ID: nht92-4.2

DATE: 09/17/92

FROM: MARK W. RUSSO

TO: WALTER MYERS -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MARK W. RUSSO (A40; STD. 222); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7-14-92 FROM PAUL RICE TO MICHAEL F. HECKER (STD. 222)

TEXT: Thank you for discussing the R-Bar subject with me. As I mentioned in our conversation, I am very concerned over the "applicability" issue regarding the R-Bar and FMVSS 222. I fear that a device not covered by a "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard" may be installed in a school bus that will be transporting my children!

In addition to our conversation, I want to stress one area where I believe this device creates a condition that could be considered in non compliance with the objectives of FMVSS 222, section S5.1.4 (c). With reference to a NHTSA letter from Mr. Rice to Mr. Hecker (Micho, Ind.) dated May 14, 1992, which indicates that Mr. Hecker claims the device incorporates a design that allows it to "move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended". Being familiar with the operating principle of this device, I tend to agree in theory. However, what Mr. Hecker fails to mention is that the device also incorporates a "drop down" feature (by nature of a positive mechanical action) which is activated by forward movement of the device! Thus, if a passenger is "recoiled" forward, or if a subsequent frontal collision occurs, impact with the bar should activate this approximate 2 inch drop down feature. So, if there is any concern regarding minimum clearance in accordance with section S5.1.4 (c), it appears the operating principle of this device complicates the problem. Further, I also believe this "drop down" mechanism, in the above scenario, could create the potential for the bar to become jammed against a passenger's legs as a result of this "roller and track" drop down mechanism.

I would also like to know if there has been any further developments at NHTSA regarding the R-Bar subject since Mr. Rice responded to Mr. Hecker of Micho (May 14 letter from NHTSA). The N.J. Department of Pupil Transportation is under the impression that Micho Industries had planned to write to NHTSA again to suggest that only a different "interpretation" of their test data would resolve this issue.

I have a list of questions I am sending to Micho Industries covering many of the things you and I had discussed. I will keep you advised as to their response to these questions and any other new developments. I would appreciate any comments you may have regarding this R-Bar subject.

ID: nht92-4.20

DATE: 09/02/92

FROM: JAMES A. WESTPHAL --OSHKOSH CHASSIS DIVISION, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-03-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO JAMES A. WESTPHAL (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to seek clarification as to which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for brake systems must the vehicles described herein comply.

Oshkosh Chassis Division of Oshkosh Truck Corporation is a manufacturer of incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab). The chassis being addressed in this letter are sold to manufacturers who complete and sell the vehicles as "motor homes". The chassis for which we are requesting clarification are the "X" and "V" models both of which are over 10,000 pounds GVWR but no larger than 26,000 pounds GVWR.

We plan to install brake systems in these two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disk brakes at each wheel. This system is commonly known as "air-over-hydraulic" brakes. Please refer to the attached diagram showing the service brake system logic. The air components of the system include an air compressor and pressure governor, air dryer, air reservoirs, service brake control (treadle) valve, parking brake control valve and spring applied/air release parking brake chamber, and piping/valves/gauges/switches as required. Energy from the compressed air is transmitted to the hydraulic fluid through two air/hydraulic converters (brake boosters). The converter/booster increases the output hydraulic pressure approximately 16 times greater than the input air pressure. The hydraulic components of the system include disk brakes at each wheel, fluid reservoirs, and piping between the air hydraulic converters and disk brakes. Split service brake systems will be used.

Please answer the following compliance questions concerning the vehicles and brake system described above:

1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of FMVSS 121 applicable to trucks?

2. Must the brake system comply with requirements of FMVSS 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles?

3. If SS121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disk brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system-dynamometer tests?

4. If compliance to parts of both SS121 and SS105 is required must the system meet the requirements of SS105 Sections S5.1.2 Partial failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp?

Thank you for your consideration and response to these questions.ATTACHMENTS (TEXT AND GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-4.21

DATE: 09/01/92 EST

FROM: JULIA WALL -- HEAD, THE TRINITY SCHOOL OF TEXAS

TO: DOT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-03-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO JULIA WALL (A40; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Please send a copy, of the federal law that regulates student transportation in general and as it specifically relates to multiple passenger vans.

Thank you for your assistance. The copy should be sent to:

ID: nht92-4.22

DATE: 09/01/92 EST

FROM: PAUL GOULD -- SENIOR ENGINEER, FRICTION MATERIALS, LUCAS HEAVY DUTY BRAKING SYSTEM

TO: PAUL RICE -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-19-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO PAUL GOULD (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: I have recently been conducting dynamometer tests to FMVSS 121, here at Cwmbran, and I have some questions which I would like to pose to you as a matter of clarification on the actual meaning of "Average deceleration Rate" and its tolerance.

Taking the Brake Power Test, as an example, the FMVSS states: S5.4.2 "shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average of 9fpsps".

When conducting such tests on our dynamometers, we would carry these out in Constant Torque Mode. The dynamometer is given a deceleration to achieve, and the pressure is modulated around that figure depending on the frictional variations during the stop.

For the Brake Power Test, the dynamometer would attempt to achieve 2.7 m/s2 (in SI units) or 26.49%g.

A typical result obtained from out tests is: Stop 1 26.55%g Stop 2 26.17%g Stop 3 25.93%g Stop 4 26.10%g Stop 5 26.13%g Stop 6 26.05%g Stop 7 25.85%g Stop 8 25.96%g Stop 9 25.94%g Stop 10 25.63%g

This represents a control capability to within 5% (although on the low side).

The FMVSS does not however state this either as a minimum or maximum deceleration.

The points on which I require clarification are:

1) Results presented in this way appear to be lower than required for FMVSS, however, given that only a 5% shift exists are these acceptable, bearing in mind that the more crucial requirements are the pressure limitations and the Hot Stop deceleration rate.

2) It is my interpretation that the deceleration rate is only a Target in order to fade the Linings, and to within an error of 5%, our method is acceptable, rather than aim for a higher deceleration rate, which may mean much higher average deceleration than that stated in the FMVSS. This is also not strictly correct. I also wish to add that during the testing, the pressure utilised was well within the FMVSS demands.

I am sure that it is just a matter of interpretation, but it is vital to clear this up for future testing commitments.

ID: nht92-4.23

DATE: August 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/11/92 from Steven Henderson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 11, 1992, commenting on my response to you of June 29 with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions regulating the modulation of motorcycle headlighting systems.

In my letter, I informed you that the device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108, and would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with the standard. I also advised you that if a motorcycle owner could install the device, there would be no violation of Federal law, and that the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states.

In your latest letter, you "agree that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands." However, "if the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case," you believe "that the granting of an exception should be considered by the NHTSA."

As I understand it, your principal argument as raised on page 2 of your August 11 letter is that it is improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon the specifications of that section, are misplaced.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, your device becomes subject to another provision of Standard No. 108 that I did not mention in my June letter. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the installation, as original equipment, of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. Application of paragraph S5.1.3 returns us to my comments in June that your device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Thus, under paragraph S5.1.3, installation of the device as aftermarket equipment, if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would continue to be prohibited by Federal law.

Your latest letter also addresses the issues of taillamp and turn signal conformance. You argue that

"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. *** 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 headlamp 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."

The law that applies to your argument is Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.7(b) states in pertinent part that "On each...motorcycle...when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps...shall also be activated." Thus, under Standard No. 108 the taillamps must always be activated when the headlamps are activated.

The device also functions through the horn button to cause the turn signal lamps to flash at a rate higher than the maximum permitted by Standard No. 108. In your view, the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are in simultaneous use will be rare. However, if they 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."

We consider that paragraph S5.1.3 applies here as well, and that a flash of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz. There could be another undesirable consequence as well. When NHTSA proposed allowing modulating headlamps, commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction, akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. NHTSA observed that the reaction was most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Although your device does not operate at night, its frequency is at the threshold where photic reactions can occur, and we want to bring this fact to your attention.

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders. You have suggested writing an "exception" in Standard No. 108 for a period of one or two years so that the safety benefits of the device can be evaluated. We have a procedure under which a manufacturer of motorcycles can petition for a temporary exemption of up to two years, applicable to 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that it would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Perhaps you can interest a manufacturer in petitioning for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 108 on this basis.

You may also petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety. The agency has no plans to initiate rulemaking on its own initiative to permit your device.

ID: nht92-4.24

DATE: August 25, 1992

FROM: Jerry Beck

TO: Mr. Rice

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jerry Beck (A40; VSA 102(4)

TEXT:

I have a product I would like to market at the consumer level. My product is reflective decals that would be placed on vehicles. I would like to know of any regulatory considerations before beginning to market the product.

To give you a better understanding about my product here is the basic idea. One decal will be placed on the back side of the rear view mirror and the other will be placed on the rear bumper. Sizes are approximately 2 x 8 inches for the front and 3 x 7 inches for the rear sign. Words and a symbol will only be reflective.

My concern is I do not want to market any product that would be either illegal or create a driving hazard. I have spoken with an accredited product testing company and they did not know what specification or if any apply to reflective decals. I would appreciate you providing me with any requirements so I can ensure my product will be both legal and safe for consumer use.

Since I have not started marketing yet please keep the information in this letter confidential. Thank you for your help in this matter.

ID: nht92-4.25

DATE: August 25, 1992

FROM: Paul D. Barron -- Professional Technologies International Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- NHTSA Chief Counsel; Marvin Shaw

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Paul D. Barron (A40; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Thanks for your help on the possible requirements from NHTSA on our UV Heat Shield product. As I understand it this product can be self certified and needs no certification from the federal government.

Please confirm this in formal documentation to me at your earliest convenience.

Attachment

PRODUCT ANALYSIS SOLAR SHIELD

(Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht92-4.26

DATE: August 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Chuck Anderson -- Assistant Commissioner for Public Safety, State of Minnesota

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/31/86 from Erika Z. Jones to Clennie H. Murphy, Jr.; Also attached to letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow

TEXT:

This refers to your recent telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff regarding the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards to buses used to transport children to and from Head Start facilities.

Please be advised that it remains the opinion of this agency that Head Start facilities are preprimary schools. Therefore, new buses sold to Head Start centers for use in transporting Head Start participants to and from school must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Enclosed for your information are two opinions previously issued by this office explaining our underlying rationale: Memorandum to Clennie H. Murphy, Jr., Acting Associate Commissioner, Head Start Bureau, dated January 31, 1986; and letter to Mr. Charles Pekow, Editor, Day Care Information Service, Bethesda, MD, dated September 27, 1985. Also enclosed is a coy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, issued jointly by the Federal Highway Administration and this agency. This guideline may be found at 56 Federal Register 19270, dated April 26, 1991.

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.27

DATE: August 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal and Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/92 from S. Watanabe (signature by P.P. F. Nakayama) to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 7, 1992, with respect to the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of two configurations of rear stop/taillamps and center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) on passenger cars.

In your Figure 1, the stop/taillamps are mounted at 72 inches height above the road surface, while the CHMSL is mounted 3 inches below the rear window. In your Figure 2, the stop/taillamps are again mounted at 72 inches while the CHMSL is mounted above the rear window and between the stop/taillamps. You believe that both Figures depict a conforming rear lighting scheme under Standard No. 108.

You are correct. Standard NO. 108 does not specify any spatial relationship between the CHMSL and stop lamps or taillamps. It permits the CHMSL to be mounted anywhere on the vertical centerline of the passenger car, but not lower than 3 inches below the rear window. Standard No. 108 also permits stop and taillamps to be mounted not higher than 72 inches above the road surface. Your two Figures do not exceed these regulatory parameters, and thus, each is permitted by Standard No. 108.

However, the research that proved the efficacy of the CHMSL in addressing the problem of rear end collisions was based upon a triangular configuration of stop lamps in which the CHMSL was the apex. We note that the CHMSL in Figure 1 is at the apex of an inverted triangle, while in Figure 2 the CHMSL is simply a lamp in a horizontal array. It is possible that the benefits of the CHMSL would not be realized through use of the configurations depicted in Figures 1 and 2, even if they are permitted by Standard No. 108.

ID: nht92-4.28

DATE: August 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/6/92 from R.J. Misorski to NHTSA Legal Council (OCC 7638)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You write with reference to an amendment that became effective December 1, 1991, requiring a minimum of 12 square inches of lens area for rear stop or turn signals on vehicles over 80 inches wide, regardless of the separation between lamps. You request confirmation of your feeling that "equipment manufactured prior to December 1, 1991 would be exempt from this ruling", and that "it only applies to equipment that is manufactured after December 1, 1991." You have asked for this interpretation to "ensure compliance with our equipment fleet."

What the amendments require is that multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which are manufactured on and after December 1, 1991, be equipped with stop and turn signal lamps that meet the new requirements. Stop and turn signal lamps which were manufactured prior to that date that do not meet the new requirements are permissible to replace original equipment of the same type on vehicles manufactured before December 1, 1991, but they cannot be used as either original or replacement stop and turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured on and after December 1, 1991. Furthermore, Standard No. 108 continues to allow manufacture and sale on and after December 1, 1991, of the old type of stop and turn signal lamps for replacement of original equipment on vehicles manufactured prior to December 1, 1991.

I hope that this assists you with your compliance question. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.