ID: nht92-7.3

DATE: May 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Raymond B. Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/29/92 from Raymond B. Kesler to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 7175)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 29, 1992 letter asking the agency to reconsider its decision to deny your earlier petition for rulemaking to amend Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. As explained below, your request is again denied, for the same reasons explained in the previous denial.

You initially petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. After reviewing the petition, the agency denied your request, finding that (1) a safety need for a wider field of view for passenger side convex mirrors had not been established and (2) your suggested mirror system would, by comparison with currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduced a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed. (56 FR 42715; August 29, 1991).

In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, styled a "petition for reconsideration," you restated your previous request for the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require a mirror with a 25 inch radius of curvature and a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. That request does not provide any new information beyond what was presented in your initial petition.

Petitions for reconsideration may be filed only in response to an agency rule. See 49 CFR S553.35(a). A denial of a petition for rulemaking is not a rule, since such denials do not amend any existing provision in the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for reconsideration.

It is possible that there might be instances in which additional information has become available since the agency considered and denied the initial petition for rulemaking. If such a situation were to arise, the petitioner could file a new petition for rulemaking, asking again for the requested action based upon the newly available information. NHTSA would consider this as a petition for rulemaking. As noted above, your correspondence did not provide any new information. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for rulemaking. Instead, your correspondence is simply a request for NHTSA to take the same action you previously asked us to take in a petition for rulemaking. Absent any new information, there is no reason for NHTSA to reexamine its previous conclusion on this matter.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of the agency's regulations on your part. In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, you made the statement that your product "should be

approved to be made available to the driver as an optional choice." In our notice denying your petition, the agency tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited from being installed on vehicles by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. However, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to the required mirrors, for the safety reasons explained at length in the denial notice. See 56 FR 42716; August 29, 1991. Hence, your product may be installed as a supplement to the required mirrors on current vehicles, without any amendments to Standard No. 111.

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: nht92-7.30

DATE: April 23, 1992

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

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Congressman Jim Ramstad; Taylor Vinson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to C. Scott Thiss (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On April 16, 1992 we met with Mr. Taylor Vinson and other representatives from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to discuss a new product which we plan to manufacture and market. This meeting was initiated because of two letters sent to us on January 23, 1992 and March 31, 1992 from NHTSA, regarding objections to our aftermarket tail light product.

The purpose of this letter is to request NHTSA to formally reconsider and review its position as presented in your earlier letters.

BACKGROUND

S&W Plastics, Inc. has developed an auxiliary safety signaling device for trucks and semi-trailers. The name of this product is High Light. This product would be sold in the aftermarket to independent haulers, fleet operations and OEM suppliers.

Our master distributor, Cycle Country Accessories Corp. requested a review of this product in December 1991. Your agency responded with a letter dated January 23, 1992. In order to arrange a meeting with NHTSA S&W requested the help of Congressman Jim Ramstad's office. The response to Mr. Ramstad's letter on March 31, 1992, reiterated the objections raised in the January letter.

Because several changes had been made to the product since NHTSA's January letter, we requested a meeting with Mr. Taylor Vinson. At that meeting S&W was able to demonstrate the light, address NHTSA concerns and discuss the changes we have made.

The result was Mr. Vinson's suggestion that S&W request a reconsideration of the issues raised in previous letters.

NHTSA CONCERNS

The previous documentation provided by NHTSA raised concerns regarding High Light. These concerns centered on the issue as to whether our safety signaling device could possibly "render inoperative" the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. Three objections were raised.

- the device did not meet the locational requirements of Standard 108, and

- the hazard warning system, by operating through the brake system, could send a confusing message to following vehicles, and

- the stop lamp signal formed an inverted "V", which could be confusing to following vehicles.

By rendering inoperative the required lighting systems, it is be a violation of Federal law for a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair shop to install our light. This would greatly limit our market potential and we would not proceed with production and marketing.

PRODUCT CHANGES

As we demonstrated during the meeting with Mr. Vinson, the current version of High Light has undergone several revisions. In fact, based upon comments from the meeting, we have made additional changes to more fully meet Standard 108 and to eliminate the "render inoperative" issue.

First, while our device cannot be centered exactly on the centerline of a truck or semi-trailer, it is located only slightly off-center. Because of door openings and locking mechanisms, it would be impossible for our device to be placed on centerline. Its placement slightly off center to the left makes it very visible to a following driver, who would be in a direct line of sight.

A second change is the brake light signal. We have changed the lighting configuration from an inverted "V" to only the two horizontal lights in the center. This should not create an interpretation problem.

Third, we have dropped entirely the hazard warning lighting plans. This is to avoid a confusing message. Also there are many other warning devices and signals which a driver can use to indicate a hazard situation.

CONCLUSION

Based upon our meeting with NHTSA and product changes already made, we believe High Light complies with Standard 108. We believe this product will reduce truck accidents by providing better visibility of turn signals and brake lights to following vehicles.

In order that we may proceed with the manufacture and sale of the product, we ask you to review NHTSA's previous position. S&W does not intend to consciously violate any Federal law, and therefore we request a reconsideration in writing of your objections.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht92-7.31

DATE: April 23, 1992

FROM: John J. Duncan, Jr. -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Jerry Ralph Curry to John J. Duncan, Jr. (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

I am writing in regard to a problem which has been brought to my attention by Clarence Lowe of the Campbell County Comprehensive High School.

Attached is correspondence received from Mr. Lowe in which he outlines the difficulties being experienced in using vans for the Campbell County School System.

As you may know, Campbell County made the national news recently when they simply ran out of funds for bus transportation to get children to school. Campbell County is a very rural area. Furthermore, because of economic hardships, the average income per capita is very low making it even more difficult for parents to get their children to school if transportation is not provided by the school system.

Even though bus transportation was restored recently, another problem has arisen with regard to using vans to transport students for such things as off-campus curriculum experiences or extra-curricular activities. In the instance of extra-curricular activities, many times, because of this restriction, this means splitting the students up and transporting them in automobiles so they will be able to get to the event.

Although none of us want to put our children at risk, I wonder what the logic of this restriction is if, in fact, it only results in either restricting a child's education, such as off-campus curriculum, or transporting children in an even less safe manner by reverting to individual cars filled to capacity.

Unfortunately, with the financial restraints we are all witnessing at the federal, state and local government levels the added costs of trying to convert these vans to meet the standards set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) appear to have put an unrealistic and unsurmountable burden on our schools.

Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation for the State of Tennessee. Mr. Farmer appears to agree that there may be reason to investigate this matter. At present, Mr. Farmer feels that he has no alternative but to comply with these federal mandates unless directed otherwise by NHTSA. In telephone discussions with your Chief Counsel, Ken Weinstein, there was some question as to whether these restrictions were on the manufacturers of these vans or on the school systems that were using older, previously purchased vans for transportation of students.

Your response specifically outlining what federal requirements must be complied with would be sincerely appreciated. Also, it would be appreciated if you would advise me as to whether or not any changes in regard to the use of older, previously purchased vans were done through specific legislative changes or through regulations.

Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. With best wishes and personal regards, I am your truly.

Attachments

Letter dated 2/2/192

To: Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr.

House of Representatives Attention Judy Whitbred Washington, DC

Dear Congressman Duncan:

The purpose of this letter is to clarify our conversation last week concerning the problem of vans held for use in our vocational programs in the Campbell County (Tennessee) School System.

As you are aware, the Campbell County Board of Education elected to end all bus transportation for its students in late October due to severe budget deficits. This caused a great hardship for our schools, students, parents, and the county in general. Last week the County Commission approved budget transfers within the school budget to allow the restart of bus transportation on February 12, for 37 school days. We still face a possibility of no bus transportation at the end of those 37 days.

The next day after buses stopped running in our county, Tennessee State Department of Education officials within the Pupil Transportation Division informed our county education department that all school vans must be pulled off the road. They cited regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation based on congressional legislation concerning the use of vans to transport students. I forwarded to you, after our conversation, copies that I obtained from our vocational director that related to this matter and seemed to be the basis for which the state department made its decision.

Our county vocational department had assisted our two high schools with the purchase of four vans for the purpose of transporting general building trades students from the school to the job site and back to school each day. This hands-on work experience is vital to teaching students the building trade skill. In addition, the county vocational department purchased another van for use by all vocational programs to transports students to off-campus curriculum experiences (such as clinical training for our health occupations students), meetings, conferences, conventions, and other school related functions. The building trades program has always had some types of vans for transportation purposes. Also, our athletic department has their own vans for transporting student athletes to the game sites. They too were pulled off the road. In a

time of no bus transportation and critical budget cuts, another hardship was imposed upon our educational programs.

Thus, the purpose of my contacting your office is to see if the regulations mandated concerning school van usage is still applicable and if so, might there be some relief at the federal level to allow us to use the vans or bring them into compliance without placing our school system in danger of tort liability. We would hope that the cost to comply would not prohibit our using the vans. Due to limited funds and lack of budgeted monies this may not even be an option.

The vans purchased by our vocational department are 15 passenger type. Vans are classified as either multi-purpose passenger vehicles or van conversions. Vans containing more than ten seating accommodations must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. All vans in questions were purchased prior to the November 14, 1990 memo from the Tennessee Department of Education addressing the use of vans. Thus, it appears that our school officials had no knowledge that such regulations applied. Further, a state inspection was held on May 3, 1988, of all buses and vans in our county. All of our vans and the athletic vans passed this inspection. The only requests made of us was to number the vans, install a fire extinguisher and a first-aid kit. Only one of the vocational vans in question was in service at that time. This van, a 1987 Dodge, is held for use by all vocational programs was inspected and passed. Following that time, four new vans were purchased to replace older vans in the general building trades program. Purchased on December 8, 1988, were two 89 Ford vans, on March 21, 1989, one 89 Ford van, and on January 12, 1991, one 90 Ford Van. I am enclosing supporting memos of this inspection and related van purchase transactions.

Upon order from state officials, our vocational director, Miss Sharon Mills, stopped all vocational instructors from using the vans to transport students. Since that time our building trade students have not been to a job site for training. There is no way to transport them. Using school buses is much too expensive as those buses are privately owned. An off-campus building project had to be canceled due to the transportation problem. Their vans sit parked on the campus. An option might be to sell all the vans and use the money received from the sale toward purchase of "approved" vans. That might sound good, but there is no way to replace like numbers and the cost of new vehicles would not be something affordable in our already strapped school budget.

The van which I am most familiar with is the 1987 Dodge. I have used this van to take students to leadership conferences, conventions, competitive events, and other related programs that concern the area which I teach. This van has a tag attached which classifies it as a bus and states that this vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards on the date of manufacture.

To cite an example of our dilemma, on February 6, 1992, I had to use private automobiles to transport 12 students to a competitive event in Knoxville (some 40 miles) while the van could only be used to carry our computer equipment. No students were allowed to ride in the van. This is the same problem that our athletic teams face on a regular basis while their vans sit parked or carry their equipment. The burden of getting transportation has

placed many restrictions upon our curricula and extra-curricula activities. Our students stand again to be the losers in the whole matter. I am already faced with finding suitable transportation for my students to their state competition in Nashville on March 12-14, and the national competition in Cincinnati in late April. This is a similar problem faced by Several of my colleagues in our county and apparently across the state.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in investigating this matter. Please let me know if I can supply additional information. You may reach me at (615) 562-9118 (school) or (615) 562-1303 (home). You can reach the vocational director Sharon Mills, at (615) 562-8377.

Sincerely yours,

Clarence Lowe, Instructor Office Education/Computer Technology

Letter dated 3/20/92

To: Congressman John Duncan House of Representatives 115 Cannon Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Attention: Ms. Judy Whitbred

Dear Congressman Duncan:

In 1975 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) amended its definition of a school bus to include vehicles that are "likely to be significantly used" for pupil transportation. The memo, in an effort to further clarify the agency's action, noted that "VAN TYPE VEHICLES, USED FOR MANY PURPOSES, WILL BE PARTICULARLY AFFECTED BY THE NEW AMENDMENT --- SINCE THEY ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR, OR INTENDED TO BE USED AS, A PRIMARY SOURCE OF TRANSPORTATION FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN. THE AMENDMENT MAKES THE VANS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS (FMVSS) if they are SOLD FOR USE AS A SCHOOL BUS". (The effective date of this amendment to the Motor vehicle and School Bus Safety Act, AS AMENDED IN 1974, is OCTOBER 27, 1976). (See Attachment #1)

The FORD RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, a division of the FORD MOTOR COMPANY, issued a bulletin (FRCS Bulletin #923) to its members instructing them not to rent their CLUB WAGONS and SUPER WAGONS for the transportation of PRE PRIMARY, PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS to and from school or school related events since they fall, by virtue of their seating capacity, within the definition of a bus. (Ten (10) capacity or greater) (49 Code of Federal Regulations S 571.3). (See Attachment #2)

In November 1990, we issued a follow-up memo on the subject to all Superintendents/Directors of schools with programs of pupil transportation service in an effort to bring them into total compliance with the provisions of this NHTSA Amendment. (See Attachment #3)

The memo, perhaps, understandably became one of the most, if not the most, controversial memos ever issued from this office for several reasons. In the first place, the use of van type vehicles for school transportation purposes dates from the years of World War II when it was virtually impossible to purchase newly manufactured, or even factory reconditioned, buses. In the next place, these units (VANS) are much more "economical" to purchase than the specially constructed "VAN CONVERSIONS" hence the basis of their growing popularity among school officials as "extracurricular vehicles". Finally, school officials are hard pressed to find accidental data that conclusively supports this highly questionable action on the part of the NHTSA. Few, if any, can document, from personal experience in their own school systems, multifatality accidents involving their useage. They have no problem, however, detailing accidents, though fortunately not multi-fatal at this time, involving the operation of passenger cars, station wagons and other type vehicles placed in service to compensate for their loss.

As the State Director of Pupil Transportation, I have no alternative, as I see it, but to comply with such Federal Regulations unless directed to do otherwise which is something that I do not see forthcoming. I must, therefore, continue my enforcement efforts until the amendment is withdrawn by the NHTSA, which is something else that I do forsee as happening.

Again, thank you for your interest in pupil transportation and for your efforts to assist our school officials in maintaining an "acceptable" level of service for their public school children.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation

cc: Wayne Qualls Captain Ralph Swift

NHTSA 12/30/75 press release

Concerns the definition of school bus. (Text omitted)

ID: nht92-7.32

DATE: April 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark A. Sedlack -- Product Design Manager, Century Products Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/11/92 from Mark A. Sedlack to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7079)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). More specifically, you asked how compliance testing would be conducted for a rear-facing child restraint labeled for use by children weighing up to 25 pounds.

The initial question we must address is what size test dummy would be used for compliance testing. S7.1 of Standard No. 213 provides that the six-month-old dummy is used for testing a child restraint system that is recommended by its manufacturer for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing not more than 20 pounds. S7.2 of Standard No. 213 provides that the three-year-old dummy is used for testing a child restraint system that is recommended by its manufacturer for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing more than 20 pounds. Since the rear-facing child restraint in your example is recommended for use both by children weighing less than and more than 20 pounds, either the six-month-old or the three-year-old dummy could be used in the agency's compliance testing, as provided in S6.1.2.3 of the standard.

Your letter stated that you understood that this rear-facing child restraint would be subject to testing using the three-year-old dummy. However, you indicated that neither your company nor a testing facility understood how the three-year-old dummy could be installed in a rear-facing child restraint. You asked for clarification of how the three-year-old dummy could be installed.

At the outset, I must note that it is impossible for me to offer any guidance for how to install the test dummy in your particular rear-facing child restraint because I do not know the details of your design. I can offer general guidance that you should be able to apply to your particular design.

The procedures to be followed in positioning the three-year-old dummy in any child restraint other than a car bed are set forth in S6.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 213. If the rear-facing child restraint does not physically permit the three-year-old dummy to be positioned in accordance with S6.1.2.3.1, then that rear-facing child restraint cannot be recommended by its manufacturer for use in the rear-facing position by children weighing more than 20 pounds. This conclusion is similar to the agency conclusion announced in a July 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Donald Friedman that an infant restraint so small it cannot accommodate the six-month-old test dummy cannot be certified as complying with Standard No. 213.

In our letter to Mr. Friedman, the agency indicated that rulemaking could be initiated to sanction the use of an additional test dummy to evaluate the performance of a child restraint. However, that rulemaking would have to

include an agency determination that this additional test dummy is a reliable surrogate for measuring the system's performance in an actual crash. We can make the same statements with regard to the situation described in your letter. You stated in your letter that you have tested your company's existing convertible seats in the rear-facing position "with a CAMI dummy modified to 25 pounds with satisfactory results." If you have any information or test data showing that the CAMI dummy so modified is a reliable surrogate for measuring the performance of your convertible systems in the rear-facing position, such information might be helpful to this agency in deciding whether to initiate rulemaking in this area. Until such a rulemaking action were completed and amended provisions in effect, however, you cannot recommend that a child restraint be used for children weighing more than 20 pounds if that child restraint cannot accommodate the three-year-old test dummy.

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

ID: nht92-7.33

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan Schwartz -- President, Tron Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/29/92 from Allan Schwartz to Taylor Vinson (OCC 7064)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 29, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to the acceptability of your product, Lumitron, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Lumitron is described as "an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product." You state that it is "legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle." You further state that both the Florida Highway Patrol and Kevin Cavey of this agency "confirmed" your findings that Lumitron "falls under" Standard No. 108. However, the State of Louisiana has "not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting." It appears that authorities in Louisiana believe Lumitron is legal but it has to be approved by the Commissioner. You have asked us for "a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that state."

Contrary to your assumption and those of the officials you mention, Lumitron is not covered by Standard No. 108. The only aftermarket equipment directly regulated by the standard is equipment intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as headlamps. Such is not the case with Lumitron.

Standard No. 108 was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We have interpreted that Act as prohibiting the installation on a vehicle of aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that, in the words of the statute, "render inoperative in whole or in part" any of the vehicle's required lighting equipment. We understand that Lumitron casts a light on the pavement under the vehicle. We would, of course, be concerned if the intensity of that light served to mask the intensity of such required lighting items as turn signal and stop lamps, or served to distract other drivers so that the lamps required lamps might be considered partially inoperative.

Regulation of aftermarket equipment such as Lumitron is within the jurisdiction of each State where Lumitron is sold and used, and the Commissioner in Louisiana may proceed as he deems fit. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but if you are interested in how the laws of other jurisdictions may affect Lumitron, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht92-7.34

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Al Twyford

TO: Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Al Twyford (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I would like to voice a complaint about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4), which operate at the same time. When approaching these vehicles at night, going in the opposite direction, it has the same effect as a car approaching my vehicle with the high beam headlights on. I have had conversations with the California Highway Patrol and Department of Motor Vehicles, and they claim that these headlamps are approved for auto manufacturers by your department. They claim they can do nothing about the problem, without a change on the matter by your agency.

If you are committed to Highway Safety, why would you approve these headlamps for automobiles? Night driving is bad enough, without adding more vehicles to the highway with these extra bright lights which have the effect of highbeam brightness. I would like to ask that you re-examine your approval of these extra headlamps, and do some further testing under night time driving conditions. I personally have responded to these automobiles with the four lights with a dose of my highbeams to get these drivers to turn off the extra set of headlights. This doesn't seem to work as they either don't realize what they are doing to oncoming traffic, or can't turn off the lower set of lights. I might add that from the rear of my vehicle, it's the same problem; the approaching vehicle has the effect on me of highbeam lights in my rear view mirror and side view mirror.

I would appreciate some feedback on this problem, and what you propose to do about it. If you do nothing, I plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators.

Thank you.

ID: nht92-7.35

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Vernon Wright; Wisconsin Specification File

TITLE: Request for Interpretation: Reference: (1.) 49 CFR Part 571.131 Section S5.5. (2.) Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 300.64 - Stop Signal Arm

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Thomas Turner (A39; Std. 131)

TEXT:

Blue Bird Body Company is in the process of implementing changes to conform to the new stop signal arm requirements of FMVSS 131. Reference 1 requires that, "THE STOP SIGNAL ARM SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum WHENEVER THE RED SIGNAL LAMPS required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 ARE ACTIVATED (emphasis added); except that a device may be installed that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm." The standard continues with requirements for this device including the requirement that an audible signal shall sound when the device is activated.

These requirements are logical and can be implemented in conjunction with the use of the eight light warning systems currently required in 46 of the 50 states; however, when these requirements are considered in terms of a four light warning system, there are certain operational issues that need to be considered. Specifically, the state of Wisconsin requires a four light warning system and a stop signal arm on school buses and has the following requirements for stop signal arms per Reference 2; "(2) Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation."

To meet these requirements, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. In order to comply with the new FMVSS 131 standard, we are adding a warning buzzer that will sound when the alternating red flashing lights are activated but the service door has not yet been opened to activate the stop signal arm. We believe that this system meets the intent of Standard No. 131 but are concerned about compliance with the wording of the standard in terms of requiring "automatic extension" of the stop signal arm. The system described above for Wisconsin provides for manual activation of both the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm and is not "automatic." However, it appears to meet the intent of the standard by having the stop arm extend when the service door is opened and the alternating red flashing lights are on, and by having a warning buzzer activated whenever the arm is not extended and the lights are on.

It is our understanding that the Wisconsin requirements are necessary so that the alternating red flashing lights can be used to warn traffic of an impending stop and the stop signal arm is used to actually stop traffic. They do not

want the stop signal arm to extend automatically when the red lights are activated. For an eight light warning system, the amber lights are used to warn traffic of an impending stop and it is proper for the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm to be activated simultaneously to stop traffic. Since Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require as a minimum a four light warning system and allow an eight light warning system, the requirements of Standard No. 131 must be compatible with both systems.

Based on the above information and reasoning, and with the best interests of school bus safety in mind, Blue Bird requests confirmation that the warning light and stop arm system and operation, as required by Wisconsin and described above, conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 131 section S5.5. Specifically we request written confirmation that when a four light warning system is used and is activated by a driver actuated switch, it is permissible for the stop signal arm to be activated by opening of the service door, provided that an audible signal warns the driver when the alternating red flashing lights are on but the stop signal arm has not been extended.

Blue Bird is working to resolve all system design and operational issues regarding Standard No. 131 in the very near future so that changes in production can be implemented in time to meet the September 1, 1992 effective date. Your prompt consideration and response to this request is, therefore, urgently requested.

ID: nht92-7.36

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Hank Hessey -- President, Hebco Products, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: Subject: D.O.T. 106/S7 Air brake hose

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/92 from Paul J. Rice to Hank Hessey (A39; Std. 106)

TEXT:

I'm writing in regards to the manufacturing of air brake hose no. 106. I would like to have an official opinion on what requirements and testing responsibilities are placed with the manufacturing of such hose, per D.O.T. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-7.37

DATE: April 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Sens -- Researcher, S.E.A., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/26/92 from Michael J. Sens to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7135)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me dated March 26, 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 214, Side Door Strength; and 216, Roof Crush Resistance -- Passenger Cars, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ-7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a "sport utility vehicle" and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., S1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3.

The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions.

While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a "sport-utility vehicle," it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of

33 degrees, departure angle of 25 degrees, breakdown angle of 18 degrees, axle clearance of 7.8", and minimum running clearance of 8.1", and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation.

With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it.

Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: ". . . (C)omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, 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." You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements.

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

ID: nht92-7.38

DATE: April 17, 1992

FROM: Bill Willett

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/8/92 from Paul J. Rice to Bill Willett (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am proud to have the oportunity to have talked with Mr. VanIderstine.

I feel that the flickering brake light is an improvement to the existing dim-bright red light now used.

The back windshield light used since 1986 is also an improvement. The cars before 1986 are the main concern to me. I believe if this were used on older cars that accidents would be prevented.

A survey of Alabama citizens interested in this safety device and how it has affected them over a period of time is one of the first projects of the new unit.

I am interested in knowing what I can do and what I can't do.

Example: Can a 10.00 fee be charged with a survay group member installing it free of charge. Is there any Federal law preventing me from doing research by adding another device to the vehicle lights.

At the present time I'm testing and looking for the proper flickering device to use.

This flickering brake light flashes on and off at a faster rate than that of the turn signal and the emergency flashers.

It is intended to alert the driver that the brakes are applied as long as the brakes are used -- unlike that used in California which I'm told only flashed for a second or two.

Very soon I plan to go to California and get information that might help me in Ala.

At this point it would mean a great deal to me if you responded with a letter supporting my effort in looking for a safer product and hopefully getting a good positive survey.

Sir, if you have any advice on the project I'd sure like the help. Thank you.