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.

ID: nht92-4.7

DATE: September 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lyle Walheim -- Lieutenant, Motor Carrier and Inspection Services, Wisconsin Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/92 from Lyle Walheim to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7495)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking a clarification of whether Wisconsin's current requirements for the activation of stop signal arms on school buses would comply with the stop signal arm requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. Your letter was prompted by my June 17, 1992 interpretation to Blue Bird Body Company. After evaluating the information provided in your letter, together with the information previously supplied by Blue Bird, we have reconsidered our assessment of the Wisconsin requirements. Subject to the qualifications discussed below, it is our reconsidered view that the Wisconsin requirements are not preempted by Standard No. 131 and that Blue Bird can continue to supply buses meeting Wisconsin's specifications, with the addition of the audible warning device described in Blue Bird's letter.

The distinguishing feature of Wisconsin's requirement is that it ties the operation of the stop arm to the opening of the service door, not to the operation of the red flashing lamps. In practice, the lamps on a Wisconsin bus equipped with a four-lamp system would operate like those on a bus equipped with an eight-lamp system, with the red lamps (instead of yellow lamps) flashing while the bus is coming to a stop. Since S5.1.4(b)(ii) of Standard No. 108 requires the yellow lamps on an eight-lamp system to turn off automatically and the red lamps to turn on automatically whenever the entrance door opens, and since the red lamps on the Wisconsin buses would operate whenever the entrance door is open, the Wisconsin buses would conform to the requirements of Standard No. 108. That standard does not prohibit the flashing of red lamps on a four-lamp system while the service door is closed.

For purposes of Standard No. 131, the question is whether there is any circumstance in which the stop arm may be deactivated while the red lamps are flashing. From the standpoint of practicality, we agree with you that the stop arm should not function before the bus has stopped and the driver has opened the service door. We further believe it is consistent with the purpose of the standard for the stop arm to be deactivated on a Wisconsin bus before the bus stops, even though the bus's red lamps may be flashing. To reconcile this view with the language of the standard, however, requires us to address the requirement of the standard that the arm must extend "at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated...."

Standard No. 131 expressly contemplates a situation in which the stop arm would not automatically extend despite the operation of the red lamps. The final clause of S5.5 provides that "a device may be installed that prevents

the automatic extension of a stop signal arm." The question in Wisconsin's situation is whether the manual switch that activates the red signal lamps but not the stop arm would qualify as such a device. In our view, it does. Since the only time the red lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to operate is when the entrance door is open, and since the Wisconsin system would automatically extend the stop arm when the entrance door opens, we believe that the manual switch in the Wisconsin system can be fairly characterized as an override device that prevents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm until the red lamps are required to operate. For an override to be permitted, the device must comply with the other provisions set forth in S5.5, including the presence of a continuous or intermittent signal.

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: nht92-4.8

DATE: September 14, 1992

FROM: Preston Golder -- Road Reflectors

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Preston Golder (A-40; Std. 108) and letter dated 4/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Allan Schwartz (Std. 108)

TEXT:

I've been marketing a product for automobiles here in New York State that has become quite popular. I would like to market this product in other states and would first want to find if there were legal problems I might run into. According to the gentlemen I spoke to on the telephone (Mr. Richard Van Iderstine at 202-366-2720) they are not illegal but I should write you to get a written verification of this.

The product is Neon lighting sealed in Lexan plastic with high voltage wires (same as the spark plug wires) extending out of each end. These Neon tubes are sealed and waterproofed at each end of the Lexan. The wires connect in sequence to four of these neon tubes and connect to a power supply that is mounted under the vehicles hood and to the firewall. (enclosed diagram and mounting instructions) They are then connected to a separate toggle switch.

These lights were originally intended for car shows, giving the effect the car was riding on cloud of color.

Young people seeing this effect started purchasing them and a whole new auto accessory was born. They are very popular in both New York and Florida where even neon car clubs have developed.

I was forced to retire two years ago because of a rare lung disease. I soon became bored and as a true entrepreneur soon found a product that even a sagging economy didn't seem to touch. After all most people that buy this product are the young people who are still living at home with mom and pop. They spend their salaries on their vehicles and social life.

I believe this product would do well nationally, however my investors are hesitant because it may be considered illegal in some states, one is California. California with all their car buffs would be a tremendous market for this product.

If you could give me some idea from a Federal standpoint whether we should proceed with trying to market nationally and what problems we may encounter, I would greatly appreciate any help you may be able to give.

I plan on visiting California in November and hope to start marketing this product at that time. I've enclosed several pictures and information.

ID: nht92-4.9

DATE: September 14, 1992

FROM: Dave Durenberger -- United States Senator

TO: Office of the Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/15/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dave Durenberger (A40; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Attached is a letter from one of my constituents concerning a matter in which I believe you can be of assistance. In order to respond to Mark Gassert, I would like to have available an interpretation and explanation of any federal standards that would regulate the One-Hand Driving System offered by General Motors.

In responding to me, please return the attached correspondence along with your reply in duplicate to the attention of my assistant, Christina Pierson, at 1020 Plymouth Building, 12 S. 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.

Attachment

August 20, 1992 116 Douglas Avenue PO Box E Moose Lake, MN 55767

David Durenberger U.S. Senator 1020 Plymouth Building 12 S. 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402

Dear Mr. Durenberger:

I have no use of my legs or left arm, and I use special hand controls to operate my vehicle. When I purchased my vehicle, a 1985 Chevy van, I also purchased a Drivemaster One-Arm-Drive hand control system. I completed drivers training, and passed my drivers license exam, with this vehicle.

Recently, I have been thinking about replacing the vehicle. Like most Minnesotan's, I find that winter driving takes it's toll. I want to replace my vehicle with a new van.

Even though my hand controls can be placed in a new vehicle; I was told that it was impossible to put my hand controls in a new vehicle, because of 1992 federal safety standards.

I would like to know what these safety regulations say, why they exist, why they effect me, and who proposed them.

Thank you for the attention you have given my problem. If you need to reach me, I can be reached by mail or leave message with Mrs. Gassert at (218) 485-4085.

Sincerely,

Mark Gassert

ID: nht92-5.1

DATE: August 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tilghman (Tilman) Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/92 from Tilman (Tilghman) Spingler to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7502)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of July 9, 1992, asking for a "quick answer" to your question regarding the aim of replaceable bulb headlamps.

Specifically, you ask whether the requirement of "a vertical aim range of +/-4 degrees and a horizontal aim range of +/- 2.5 degrees" means "that a headlamp has to meet both ranges in addition, i.e. 2.5 degrees horizontal at a full range of 4 degrees vertical and vice-versa?"

The requirements to which you refer are found in paragraphs S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S7.7.3 requires in pertinent part that "When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its vertical aim shall be not less than +/- 4 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application." Paragraph S7.7.4 requires that "When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its horizontal aim shall be not less than 2.5 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application."

We call your attention to paragraph S7.7.2.2. With respect to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa, the paragraph requires conformance with respect to the applicable photometrics "with the lens at any position relative to the reflector within the aim range limits of paragraph S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 or any combination." This clearly indicates that when a replaceable bulb headlamp that is aimable as provided in S7.7.2.2 is adjusted to the extreme of its range, and at all positions in between, it must continue to meet all applicable photometrics. We interpret this requirement as also applying to headlamp systems of replaceable bulbs subject to S7.7.3 and S7.7.4, but aimable in a manner outside S7.7.2 (such as movement of the entire headlamp, rather than its lens or reflector).

I hope that this answers your question. Please note that under recent amendments to Standard No. 108, paragraphs S7.7.2.2, S7.7.3, and S7.7.4 have been renumbered respectively S7.8.2.2, S7.8.3, and S7.8.4.

ID: nht92-5.10

DATE: July 28, 1992

FROM: Tom Mario -- Vice President Sales, Sealco Air Controls, Inc.

TO: Steve Wood -- Office Staff Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/25/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Tom Mario (A39; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I had a recent phone conversation with Mr. Richard Carter about trailers using the "protected separate reservoir", which has a 60 P.S.I. pressure protection valve built in it.

With 60 P.S.I. in the supply line and 60 P.S.I. on top of the piston in the spring brake control valve, you will have a 90 P.S.I. holding the spring brakes off, because of the built in ratio feature, when the protected reservoir is fully charged.

We are requesting your interpretation of the current regulation as to the following item-

If a O.E.M. decides to use the system with a protected reservoir, what pressure must be retained in the supply line with any single leakage type failure in the service brake system?

ID: nht92-5.11

DATE: July 24, 1992

FROM: Tim Flagstad

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/12/92 from Paul J. Rice to Tim Flagstad (A39; Part 591; Std. 115; VSA 1392)d))

TEXT:

I am writing in regards to your letter dated July 20, 1992. In your letter you reffer to Joan Moniz stating that "the truck bears no certification label". I can not say if the 1981 Kenworth VIN. #M911042 has a certification label on it now that it is in Hawaii. I do know that the truck had one when it came through Customs and when we had posession of the truck here in Calif.

To title the truck in California we had to supply Calif. DMV with a 'Verification of Vehicle Certificate'. We had a licensed Vin Verifier verify the Vin number along with the Federal Certification Label. We were given a signed DMV Verification of Vehicle Form attesting to the VIN # and it's location and to the presence of a Federal Certification Label and that it agrees with the VIN. number. This was submitted to the Calif. DMV along with the other title documents.

I also have several photos that were sent to me of the truck when it was in Canada by the Dealer I bought the truck from. One shows the cab with the driver's door open and the certification label is visible on the door edge.

I can attest to having seen the label myself when the truck was here. I have spoken to the Dealer I bought the truck from and he says he inspected the truck personally before it went to Customs and that the label was definitly on the truck.

I have spoken to the Kenworth Truck Co. and was told that if the Certification Label is missing a factory replacement would be available if the truck is brought to the local Kenworth Dealership for inspection and affixing the label.

As the Certification Label was on the truck at the time it came through Customs, how would this affect the entry status of this vehicle? Would you please clarify this for me?

Could you please fax me your written response to this letter to (619) 477-6249 and mail the original to: Tim Flagstad, 220 W. 14th St. National City, Ca. 91950.

ID: nht92-5.12

DATE: July 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William E. Lawler -- Manager, Specifications, Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/92 from William E. Lawler to Mary Versailles (OCC 7307)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1992, concerning the test requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your questions concern a final rule published on December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63682) clarifying the definition of "seat belt anchorage." That final rule had the effect of requiring seat belt attachment hardware, which previously was not included within the definition of "seat belt anchorage," to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 210. Your five questions are addressed below.

The first three questions refer to a safety belt design which incorporates a retractor.

1. If a test harness is used, can one end of the harness be attached to the attachment hardware (retractor frame), or must it be attached to the retractor spool?

The use of test harnesses for Standard No. 210 testing was permitted in a final rule published April 30, 1990, and effective September 1, 1992. More specifically, the final rule specified that "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" be used to transfer the test loads from the body block to the anchorages during the Standard No. 210 compliance tests. The amended standard also specifies that the attachment of this material should "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing.

The amended definition of "seat belt anchorage" explicitly states that the seat belt anchorage is

any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the retractor spool breaks during a crash, the safety belt will not remain attached to the vehicle. Therefore, the retractor spool is a part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, and, under the definition set forth above, is part of the seat belt anchorage. If a test harness is used, it must be attached such that the retractor spool is tested as part of the seat belt anchorage. The harness may not be attached directly to the retractor frame, since the retractor spool would not be tested in that instance.

2. If the harness must be attached to the spool, may it be attached around the spool as opposed to being inserted into the spool?

As stated previously, Standard No. 210 specifies use of "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" for Standard No. 210 tests. For compliance tests, NHTSA's preference is to use the original safety belt webbing whenever possible. When this cannot be done, due to elongation or breakage of the original webbing, NHTSA's first choice is to attach substitute webbing or other material to the original webbing near the anchorage. If the substitute material cannot be attached to the original webbing, NHTSA would attach the substitute webbing directly to the retractor spool. If the substitute webbing cannot be inserted into the spool in the same manner as the original webbing, attaching the substitute webbing around the spool would most closely duplicate the geometry of the original webbing.

3. We assume it is the intent of the agency to test only the strength of the attachment hardware--not the locking mechanism of the retractor built in accordance with FMVSS 209.

The strength requirement in S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that anchorages must withstand certain forces when tested under specified conditions. Under S4.2.3, permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. If breakage of the locking mechanism (a part of the anchorage because it is "involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure") caused separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, such breakage would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test, as the anchorage would not have withstood the test forces. However, if the locking mechanism broke or released during the test without allowing the webbing to separate from the vehicle structure, the agency would not consider it a failure of the strength requirement test, since the belt would still be anchored to the vehicle structure.

4. A commonly used design is the "cable buckle". The buckle assembly is positioned in convenient reach of the seat occupant by attaching the buckle to a cable by a method called swaging. The attachment hardware consists of a flat end containing a hole for an attaching bolt and a ferrule which is swaged to the cable. The ferrule and the flat end are made in one piece. Please confirm that the attachment ferrule bolted to the seat/vehicle is what is required to withstand the forces dictated by FMVSS 210; separation of the cable from the ferrule would not constitute malfunction of the test harness and not non-compliance to FMVSS 210.

In the December 5, 1991 final rule, the agency stated that "the definition of seat belt anchorage included only the attachment points of the seat belt, and not the webbing, straps, or similar device, or the buckles which comprise the seat belt itself." For this design, the cable is a "similar device" to seat belt webbing, and would be considered part of the seat belt, not the anchorage. If the cable broke, the agency would consider that an incomplete test, just like breakage of webbing. However, it would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test if the cable pulled out of the ferrule, since such pulling out would result from a failure of the ferrule rather than a broken cable.

5. Please confirm that the test harness could delete the buckle mechanism and attach directly to the upper end of the cable in the cable/ferrule assembly.

The answer to this question is yes. As stated previously, buckles are part of the seat belt, not the anchorage, and therefore, are not subject to the strength requirement of Standard No. 210.

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.