussed with Mr. Taylor whether this truck should have been imported through a "registered importer". He told me that as U.S. Customs had accepted the vehicle's compliance to U.S. Safety Standards and had not required a bond, a registered importer was not required. Could you please also address this matter in your written reply?

I would appreciate anything you could do to process this request for clarification as quickly as possible. Please call me at (619) 477-2515 if you have any questions.

P.S. Please fax your written response to this letter to (619) 477-6249 and mail me the original at this address:

Tim Flagstad 220 West 14th Street National City, CA 91950

Attachments

Letter from Tracy Muncaster, Kenworth Company regarding Canadian Kenworth S/N 911042.

Letter dated 3/6/91 from Jean-Guy Urbain, Kenworth, to Jacques Beauchemin.

Letter dated 3/26/92 from Marvin Monroe, Caterpillar Inc.

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht92-6.30

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Christian Hammarskjold -- Vice President, USSC Group, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Dan Cohen -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/10/92 from Paul J. Rice (signed by John Womack) to Christian Hammarskjold (A39; Std. 207; Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Christian Hammarskjold to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

I have spoken with Mr. Cohen who asked me to direct my questions to you in writing.

USSC is a supplier of suspension seats for drivers to transit buses. Our customers, SCRTD in Los Angeles, has asked us to develop a system whereby our suspension seats can tilt from side-to-side. This is meant to compensate for the slanted roads in LA that facilitate water run off.

We are, of course, aware of 207/210 and do not believe that tilt system will meet the performance requirements. In addition, USSC is concerned that there are not applicable FMVSS requirements that address a side-to-side strength requirements. 207/210 requires a pull from the front of the seat. What happens if there is a side impact on a suspension seat that has a ball and socket joint. Are there any applicable performance requirements that may apply to such a system.

We request an answer by mail or fax by June 15, 1992. This will allow us enough time to respond to SCRTD's June 19th deadline.

If you have any questions, please call.

(Drawings omitted)

ID: nht92-6.31

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C. Scott Thiss -- Chairman and CEO, S&W Plastics, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/23/92 from C. Scott Thiss to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7245)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 23, 1992, requesting a re-interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as it applies to your after market product, "High Light." This request is occasioned by the modifications you have made pursuant to my letter of January 23, 1992, to Terry Semprini, and after a meeting with NHTSA personnel on April 16.

Initially, we advised that it appeared that "High Light" had the potential to render inoperative the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. There were three reasons for this advisory. First, the placement of "High Light" to the left of the vertical centerline did not fulfill basic locational requirements of Standard No. 108 applicable to required equipment on new motor vehicles that lamps be located one on each side of the vertical centerline and as far apart as practicable, and thus "High Light's" signals could be perceived as conflicting or unclear when viewed simultaneously with the original equipment lamps. Second, the hazard warning portion of "High Light" operated through the stop lamp portion of the device rather than through the turn signal system, which meant an observer could be faced with the necessity of interpreting the meaning of simultaneously flashing red and amber lamps on the rear of a trailer, as well as the meaning of the original stop lamps should the brakes also be applied. Finally, the stop lamp portion of the device comprised a combination of a "V" and an inverted "V", a lighting array unlike any currently in use, which could create a momentary delay by a following driver in taking appropriate action.

To address these concerns, you have modified "High Light" to eliminate the hazard warning portion, and have changed the stop lamp so that it now appears as horizontal lights across the center of the device. While it is not possible to change the intended location of "High Light" due to the configuration of trailer doors, you believe that its placement in the direct line of vision of a following driver adds to its visibility.

Although you have not fully described the revised configuration of "High Light", we believe that it can now be described as follows. It is a diamond-shape lamp, the left side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a left turn signal, and the right side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a right turn signal. In addition two red lamps in the center form a stop signal. We understand that the amber lamps flash when they are in use, and that the red lamps are steady burning. In this configuration, it would appear that the lamps can serve as auxiliary turn signal and stop lamps without impairing the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires on the rear of trailers. Assuming that our understanding is correct, "High Light" would not appear to render inoperative, either in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

ID: nht92-6.32

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timothy C. Murphy -- Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights), Transportation Safety Equipment Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/30/92 from Timothy C. Murphy to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7252)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 30, 1992, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked "whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation" of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you have enclosed "Figure 1" which "shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps." Accordingly you have concluded "that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp."

NHTSA adopted a definition of "effective projected luminous lens area" on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean "that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . ." No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute "significantly" to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that "the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose", and that "lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design" but instead "take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area."

In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation.

ID: nht92-6.33

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Phil Gramm -- United States Senator

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from Stephen Newmark to Jerry Curry

TEXT:

This responds to your Memorandum attaching correspondence from your constituent Stephen Newmark of Tarrant County. Mr. Newmark, Vice-President of Lonestar Classics, Inc., states that his company "has requested an exemption" from this agency "for the purposes of manufacturing kit cars," and asks your help "in determining whether our exemption will be granted or whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires further information." He also states that "the timing of NHTSA's response is critical to our moving ahead."

Mr. Newmark FAXED the Administrator on May 5, 1992, about the possibility of obtaining an exemption, and followed up with a telephone call to the Office of Chief Counsel on May 15. As we understand it from that conversation, the business plan intended by Lonestar is to sell and deliver a certain number of unassembled components to purchasers who will complete the assembly of the vehicle by providing the engine, drive train, and suspension. We informed Mr. Newmark orally that, given these facts, Lonestar is not considered to be a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Because of this, Lonestar is not required to ensure the compliance of the completed vehicle with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and, hence, no exemption is required for it to implement its business plan.

We informed Mr. Newmark of your interest in his behalf, and that our response to you would also serve as a reply to his FAX of the 5th to the Administrator. For this reason we are providing him a copy of this letter.

ID: nht92-6.34

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gerald A. Guertin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Gerald A. Guertin to Samuel Skinner (OCC 7234)

TEXT:

Your letter of March 30, 1992 to former Secretary Skinner was referred to this agency for reply. You expressed concern that you had not received a response to an earlier letter, addressed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the use of vans to transport school children. I regret that you did not receive a response to your previous letter.

You indicated that you are a school teacher in Florida and asked us to verify your understanding of why you cannot use nine- to 15- passenger vans to transport school children. You stated that, at the present time, seven-person rifle teams, eight-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, and the like are prohibited from being transported in vans and must instead use "gas-guzzling, 37-passenger school buses." Since these clubs must raise their own gas money, you stated that they could get "more trips for the buck" if they could use vans. You indicated that you were permitted to use vans prior to a crash about seven years ago in which a cheerleader was killed. You understand that van roof standards were apparently not what they should be and that NHTSA then "came forward with the need for 'acceptability of crash-worthy tests' for vans," placing the cost of developing and performing such tests on manufacturers. You suggested that van manufacturers opted out of the school van business because they were reluctant to fund the new tests.

Your understanding is not quite correct, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less; vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent

users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may USE a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Florida law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

The following is a list of federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses:

Standard Nos. 101 through 104 Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic serivce brake systems) Standard Nos. 106 through 108 Standard Nos. 111 through 113 Standard No. 115 Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems) Standard Nos. 119 and 120 Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems) Standard No. 124 Standard No. 131 (effective September 1, 1992) Standard Nos. 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less) Standard No. 205 Standard Nos. 207 through 210 Standard No. 212 (school busses with a GVWR or 10,000 pounds or less) Standard No. 217 Standard No. 219 (school busses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less)

Standard No. 220 Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) Standard No. 222 Standard Nos. 301 and 302

Of the above-listed standards, only Standard numbers 131 and 220 through 222 apply exclusively to school buses.

All federal motor vehicle safety standards may be found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. The CFRs may be found in your local bar association library, the main public library, or a copy of Title 49, CFR, may be purchased from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 783-3238.

ID: nht92-6.35

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Mark W. Russo

TO: Charles Gauthier -- Director, Defects Investigation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/13/92 from Paul J. Rice to Mark W. Russo (A39; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I want to thank you for taking the time and interest to discuss the "R-BAR" subject with me in the past.

The purpose of this letter is to request from NHTSA an official "review and comment" on the topics outlined below. I have enclosed a coy of the "Test Data" booklet I received from Micho a few weeks ago as it contains information not included in the original package sent to me in October '91.

I am mainly interested in addressing the following:

A. The "applicability" of FMVSS 222 to be used as a "test" or "certification" criteria for the "R-BAR restraining system".

B. The use of "alternate testing methods" to comply with FMVSS 571: S 222-2. "S5.1.4 Seat performance rearward". as appears to be the case in the last three pages of section "3" in Micho's booklet.

C. Background of NHTSA's contacts with Micho Ind. regarding the above subjects and copies of correspondence (if permissible).

D. Any other general comments or technical concerns which might be important, for any school districts to consider, regarding the installation of such a device.

Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated by all concerned for the safety of our children.