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)

ID: nht92-4.49

DATE: August 6, 1992

FROM: Mike Hawkes -- General Manager, Uinque Motors and Upholstery, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/17/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Mike Hawkes (A39; Std. 207; 208; 209; 210)

TEXT:

We wish to install 26 sets of lap belts in a mini bus for a retirement home. Our question is, can we attach these belts to the existing seat forms or do we need to drill holes through the floor and attach them this way. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-4.5

DATE: 09/15/92

FROM: WILBUR D. OWENS, III -- BOUHAN, WILLIAMS AND LEVY

TO: OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: ROY E. PAUL, ESQ.

TITLE: RE: JOSEPH L. PHELPS, JR. VS. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND GRUMMAN OLSON, A DIVISION OF GRUMMAN ALLIED INDUSTRIES, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, SAVANNAH DIVISION, CASE NO. CV 492-115

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-10-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE (SIGNED BY JOHN WOMACK) TO WILBER D. OWENS, III (A40; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Please note that we are the attorneys for Grumman Olson in the above-referenced lawsuit. Grumman Olson and General Motors have been sued by Mr. Phelps as a result of injuries he received in an accident while driving a 14-foot Kurbmaster, manufactured in 1977, and generally consisting of Chevy and Grumman Olson parts.

The Plaintiff has centered his case upon allegations that the vehicle had too great a tendency to roll over, that there was no three-point seat belt restraint system, and that the steering column and wheel were allowed to intrude into the space of the driver. We have looked at the current regulations concerning vehicles and would request your assistance in interpreting same and in carrying some of these regulations back to 1977.

We are interested in the current regulations covering these "step-vans" and, in particular, those which concern areas covered by the Plaintiff's theories of liability. Thus, some of our main areas of interest are from 49 CFR 571.20 through 49 CFR 571.220. We note that most of these regulations in @ S2 set forth the vehicles to which said regulation applies. Most apply to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and busses. However, there are a number of exceptions for "walk-in vans". The first question we have is whether a 14-foot Kurbmaster would be considered a truck or a walk-in van, or sometimes both.

We would appreciate your assistance in informing us of how we can receive corresponding regulations for 1977. In particular, if you have someone who works for you with knowledge in the area of step-vans, we would like to be able to speak to them on the telephone to obtain a clearer understanding of the current regulations and the past regulations.

We sincerely appreciate your assistance concerning the above and look forward to speaking to you in the near future.

With best wishes, I am very truly yours.

ID: nht92-4.50

DATE: 08/06/92

FROM: CHRISTOPHER LEONE -- NEWBOLD DESIGN

TO: TAYLOR VINSON

TITLE: REGULATIONS FOR EXPERIMENTAL VEHICLE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-9-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO CHRISTOPHER LEONE (A40; PART 555; VSA 102)

TEXT: Our company, NewBold Design, is an industrial design firm. We are in the process of designing and testing an experimental low emission vehicle which will be driven chiefly by means of electric power stored in batteries.

What we are seeking is the rules and regulations concerning the construction and licensing of this vehicle. Our goal is to create one of these vehicles, testing electric and/or electric/alternate fuel assisted vehicle ideas along the way.

Our specifications:

Experimental Vehicle (one)

2-3 passenger

Electric power

Batteries/solar cells

possible alternate fuel internal combustion assist

not for production

55 mph top speed, use on road

We need:

Rules and regulations concerning the licensing and use of the vehicle on streets/highways.

Thank you for your assistance,

ID: nht92-4.6

DATE: September 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Hamlin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/26/92 from Richard Hamlin to Andrew Card (OCC-7479)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 26, 1992 to Secretary Card, inquiring whether maintenance of school buses in safe operating condition is prescribed by Federal law or regulation. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it applies to school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA does not have authority over the use and maintenance of school buses. However, the individual states do have such authority. For details on what requirements your state has in this area, you may wish to contact Mr. Mike Roscoe, Director of Pupil Transportation, Kentucky Department of Education, Frankfort, KY 40601. School buses used in interstate commerce may also be subject to standards issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on those standards, you may contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Suite 3404, this address.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.