ID: nht80-3.29

DATE: 08/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Baker Equipment Engineering Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John Deeter Baker Equipment Engineering Company P.O. Box 25609 Richmond, Virginia 23260

Dear Mr. Deeter:

This is in reply to your letter of June 23, 1980, to Mr. Finkelstein of this agency.

You have enclosed a drawing showing clearance lamps mounted on the widest and highest part of a truck body but in that location their light causes undesirable reflections in the truck's rearview mirrors. You have asked if a relocation to the truck cab would be an acceptable substitution since many of the chassis-cabs you now receive have a combination turn signal/front side marker lamp mounted on the fenders, "which almost blocks the front clearance lamp on the body, and would seem to negate the requirement of this lamp".

We have no objection to relocation of the clearance lamps to the cab on the configuration you have described since the utility body is not higher than the truck cab and the position of the front lamp is, for all practical purposes, as wide as the utility body. This is a location frequently used for clearance lamps and we believe that they would be perceived as such, even though the truck body is slightly wider than the extremities of the cab. Because a potential hazard to the driver would be diminished by this relocation, we believe that this would better meet the needs of motor vehicle safety. Further, in the relocated position, the clearance lamps would not be blocked by the front fender mounted combination lamps.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 23, 1980

Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

I had previously written you concerning the subject of clearance lights on the front of utility bodies in my letter of October 19, 1980.

Your answer of November 19, 1979 indicated that this request would be considered along with a TBEA petition to revise FMVSS 108.

Have any changes or decisions been rendered? I'm particularly interested since many of the chassis / cabs we are now receiving have a combination turn and front side marker light mounted on the chassis / cab fender (position 4a.), which almost blocks the front clearance lamp on the body, and would seem to negate the requirement for this lamp.

Your comments will be greatly appreciated.

Cordially,

John Deeter Director of Operations

JD/cm Attachment

ID: nht80-3.3

DATE: 06/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flyer Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 7, 1980, letter asking whether you would be exercising due care if you alter the test procedures in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You propose to change the brake linings that are currently used on some of your vehicles. You would prefer to conduct decelerometer and stopping distance tests to assure compliance of your vehicles and dispense with the dynamometer test requirements.

The test requirements of Standard No. 121 are a means of establishing that you are in compliance with the performance requirements of the standard. However, like all of the agency's safety standards, it is not legally required that a manufacturer conduct the tests as they are stated in the standard if the manufacturer has an alternate procedure such as computer simulation, mathematical calculation, etc. which it is confident can equally prove the compliance of its vehicles. It is up to the manufacturer to establish in its own mind that any alternate procedure is an exercise of due care adequate to assure it would conform to the standard if the actual tests were conducted.

With respect to the particular test that you propose to conduct, the agency notes that the stopping distance and decelerometer tests are used to test for several aspects of brake performance that are regulated by the standard. The dynamometer tests are used to establish the fade resistance and recovery performance of the brake linings. The agency does not believe that stopping distance tests alone can measure, in particular, the fade resistance of the brake linings. Accordingly, we do not believe that you could certify your vehicle in compliance without some tests or analysis for fade resistance. This does not mean that you must conduct the dynamometer test, however, if you have another technique which you believe adequately measures the fade resistance of the linings.

SINCERELY,

FLYER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

April 7, 1980

The Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

We presently manufacture a transit coach certified for FMVSS 121 at a providing ground. Due to customer request, a brake lining deviation from the certified ABB80 to Carlisle B33 is required. Local dynamometer testing is extremely difficult.

Our proposal is to conduct deoelerometer and stopping distance tests to compare lining performance. Full service tests at both loads and on both surface co-efficients would be done, as these were most marginal during the proving ground test. (See charted results.) It is not planned to outfit the new linings with themocouples. If performances are as good or better than for the linings that were certified, we would take this as sufficient evidence of compliance.

Please advise if such testing, fully documented, would be considered due care. Prompt reply to enable test scheduling, will be greatly appreciated.

Todd Smith

CC: B. MOSS

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-3.30

DATE: 08/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable Lloyd Bentson, United States Senator

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 10, 1980, forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Bob Lacy. Mr. Lacy, a Ford dealer, requested Ford Motor Company to offer locking gasoline caps as an option on all future cars and trucks because of the growing problem of gasoline theft. Ford informed Mr. Lacy that it could not do so because it would require testing all its vehicles twice for compliance with the Federal fuel system safety standard, i.e., with the regular gasoline cap and with the locking cap.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), specifies performance requirements to ensure the safety of motor vehicle fuel systems. When subjected to a barrier impact crash test, vehicles cannot show fuel leakage beyond certain specified amounts. The standard is only a performance standard, however, and manufacturers are permitted to use any vehicle design they choose, including any gasoline cap they desire, as long as the standard is met.

Ford's statement that "in order to comply with FMVSS requirements for fuel systems, we would be required to test all our vehicles twice" is incorrect. Standard No. 301 does not require testing; it only requires that the vehicle meet the performance requirements that are specified. The manufacturer's legal responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles do in fact comply with these performance requirements. Ford may feel it necessary to crash test vehicles with both types of gasoline caps, in order to establish due care, but doing so is not required by the standard. Other methods could be used to determine if the varying gasoline caps would affect compliance. Further, even if a manufacturer desires to do some testing, it is difficult to imagine that the design of the gas caps used for different Ford cars differ sufficiently to warrant testing every type of Ford car.

Finally, I would like to point out that if Ford believes crash testing is necessary for each type of gasoline cap used, it could choose to offer only locking caps rather than offering only regular caps. I suggest that Mr. Lacy contact Ford again to determine why they chose regular caps over locking caps, given Ford's decision that it only wanted to perform tests using one type cap.

If we can provide any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

ID: nht80-3.31

DATE: 08/05/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Public Instruction - North Dakota

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 3, 1980, letter asking whether a ramp device used in school buses for the transportation of the handicapped would be in conflict with the Federal safety standard for school bus emergency exits if the ramp partially blocked the rear exit when it folded into the bus. You indicate in your letter that the ramp would make the exit release mechanism difficult to operate for small children. Although your letter provides few details concerning the ramp, we conclude that it probably would render the vehicle in noncompliance with the emergency exit regulation.

Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, regulates the number and size of school bus emergency exits and requires that the release mechanisms of those exits be readily accessible. The purpose of these requirements, of course, is to provide an easily operable, unobstructed school bus emergency exit. In the past, we have preempted a State requirement for a safety chain that would have been placed across an exit, because we viewed the chain as providing an obstruction to the opening. Similarly, it appears to us that the ramp you describe would provide an impediment to emergency vehicle exits and would not permit easy access to the release mechanism. Accordingly, we conclude that a bus with such a ramp as original equipment would not comply with the Federal safety standards. We note further that the ramp could not be added as aftermarket equipment by any manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, without rendering inoperative the compliance of the bus with the safety standard. Nothing, however, precludes a school from adding the ramps to its own vehicles except the possibility of increased liability in the event a child is injured in an accident involving the bus.

There are many possible devices designed to aid the transportation of the handicapped that would not conflict with the standards. For example, many vehicles have lifts designed for handicapped use. It might also be possible to have a ramp at the rear door that stows under the vehicle when not in use rather than in the passenger compartment. Any of these alternatives would be better than a ramp that might block the emergency exit.

SINCERELY,

THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Department of Public Instruction

July 3, 1980

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton: A bus used to transport handicapped people has a ramp device at the rear door of the bus. The ramp is bolted to the floor of the bus and folds to be brought inside the bus for travel. The ramp remains in front of the door when the door is closed. The door latch can be reached so the door could be opened from the inside and the ramp pushed out for use as an emergency exit, although this would be fairly difficult for a very young child.

We have been asked if a device of this type would be in conflict with the Safety Standard for emergency exits for school buses.

Can any type of device be located inside the emergency door as original equipment on a school bus based on the Safety Standard for emergency exits?

Thank you for your help.

ROLLAND LARSON, Director

Pupil Transportation

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-3.32

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Self Cycle & Marine Distributors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1980, to Taylor Vinson of this office with respect to a driving lamp that is being used by a number of your customers as a replacement motorcycle headlight. In your opinion the lamp has not been tested for compliance with Federal motorcycle headlamp requirements, and you have asked whether you may continue to sell the item as a driving lamp in spite of the fact "that some customers are utilizing it as a head lamp."

By way of introduction, as you may know, this agency has been in litigation since 1978 over unsealed headlamps that meet European specifications for passenger cars but not the U.S. standards for such lamps. Although they are certified as meeting U.S. requirements for motorcycles only, they are in reality imported and sold as replacement headlamps for passenger cars. Our primary argument in these cases is that the manufacturers of these lamps are legally required to certify compliance with, in the words of the statute, "all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards" which means all standards applicable to any use of which the headlamp is physically capable.

We, therefore, believe that if any lamp is physically capable of replacing a motorcycle headlamp, it should conform and be certified as conforming with SAE J584 incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. If sales of a noncomplying lamp were actively promoted by the seller to replace a motorcycle headlamp, we could view this as a willful violation of Federal requirements and we would probably engage in appropriate enforcement action.

Your letter implies that the purchasers themselves install the headlamps. This is not a violation of any Federal requirement. But a "manufacturer," "distributor," "dealer," or "motor vehicle repair business" is prohibited by 15 U.S.C. 1597(a)(2)(A) from replacing conforming equipment with a nonconforming item, and liable for a penalty of up to $ 1,000 per item if it does so.

SINCERELY,

Self Cycle & Marine Distributors

July 2, 1980

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffice Safety Admin.

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Self Cycle & Marine Distributors currently carries within our product line a driving lamp. To our knowledge, this lamp has never been tested for compliance with SAE J584, however, since this light was intended to be used in addition to a OEM headlight it is exempt from this requirement. However, we have found out that a number of consumers are utilizing this light as a replacement headlight in order to give their motorcycle a "chopper" look. Can we continue to sell this item as a driving lamp to spite the fact that some consumers are utilizing it as a head lamp? Until we have an opinion from your office, we have temporary suspended sales on this item as well as frozen our reorder of this item from Japan. Since large sums of money are at stake, I would appreciate an opinion from your office within ten (10) working days.

Paul D. Wharton Chairman of the Board

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-3.33

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Airstream

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 13, 1980, letter asking whether your company would be considered a chassis-cab manufacturer subject to the labeling requirements of Part 567, Certification. You indicate that you take another manufacturer's incomplete chassis with a motor and add to it a cab and body with bumpers, mirrors, and exterior trim. This vehicle is then sent to a final-stage manufacturer for final completion. We would not consider you to be a chassis-cab manufacturer subject to the certification requirements.

As you know, a chassis-cab is defined in Part 567 as "an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant compartment, that requires only the addition of cargo carrying, work performing, or load bearing components to perform its intended functions." The incomplete vehicle upon which your manufacturing operation begins is simply a chassis without the cab. As such, that vehicle is subject to the incomplete vehicle document requirements of Part 568, but it is not subject to the chassis-cab certification requirements.

Your modification adds on a bus body which then needs final work before it can be used. Since you do not complete the occupant compartment as required by the definition of "chassis-cab", you are not required to attach a certification label. You are simply an intermediate manufacturer. The final-stage manufacturer would attach the only label to the vehicle.

ID: nht80-3.34

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 24, 1980, regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. It is your impression that the standard specified different AS numbers for glazing in vehicles depending on whether the vehicle is capable of exceeding speeds of 20 mph. You inquired whether such a speed capability distinction applies to "off-highway" vehicles such as a 180 degree backhoe/loader is not a motor vehicle, the standard is inapplicable. Our last letter to you, dated April 10, 1980, explained which vehicles are included under the definition of motor vehicles.

Although the vehicle's speed capability has no bearing on what type glazing is required, it may be a factor in determining the applicability of our standards. As stated in our last letter, vehicles incapable of attaining speeds in excess of 20 mph and whose configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles and are thus outside of our statutory authority.

ID: nht80-3.35

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Nick Oliver

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your July 25, 1980, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning your plans to rehabilitate school buses.

As you stated, your initial program of bus rehabilitation appears only cosmetic in nature. You will do some maintenance work on the vehicles and repaint and letter them. Your only responsibility in this type of operation is not knowingly to render inoperative the compliance of the bus with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The type of operations that you would be performing are not likely to render inoperative any safety standard of which we are aware.

Your long-term plans are to make more substantial modifications of school buses. As Mr. Tilton said, if you install a new chassis on a used body it is the same as manufacturing a new motor vehicle. You would be required to comply with all of the new safety standards applicable to school buses. This would be very difficult when you use a bus body manufactured prior to April 1, 1977. That was the date of the applicability of the new school bus safety standards, and it would be almost impossible to upgrade an old bus body to comply with the new safety standards. You indicated that you do not plan this type of operation.

You stated that you might place a new chassis on bodies manufactured after April 1, 1977, if the original chassis were damaged in an accident. You still would be considered as the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle and would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the applicable safety standards. However, it should be possible for you to mount a post-April 1, 1977, body on a new chassis and make the vehicle comply with all applicable standards.

If you have any further questions after receiving this information and after obtaining a copy of the Federal safety standards, please contact us.

ID: nht80-3.36

DATE: 08/13/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 9, 1980, letter requesting clarification of the Federal requirements for door locks on fire trucks. Specifically, you ask whether Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206), is applicable to fire trucks.

As Mr. Oates of my office stated in his telephone conversation with you, Safety Standard No. 206 applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. Since fire trucks are not specifically exempted in the standard, they would be considered "trucks" and would have to comply with the standard. There are certain types of doors on vehicles, however, that do not have to comply with the requirements of the standard. Section S4 of the standard provides:

Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. However, components on folding doors, roll-up doors and doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors need not conform to this standard.

Therefore, certain doors on fire trucks may not be required to have locks. For example, a door leading to a cat-walk or standing area on the fire truck that contains no seating position would not have to comply with the standard. Likewise, a passenger compartment door that is readily removable would also not have to comply. I believe that many fire trucks have these type doors. You should check with your sales people to see if the vehicles they saw at the Fire

Equipment Show would qualify under the exceptions mentioned above. If you are aware of specific models that should comply with the standard but which do not, we would appreciate being apprised of that information. I hope this has clarified the requirements of the standard.

ID: nht80-3.37

DATE: 08/20/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph J. Hitchcock; NHTSA

TO: James Monaghan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 18, 1980, regarding your Simplified Passenger Air Bag.

We have noted the changes in your patent. If, as you say, the pads are automatically rotated into place when the occupant gets into the vehicle and closes the door and protection is provided without the occupant having to take any action, your system would be considered to be automatic (passive) within the meaning of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

I am placing a copy of your letter in our public docket. Thank you for your continued interest in automobile safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SIMPLIFIED PASSENGER AIRBAG

The attached copy of an article from the Miami Herald of May 12, 1980, entitled "Air Bags Give Questionable Protection," draws attention to the urgency of good decisions being made regarding airbags before the "1982 Model" year.

Though the airbag method of restraint is the most resilient, most people are aware that the publicized design describes an expensive, noisy and one-shot device with many problems, and of which the public is apprehensive.

However, the new reusable patented "Monaghan Simplified Passenger Airbag" solves these problems and, in addition, solves the four other difficulties which the Miami Herald article correctly pinpoints. Refer to Monaghan Illustration Fig. 4.

Difficulty #1: "The present design provides little or no protection in side impacts." However, the Monaghan Airbag, in Patent 3,888,329, Claim 5, states, "restraint pad includes rearwardly projecting sidewalls for restraining the occupant from sidewards movement." Further protection may be had if seat upholstery is shaped to receive the sidewalls. Refer to Fig. 4, shown in phantom.

Difficulty #2: ". . . little protection against rollovers." Refer to Monaghan Illustration Fig. 4 - the airbag, when inflated, is locked by the rotor over the knees with a downward pressure of approximately 400 pounds on an area of 1.5 square feet.

Difficulty #3: Present design provides "no protection on second impact after a frontal collision when the bags deflate." Refer to Monaghan Patent 3,888,329, Claim 9. This includes "time extension means for automatically extending the period of actuation of said power means upon the sensing of a plurality of successive accident events -- during the accident."

Difficulty #4: This refers in particular to seat belts, to the danger of sliding (submarining) under the restraint in an impact. This submarining is resisted by the Simplified Passenger Airbag due to the large frictional area of pressurized contact with the torso, including the sidewalls.

These safety features are only possible with the Monaghan Simplified Passenger Airbag because, first, it is reusable and, of course, can be pre-tested. Claims 1, 5 and 8 indicate it is visibly oriented to contact the passenger's torso and limbs, at short range. When preset, the pad is partly over the occupant and the seat; the passenger will then normally be in the correct position in an accident event.

Since it is not required to explode, it is not noisy; and using ordinary air, it is not toxic. The salesman in the garage can demonstrate, and the regular garage mechanic can adjust or replace the rubber bag which should cost no more than an inner tube.

The Airpad, shown manually preset in attached illustrations, Figs. 1, 2, 3; can be alternatively automatically preset to give the fastest action in an accident event. This is provided by Differential Timing of presetting and inflating. Refer Patent Specifications, Page 8, Lines 41 and 42.

This is obtained by fitting a double-acting push button type hinge switch on the car door. With the car door open, the Airpad will be in the top storage position, held there by spring - Claim 16.

* When the car door is closed, the door hinge switch actuates an electric low-speed rotary incremental motor which swings down the pad arm through 75 degrees to the preset position and electromagnetically locks the rotor shaft.

* When the car door is opened, the hinge switch disengages the magnetic lock and the spring returns the pad to storage.

In an accident event with either system, the Sensor Switch - Claim 2 - acting with the selective control valve - Claim 4 - will supply high pressurized air - Claim 6 - to provide contacting, firm engagement of the Airbag with the occupant - Claim 19 - Test Switch #230 will have been used to adjust and lower the bag pressure via a throttle and check valve on the swing arm close to the airpad.

Return of the restraint to storage after an accident event may be timed by the Sensor Switch to allow a few seconds before automatic pneumatic deflation and reversal of the Rotor releases the passenger. Refer Patent Specifications, Page 7, Lines 30 to 35.

JAMES MONAGHAN

Simplified Passenger Airbag

Page 1, Figure 1: Shows an Auto Passive Restraint, with an inflatable air-pad, positioned in Storage when a passenger takes a seat.

Page 1, Figure 2: Passenger chose to swing the pad to a pre-set position closer to the body for visible protection against panic stops and accidents.

Page 1, Figure 3: With the pad now in the pre-set position, a sensored accident event will instantly and quietly inflate the pad with air at a safe pressure to firmly restrain the passenger with minimum shock and to lock the rotor.

Figure 4, Below: Shows the restraint remaining in storage when the passenger chooses to be inactive. In a sensored accident event, the pad automatically swings down by air rotor, inflating simultaneously to restrain the passenger.

Special Note: This sensored safety device is reusable and can be pre-tested. It will actuate whether the pad is in the storage or the pre-set position. The patent includes "sensing means for ultra-rapidly restraining a vehicle occupant from moving, with two combined restraining forces."

(Graphics omitted)

Figure 4

U.S. Patent 3,888,329 Inventor: James Monaghan

Michael M. Finkelstein -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

Many thanks for your letter of January 27, 1980, in regard to my Simplified Passenger Airbag. I agree that "the system would be slightly more feasible if the pads were automatically rotated into position after entering the vehicle."

If not considered a "forced action system," automatic presetting can be obtained within the cover patent #3,888,329 as follows.

Please refer to the patent specifications, Page 8, Lines 41 and 42. It states there: "If desired, differential timing between the air cushion and cylinder 208 could be provided." This is explained in the revised write-up of page one & page two, enclosed.

I agree that time-saving is very important and believe that Differential Timing will overcome the negligence of the few who might not even lower the pad to improve their vision over the dash. Also, it permits an increase in torso contact without being a hazard to a smoker. Enclosed is a revised copy of illustration Fig. 4. x

x P.S. The Simplified Passenger Airbag avoids vulnerable areas of the Torso.

I do not wish this Airbag to be used with front child seats; however, you indicate that my rear seat restraints for children have your interest.

Thank you for the Auto company addresses; I will write fully to them when I receive a reply from you.

Please confirm that the use of this door switch will permit NHTSA to retain patent 3,888,329 as a Passive Restraint. I would deeply appreciate an early reply, especially for age considerations. I am now in my eighties.

Sincerely,

James Monaghan

cc: Adminstrator Claybrook