ID: nht92-4.4

DATE: September 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Leonard Marks

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 01/01/92 (EST) letter from Leonard Marks to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7689)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you intend to market. According to your letter, this device is "a new adjustable attachment to seat belts which allows the user to lower the level so that it will no longer cut them in the neck and yet give them the safety of the belt." I am pleased to provide the following information.

It is not entirely clear how your proposed device would work. However, we have explained how our regulations apply to several different types of belt positioning devices. One such device is a "comfort clip," which is attached to the safety belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken in by the belt's retractor. We have explained how our regulations apply to comfort clips in a February 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Lewis Quetel (copy enclosed). Another device is one that clips the shoulder belt to the lap belt nearer the middle of the wearer's abdomen. We have explained how our regulations apply to these belt positioning devices in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin (copy enclosed). Yet another device is a covered foam pad that is fastened around the belt. We have explained how our regulations apply to these devices in a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven (copy enclosed). Since your device would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. This information sheet also explains how to get copies of our regulations.

As you will see from reviewing the enclosed letters, aftermarket sales and installation by individual vehicle owners of devices to reposition belts are not prohibited any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the use of such devices could raise serious safety concerns if the devices inadvertently reduce the safety protection afforded by the original equipment safety belts.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.40

DATE: 08/12/92

FROM: DENNIS T. JOHNSTON -- ENGINEERING PLANNING AND LIAISON MANAGER, ROVER GROUP NORTH AMERICAN ENGINEERING OFFICE

TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA

COPYEE: GREG DANA -- AIAM

TITLE: SUBJECT: PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - FMVSS 214 - SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION; LIGHT TRUCKS, BUSES AND MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES; FINAL RULE

REFERENCE: DOCKET NO. 88-06, NOTICE 19, FMVSS 214 - FINAL RULE: RESPONSE TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED JULY 13, 1992 FR VOL. 57, NO. 134 PP 30917-23

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-10-92 FROM BARRY FELRICE TO DENNIS T. JOHNSTON (A40; STD. 214)

TEXT: Rover Group Ltd., the British manufacturer of the Range Rover Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV), submits the following in response to the referenced Final Rule amending FMVSS No. 214, 'Side Impact Protection; Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles'.

The July 13, 1992 Final Rule introduces a concept that had not been previously addressed in the June 14, 1991 Final Rule or the NPRM dated January 15, 1992. That is the classification of contoured doors by the ratio of the width of the lowest portion of the door to the width of the door at its widest point ("ratio"). This classification is not specifically mentioned in the preamble (except obliquely as ". . . certain contoured doors . . ."), but rather, appears directly in the rule in Section 3(e)(7).

Specifically, the July 13, 1992 Final Rule treats contoured doors with a ratio of greater than 0.5 differently than those whose ratio is 0.5 or less. It is Rover Group's understanding following the final rule that a contoured door on a multipurpose passenger vehicle whose width of the lowest portion of the door, for example, measured 41 centimeters and whose widest portion measured 80 centimeters would be required to meet the current quasi-static door strength procedures contained in FMVSS 214 for passenger cars beginning with vehicles produced after September 1, 1993. Multipurpose passenger vehicles (trucks and buses, as well) with contoured doors whose ratio was 0.5 or less (whose lower most width was 40 centimeters or less in the above example) would not be required to have these contoured doors meet quasi-static requirements until September 1, 1994, with the inference that a newly proscribed test procedure would be promulgated for these doors far enough in advance to allow manufacturers to meet this requirement.

However, in conversation with NHTSA staff since the release of the July 13, 1992 Final Rule it appears that NHTSA is considering another discriminator other than the 0.5 ratio to determine which contoured doors for multipurpose vehicles will need to conform to the current quasi-static test or to the not as yet promulgated test.

The current Range Rover has contoured read doors. These doors have a ratio greater than 0.5 (though not significantly greater), and under our interpretation of the July 13, 1992 Final Rule would be required to meet current FMVSS 214 quasi static door strength requirements beginning September 1, 1993. We have developed a design that will meet the current requirements, and have begun to purchase tooling to ensure that production after September 1, 1993 will comply. Any significant change in the test procedure for these doors (along the lines of that proposed in the January 15, 1992 NPRM, for example) would render this tooling obsolete. Thus Rover Group would be required to scrap this tooling at significant cost, and embark on an additional development program. (For details on the design changes necessitated by the test procedure quoted in the January 15, 1992 NPRM please see Rover Group's response dated March 16, 1992.)

Futhermore, based on our side impact test data, we believe that the positioning of door strengtheners that result using the currently specified test procedure in FMVSS 214 is more appropriate than the test procedure in the January 15, 1992 NPRM to offer the passengers of Range Rover vehicles with enhanced side impact protection.

If the Final Rule is to be interpreted as Rover Group has related above (in the third paragraph), please consider this document as a request for interpretation. If, however, NHTSA believes another interpretation is appropriate, please consider this as a petition for reconsideration to align the rule with that contained in this document.

If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me on (301) 731-8709 at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht92-4.41

DATE: August 11, 1992

FROM: Steven Henderson -- McGill University

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/28/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Steven Henderson (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of June 29 concerning our motorcycle headlamp warning device. I certainly agree with you that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands. Nevertheless, I ask for your patient indulgence in considering the counterarguments I present below.

I will argue that the potential benefits of our device are so congruent with both the congressional mandate of the NHTSA ("to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses ... on the Nation's highways") and the intent of the author(s) of Standard No. 108, as to warrant the inclusion in the standard of an exception referring specifically to the operating characteristics of the device. My understanding is that an exception may be incorporated into the standard when in specific situations the public safety would be increased by a rigorously specified departure from die standard. That is, the exception allows the spirit of the law to rule while protecting the letter of the law from violation. Nevertheless, an exception governing a device should only be granted if its use would not cause any difficulties that the original standard was framed to prevent. I will address these issues below. Your further point that "the safety benefits of the device are speculative and unproven" is very relevant and well taken, and again I ask for your tolerant consideration of my discussion on that point.

Briefly, my understanding of the issues you raise regarding the device's noncompliance with Standard No. 108 are:

a) the headlamp modulation is greater than 17% and so the device does not comply with S5.6.1(c). (Please note that modulation is between intensity levels within a single beam, and is available for use with either the high or the low beam.)

b) the headlamp flash rate of 10 per second supersedes the maximum allowable rate (S5.6.1(a)) of 280 per minute, or 4.67 hz.

c) the taillamp(s) would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d).

d) the turn signal flash rate of 10 hz would not comply with the SAE specification of 60-120 flashes per minute (1-2 hz) referred to in Standard No.108.

Within my discussion of each of the four specific instances of noncompliance I will also attempt to infer the intent of the clauses cited. If the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case, I feel that the granting of an exception should be

considered by the NHTSA.

First, S5.6.1(c) calls for a modulation intensity of not greater than 17%, the presumed intent being to reduce distraction and annoyance to other drivers whenever such a modulating headlight system is in view. For a device that is used steadily (as is the device described in S5.6), when the presence of a motorcycle is recognized, the modulation becomes redundant and so carries no useful information. Without a limit on its magnitude, the modulation would likely interfere with the other visual processes needed for operating a motor vehicle. On the other hand, our device is only used intermittently and only at need, so that when the presence of the motorcycle is recognized by the car driver, the horn button is released and the modulation stops. As the device is only used to attract attention when necessary and at no other time, no redundant information from the device is ever present in the visual scene to distract other drivers. Therefore our proposed device does not conflict with the inferred intent of S5.6.1(c). Furthermore, to maximize the likelihood that the motorcycle will be seen and an accident avoided, the exception for the device should permit 100% modulation on the condition that modulation can only occur in conjunction with the sounding of the horn.

Second, S5.6.1(a) specifies a modulation rate of between 200 and 280 cycles per minute, or 4.67 hz, while our device has a modulation rate of 600 cycles per minute, or 10 hz. Despite the salience of the 10 hz flash rate, the likelihood of distraction to other drivers is nonexistent, as again the device is only used at need rather than continuously (see the counterargument given above). The 10 hz flash rate is particularly appropriate for use as a warning signal. Figures 1 and 2 (from Snowden and Hess, 1992) show that at every retinal eccentricity, light modulation of approximately 10 hz is more easily seen (or seen at a greater distance) than modulation of any other frequency. Finally, referring to Appendix A, the "brightness enhancement effect" (Bartley, 1939) also achieves maximum enhancement at a rate of about 10 flashes per second, the frequency corresponding to the alpha rhythm of the human visual cortex. As the 10 hz enhancement effect was reported in a document commissioned by the NHTSA and published as Report No. DOT HS 807 121 (1987), I believe that the intent of the author(s) of Standard No.108 (the NHTSA) would be to exploit the safety advantages to be gained by the use of 10 hz light modulation, given the knowledge gained from the visual system research that has been conducted since Standard No.108 was written, and given the safe means to use this knowledge. (Please also note that the 50% duty cycle of the proposed device yields maximum brightness enhancement, as shown by the figure in Appendix A.) I therefore contend that as the flash rate of 10 hz is not contrary to the inferred intent of S5.6.1(a), and further, that its use will not cause any of the difficulties that S5.6.1(a) was likely Written to prevent, that the requested exception should permit the use of a 10 hz flasher frequency, again on the condition that modulation can occur only in conjunction with the sounding of the horn.

Please observe that the first two points of noncompliance result from an attempt to apply to our device, an exception granted to allow the use of another device that is explicitly described in the standard. Our device is unique and clearly differs from the device referred to in S5.5.10(c) and described in S5.6. (In our attorney's opinion the patent search we commissioned found no prior art of sufficient similarity to jeopardize our

patent claims, as shown in the prior art section of the enclosed patent application - see Appendix B.) Therefore, the noncompliance of our device with an exception drafted in specific reference to a different device should not be taken as grounds for prohibiting our device. Rather, I contend that our device is not contrary to the spirit and intent of Standard No.108, and that introducing an exception for the device into the standard would be the most appropriate course of action for the NHTSA to take. Section 5.6 establishes a clear precedent for introducing an exception into the standard by the NHTSA, if public safety would thereby be expected to increase.

Third, when the horn button is pressed the taillamp flashes at a rate of 10 hz, rather than being steady-burning as required by S5.5.10(d). However, a taillight's purpose is to mark the rear of a motor vehicle during nighttime driving when it would otherwise be invisible. For this reason the law requires that taillights be lit at night. The law makes no such requirement during the day. The law does require that motorcycle headlights be lit during the day. Consequently, the taillight, being wired in parallel with the headlight, is also always lit during daytime riding, although not required to be by law. At night the taillight will always be steady- burning, as required by S5.5.10(d), because the flasher device is only able to induce taillight flicker during daylight hours due to the photocell circuitry incorporated to prevent the headlight from generating strobe effects at night. Therefore, the device is in compliance with S5.5.10(d), as it will cause the taillight to flash only at times that it is not required by law to be lit. At such times as the taillight must be lit to mark the rear of the motorcycle to following drivers, it can not be made to flicker by pushing the horn button, and so the device does not violate the intent of the standard.

Fourth, if the horn button is pushed while a turn is being signalled, the appropriate signallight will give out 2 hz bursts of 10 hz flicker (the other signallight remaining dark) and so will not comply with the flash rate of 1-2 hz "specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108". Note first that the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are simultaneously in use will be relatively rare. In addition, the salient difference between a 10 hz flash rate and a 2 hz flash rate allows both to be seen simultaneously and with little or no interference between the two perceptual channels. In other words, an observer who sees a turn signal if a uniform fight is flashing at 2 hz will also see a turn signal if a 10 hz flickering fight is flashing at 2 hz, due to the independence of the temporal channels of the visual system. This channel independence has been most clearly shown by Hess and Snowden (1992) who state that:

The results for 0 and .3 c/d (Fig.4) (shown here as Fig.3) suggest that probes of 1 Hz are detected by a temporal mechanism with a low pass temporal characteristic while probes of 8 Hz are detected by a band pass temporal mechanism centered at 8-10 Hz...For stimuli of mid spatial frequency (1 and 3 c/deg) the results of Fig.5 (shown here as Fig.4) suggest the presence of at least 2 temporal mechanisms, one low pass underlying the detection of low temporal frequency probes and one band pass centered at 8 Hz and underlying the detection of higher temporal frequency probes (p.50).

I have also included their Figures 7 and 8 (shown here as Fig.5 and 6) from

the same publication to illustrate that the temporal frequency of 2.4 hz (above the highest signal light rate specified by SAE) is also detected by the low pass channel tuned to 1-2 hz frequencies, and not by the band pass channel tuned to 8-10 hz frequencies. This result demonstrates empirically that no perceptual interference will occur between the signal flash of 1-2 hz and the hazard flash of 10 hz. Thus, if the signal switch and the horn switch are used together, the SAE-specified turn signal flash of 1-2 hz will be perceptually present, the hazard signal flash of 10 hz will also be perceptually present at the same location, and the two signals will not interfere. Therefore, as widely separated temporal channels in vision are independent, our device is in compliance with the SAE specification of a 1-2 hz flash rate for turn signals, and the additional presence of a 10 hz flash rate for a hazard signal at the same location does not introduce a point of noncompliance between our device and Standard No. 108.

For the reasons given above, I feel that the action by which the NHTSA could most appropriately carry out its congressional mandate would be to write an exception into Standard No. 108, with the exception clause containing the specific assertion that the proposed device is legally permitted if the device can only be actuated by the horn button. The temporary granting of the exception (for an interval of one or two years) will allow the "speculative and unproven ... safety benefits" of the device to be evaluated. If such benefits exist, and the device could help save hundreds or even thousands of lives every year, testing must be carried out.

Before discussing two studies by which the device's benefits can be assessed, I wish to offer from personal experience some anecdotal evidence that demonstrates the need for this device. In 1971, while riding my Triumph motorcycle on a mountain highway in British Columbia, I had a head-on crash with a car at a closing speed of about 60 miles per hour. The car's driver had gradually crossed into my lane as he prepared to turn left onto a gravel road. I moved to the center line in an attempt to squeeze past his car, whereupon he saw a car about fifty yards behind me and attempted to return to his own lane. I was thrown over his car and trailer and sustained a ruptured spleen, some broken bones, and a concussion. The other driver subsequently testified in court that he never saw me, although the accident took place on a clear sunny summer afternoon. That accident would almost certainly not have occurred if I had had the use of the device I have described to you. Furthermore, the responses of other motorcyclists to whom I have described the device are uniformly enthusiastic. We have all felt the helplessness of seeing a motorist inadvertently threatening our lives because he or she has not seen us and we have no means to make ourselves more visible. This device would give motorcyclists the means to do so. If the NHTSA grants a temporary exception to allow safety tests, I believe that many motorcycle manufacturers and insurance companies would enthusiastically support and participate in the studies outlined below. The purpose of the first study is to generate videotape records of automobile drivers' responses to the device's warning flashes. Several motorcycles will be equipped with warning flashers and special purpose cameras. The cameras will be similar in principle to those used by business security firms, in that they will constantly record onto a thirty second videotape loop.

Fifteen seconds after a horn button is pressed, the entire loop's contents will be copied to a permanent videotape record. This record will show, for

each instance of flasher use, the circumstances making such use necessary, as well as the car driver's reaction to the warning flashes. A telltale light or the flasher itself will be within the camera's field of view, furnishing a flasher activation record against which the car driver's preflash and postflash behaviors can be categorized as either appropriate or inappropriate. Each record of a change from inappropriate to appropriate behavior that coincides with flasher activation will be prima facia evidence of the safety benefits conferred by the device. Although this study should generate compelling visual evidence for any safety benefits that exist, the study will not generate logically compelling statistical evidence for the effect, as the criticism can logically be made that the car driver could have seen the motorcycle and responded appropriately in any case (such as by coming to a halt after beginning to pull out from a side street, or by pulling back into the correct lane rather than attempting to complete an overtaking maneuvre), even without flasher activation. Although the cost of conducting the first study is not prohibitive, to carry out the study will certainly require funding support. Clearly however, no group or company will fund the study without assurances from the NHTSA that the device may be legally used if the research demonstrates that the device reduces accidents and saves lives.

The second study is an example of the statistically rigorous experimental design needed to incontrovertibly establish that the device does confer a safety benefit as well as to allow an estimation of the benefit's magnitude. This study requires that a motorcycle manufacturer install flasher systems onto several hundred of their motorcycles. As the motorcycle accident rate in North America in 1987 was approximately 1 accident for each 13 registered motorcycles (U.S. Census figures), a large number of participants is required to allow a statistically significant measure of the device's safety benefits to be made. For example, a safety benefit having sufficient strength to reduce the accident rate by 25 percent (a reduction of 1000 fatalities per year) requires 800 motorcyclists in each of two groups (only the experimental group being equipped with the flashers) to show a statistically significant effect at p less than .05, and 1380 motorcyclists in each group to show statistical significance at p less than .01. Again, no motorcycle manufacturer will conduct so costly a test - even with the support of motorcycle insurance companies - unless the NHTSA has signalled a willingness to allow the device to become available if a safety benefit can be shown.

My most fervent wish is that in light of the reasoning offered above regarding our flasher system, you will reconsider your initial position as stated in your letter of June 29, 1992, and introduce into Standard No. 10 an exception allowing the use of the device I have described. In addition, I again ask (further to my letter faxes of June 3 and June 9) that you request an advanced examination of the patent application filed with the U.S. Patent Office on April 1, 1992 by Steven Henderson and David Kernaghan under Serial No. 863686.

Thank you for your interest and your patience. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht92-4.42

DATE: August 10, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letters dated 5/28/92 from Christian Hammarskjold to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of May 28, 1992 concerning suspension seats. Your first letter states that you have been asked by SCRTD in Los Angeles to develop a system that will allow your suspension seats for the driver's seating position in transit buses to tilt from side-to-side. Your letter states:

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.

With respect to seats which tilt side-to-side, you are correct that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, does not include a performance requirement addressing side-to-side strength. Standard No. 207 requires certain specified forces to be applied only in a forward direction and in a rearward direction. All seats, in all vehicles, except for side-facing seats or passenger seats in buses, must be capable of withstanding these forces when tested in accordance with the S5 of Standard No. 207.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers are subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. The defect responsibility is a broad one and would include the side-to-side performance of your seat. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a vehicle containing your seat has a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You may be interested in a current proposal to amend Standard No. 207 to establish revised test procedures for pedestal seats. I have enclosed a copy of the notice for your information.

Your second letter asks when shoulder belts will be required on suspension seats. The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle, not based on seat design. I have limited the following discussion of safety belt requirements to trucks and buses, as I am unaware of any passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles which contain suspension seats. As explained below, shoulder belts are required at every forward-facing outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; at the driver's seating position and at every forward-facing outboard seating position in buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; and at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions in school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or

less. Shoulder belts are not required at any other seating positions in these vehicles or in trucks or buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds.

The requirements for trucks are contained in sections S4.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Sections S4.2.2 and S4.2.3 of Standard No. 208 give vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 and before September 1, 1997. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions, and EITHER meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or a lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3 requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. In addition, each Type 2 seat belt assembly (i.e., lap/shoulder safety belts) installed at a front outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less must satisfy the dynamic testing requirements in S4.6.

S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies that a Type 2 seat belt assembly must be installed at each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991.

Section S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208 specifies a phase-in of trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less that must satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 (Option 1 above). Twenty percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1995 must meet this requirement; 50 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 and before September 1, 1996; 90 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997. All trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 must comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1.

Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. In addition, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for buses are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990.

Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. In addition, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Section S4.4.3 requires buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position and at every front and rear forward-facing seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, are required to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions, and either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. As mentioned previously, buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 are subject to the phase-in requirement for automatic occupant protection.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.43

DATE: August 10, 1992

FROM: Dan Trexler -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Ron Holzhauser; Fred Huston; Ron Marion

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/2/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dan Trexler (A-40; Std. 131) and letter dated 9/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Lyle Walheim (Std. 131)

TEXT:

This letter is to formally request an interpretation of certain portions of FMVSS 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices.

It has come to our attention that there is some confusion and possible misinterpretation of the stop arm's activation and the manual override device requirements and allowances contained within 131.

Upon reading the requirement for the stop arm's "manner of activation" specified in section S5.5 of 131, it seems that it is connected to just the activation of the red signal lamps of FMVSS 108. Based on this assumption our first question is: 1. On buses with just a four light system (as specified in S5.1.4(a) of FMVSS 108), is the stop arm required to extend every time the signal lamps are activated?

On the other hand, when considering an eight light system (as specified in S5.1.4(b) of FMVSS 108) the activation of the stop arm seems to be connected to not only the activation of the red signal lamps but also the prerequisite opening of the bus entrance door as specified S5.1.4(b)(ii). This leads to our second question: 2. On buses with an eight light system (as specified in S5.1.4(b) of FMVSS 108), is the stop arm required to extend only after the red signal lamps have been activated by the opening of the bus entrance door? Or is the stop arm required to extend at any time the red signal lamps are activated?

Our final area of confusion concerns the override device. Our third question is: 3. Can a device be used that is capable of remaining in the "OVERRIDE" or "ON" position with only a one-time activation by the driver?

An example of this would be a toggle or rocker switch on the dash or switch cabinet that could be moved to the "OVERRIDE" or "ON" position, by the driver, and left in that position. Various attributes of this system would include an audible signal, of course, that would automatically sound for at least 60 seconds and automatically recycle each time the service door was opened, with the engine running. Activation of the audible signal would be triggered by the activation of the red signal lamps as specified in S5.1.4 of FMVSS 108. Upon deactivation of the override switch, the stop arm would be deployed, if the signal lamps are still activated.

The key to this final question is the type of switch used for the override and if it is acceptable to use a switch that can remain in the "ON"

position as opposed to one that has to be "re-activated" each time the override is desired or a switch that has to be held manually in the "OVERRIDE" mode by the driver.

We appreciate your consideration of these problems and look forward to your response.

ID: nht92-4.44

DATE: August 7, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Eugene Welker

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/82 (should be 6/22/92) from Eugene J. Welker to Jackson Rice (OCC 7434)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about a mirror system designed to improve a driver's view of areas behind a motor vehicle. You explained that a 35" vertical post would be bolted near a vehicle's rear bumper. This would result in a mirror being located a few inches above the top rear window stop light and facing forward at a 45 degree angle. You asked whether such a device would be legal. The following discussion and the enclosed information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," explain your responsibility under NHTSA's regulation.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve, endorse, or certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR S571.111, copy enclosed). Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that the vehicle manufacturer must certify that each vehicle it manufactures complies with the specified requirements. Standard No. 111 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror and a driver's side outside rearview mirror that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. A passenger's side outside rearview mirror is required in situations where the inside rearview mirror does not provide the specified field-of-view. Additional requirements for other vehicle types are set forth in S6, S7, and S8.

No provision in the Standard specifies requirements for a mirror that attaches to the vehicle's rear bumper. Accordingly, a mirror like yours would not be prohibited from being installed on any vehicle by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. Accordingly such a mirror would be permitted, but only as a supplement to the required mirrors. In installing the mirror, one must take care to avoid obscuring the vehicle's lighting devices, including the center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL).

Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate vehicles while they are in use. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Blvd, Arlington, VA 22203 may be able to advise you about the laws of the individual States related to the use of equipment such as your own.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.45

DATE: August 7, 1992

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/92 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Fred Grubbe

TEXT:

This letter denies your June 25, 1992, petition to extend the comment period for Docket No. 92-29, Notice 1 for an additional 60 days. That docket was established for comments received in response to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in which the agency stated that it was considering measures to improve the stability and control performance characteristics of heavy vehicles during braking. The agency sought responses to 32 questions about equipping medium and heavy vehicles, including trailers, with antilock braking systems (ABS), or other measures to improve the stability and control of heavy vehicles.

Your organization, the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA), stated that the 60-day comment period was inadequate since the advance notice involved what you termed a "major" rulemaking. You also questioned the ANPRM's timeliness, given that neither the testing nor the test reports have been completed related to this rulemaking. You indicated that 120 days would provide sufficient time to allow TTMA to coordinate the responses from its members and submit these comments to the docket.

After reviewing the relevant information, the agency has decided to deny your request to extend the ANPRM's comment period. Please be advised that the agency's regulations specify that a petition for extending the comment period should only be granted if the petitioner shows good cause for the extension and if the extension is consistent with the public interest (49 CFR S 553.19).

The Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 requires the agency to complete this rulemaking within 18 months after its initiation (with a limited extension permissible.) Thus, extending the comment period to 120 days would make it more difficult to complete the rulemaking within the prescribed statutory time frame. We further believe that the 60 day comment period provided in the ANPRM gives industry and other interested parties sufficient time to respond.

Based on the considerations outlined above, we have decided to deny your petition to extend the comment period an additional 60 days.

ID: nht92-4.46

DATE: August 7, 1992

FROM: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.; Signature by P.P. F. Nakayama

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Location of R/C and CHMSL equipped on passenger cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to S. Watanabe (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to ask you about the legality of 2 mounting locations (as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in attachment) of R/C (tail & stop lamp) and CHMSL (center high mounted stop lamp) equipped on passenger cars for U.S. of less than 80 inches overall width.

In Fig. 1, for R/C, its height above road surface measured from center of item on vehicle at curb weight is 72 inches, and CHMSL is located 3 inches below the rear window. Wlile in Fig. 2, the height of R/C is 72 inches same as Fig. 1, CHMSL is located above the rear window and between two R/C located on each side of the vertical centerline.

We think the mounting locations of these lamps shown in Fig. 1 & 2 conform to the location requirements of table IV in FMVSS 108.

It would be very much appreciated for us to have your opinion about the legality of locations of these lamps.

(Drawings omitted)

ID: nht92-4.47

DATE: August 6, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mary C. Andrews

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/92 from Mary C. Andrews to NHTSA Legal Counsel (OCC 7439)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether a plastic cone design you are developing would comply with the Department of Transportation's requirements applicable to warning devices. You explained that your device is a 24 inch high inflatable cone with reflector strips on the sides. The cone would be weighted down with sand in an enclosed bottom. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed).

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

Standard No. 125 applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. See section S3. Your planned product appears to be such a device and would therefore need to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. As the enclosed copy of the standard indicates, your device would have to comply with specific requirements including those for minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements.

Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail

to comply with any applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standard, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachments

Copy of standard.

NHTSA information sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

NHTSA information sheet titled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht92-4.48

DATE: August 6, 1992

FROM: R.J. Misorski -- Director, Maintenance & Repair, Maersk Inc.

TO: Legal Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: A. Petrizzo, W. Drozd

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to R.J. Misorski (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Attached is a copy of the Federal Register outlining your rule change that went into effect December 1, 1991.

The new rule now requires a minimum of 12 square inches of lens area for rear stop or turn signals on vehicles over 80" wide, regardless of the separation between lamps. We feel that equipment manufactured prior to December 1991 would be exempt from this ruling. Our interpretation of this new rule is that it only applies to equipment that is manufactured after December 1, 1991.

We would highly appreciate if you could confirm our understanding in writing in order that we may ensure compliance with our equipment fleet.

Attachment

Copy of page 20158 of the 5/15/90 Federal Register pertaining to 49 CFR Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (action: final rule). (Text omitted)