ID: nht92-3.22

DATE: 10/08/92

FROM: T. KOUCHI, -- DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: RE.: PHOTOMETRIC TEST METHOD OF HMSL

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-1-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO T. KOUCHI (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: We Would like to ask you some questions about photometric test method of High-Mounted Stop Lamp (HMSL) using Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

BACKGROUND: HMSL is required to conform to SAE J186a which is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108. We know, however, that SAE J1889 has been published as a technical guide to standard practice for LED lighting devices. So, in making photometric measurement of HMSL incorporating LEDs, we usually follow testing method described in Sec. 3.1.5 (Photometry Test) of that SAE document.

PROBLEMS: When we conduct photometric measurements of HMSL incorporating LEDs according to the test method of SAE J1889 as mentioned above, the lamp must be energized, for the measurement of photometric minimums, "until either internal heat buildup saturation has occurred or 30 minutes has elapsed, whichever occurs first" as recommended in Sec. 3.1.5.3. However, since it is rather difficult to determine the exact time of internal heat buildup saturation every time when measuring lamps, we make it a rule to conduct measurement 30 minutes after the lamp energization. We think it is reasonable that the lamp should be energized for stabilization beforehand, because the light output of a lamp changes with time at the beginning of operation due to the unique character of LEDs. But, after energization for such a long time as 30 minutes, the light output decreases by approximately 30% of the initial value depending on the type of lamp.

So we must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense.

SOLUTION: To solve the above mentioned problems, and for reasons as will be stated in the following, we consider that the warm-up time of HMSL incorporating LEDs should be 5 minutes for measurement of photometric minimums.

Reasons: 1) The time duration is usually within a minute or 3 minutes at the longest that a driver keeps to step on the brake pedal. We do not have the statistical data about this time duration, but some members of our staff who drive a car everyday gave us similar values.

2) The light output of the lamp does not always stabilize in 5 minutes, but it is not necessary to take a warm-up time above the time duration the lamp is continuously operated in real driving.

3) SAE J575 "Warpage Test on Devices with Plastic Components" prescribes, in Table 1, operating cycles of individual signal lamps during the warpage test, and it specifies 5 on-5 off operation for a stop lamp. This specification of 5-minute energization deserves attention because it seems to be established taking into consideration actual way of usage of stop lamps.

Based on the above explanation, we would like you to revise FMVSS 108 by adding a new provision, in certain place thereof, specifying that HMSL incorporating LEDs shall be energized for 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minimums. Your view on this matter is highly appreciated.

Furthermore, regarding actual steps of photometric measurement, we ask you to permit the following. We would like to have your comment on this matter also.

STEPS: 1. Measure luminous intensity at H-V axis after the lamp was energized for 5 minutes.

2. After the light output stabilized, measure luminous intensities at all test points including H-V axis.

3. From the results of Steps 1 and 2, calculate the decrease rate of the luminous intensity at H-V axis from the time the lamp was energized for 5 minutes to the time the light output stabilized.

4. Multiply the luminous intensities at test points excluding H-V axis obtained at Step 2 by the reciprocal of the decrease rate calculated at Step 3, to estimate the luminous intensities to be measured at respective test points after the lamp was energized for 5 minutes. Then the individual estimated values are deemed the measured photometric values and they are recorded.

ID: nht92-3.23

DATE: 10/07/92

FROM: M. FRANCES PARTON

TO: JACK RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: MR. BEN WATTS -- FLORIDA FLA. SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-25-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO M. FRANCES PARTON (A40; STD. 207; STD. 208; STD. 209; STD. 210)

TEXT: We purchased a 1992 Van to be used by me, a disabled person, for my transportation. We asked that they put swivel bases on the seats so that I could turn a half a turn to be able to get out of the seat and get into my three wheeler. This to transport me out of the van on my lift. We were told that there was a law stating that they could not do this.

I called the Florida Transportation Secretary and there office told me they knew nothing about this law. However, counsel from the HRS, stated that it was a Florida law, but my question was if that was so why did not the Secretary of Transportation not know of this. After trying several numbers I finally was given a Mr. Neil, counsel for the disabled in the Highway Traffic Safety He tells a bill #208, I believe was passed but that stated you could not put in the large windows in vans, but he thought that they were stretching the law in regards to seats. Mr. Neil was kind enough to refer me to you. I feel that I need to express that for a handicap person these will be necessary, because the alternative is an electric tract, which cost an estimated $ 1350.00, which I think is an exorbitant price.

I would appreciate hearing from you in regards to this matter.

ID: nht92-3.24

DATE: October 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emissions & Safety, Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/23/92 from Takashi Odaira to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7556)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the side door strength test procedures of Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, as they apply to a certain pickup truck design. You described three alternative methods of fixing the vehicle in position and asked whether they are consistent with the standard's test procedure.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

S4(a) of Standard No. 214 sets forth the following procedures for fixing a vehicle in position for the quasi-static side door strength test:

Place the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface. Fix the vehicle rigidly in position by means of tiedown attachments located at or forward of the front wheel centerline and at or rearward of the rear wheel centerline. (Emphasis added.)

The side door strength test is then conducted by applying a loading device to the outer surface of the door, until the loading device travels 18 inches. See S4(d).

You asked about these procedures in connection with a certain pickup truck design, which can be described as follows. The cab of the truck is attached to the frame by means of flexible rubber mountings. The rear body is installed separately on the frame. The cab of the truck is over the front wheels, and the rear body is over the rear wheels.

You requested our comments on three alternative methods of testing the pickup truck at issue. The first would involve fixing the frame of the vehicle at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and real wheel centerlines. You stated, however, that the rear portion of the cab would not be rigidly fixed by this method, and that the application of the Standard No. 214 loading device would result in the stretching of the cab's rubber mountings and upward tilting of the cab as a whole.

Your second alternative would involve adding a third fixing of the vehicle, in addition to the front and rear fixings of Alternative 1. This

additional fixing would be at the rear of the cab, on both sides. You indicated that this would permit the side door strength test to be conducted without tilting the vehicle, but that the relative cab to frame fixing would not be the same as on an actual vehicle.

Your third alternative would involve fixing the cab alone to a test fixture, at three locations. You stated that a problem with this method may be that the cab itself, and not the vehicle, is tested.

In considering how the Standard No. 214 quasi-static test should be conducted for a particular vehicle, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to measure the crush resistance of a side door. The agency is not measuring the extent to which a vehicle's suspension or other design features permit the vehicle to tilt when specified loads are applied. In order to measure the crush resistance of a door in a test, it is necessary that the vehicle be fixed rigidly in position. Otherwise, the application of a load to the side door could simply result in movement of the vehicle as a whole.

Standard No. 214's test procedure was developed initially for cars. As noted by your letter, the combination of tying the vehicle down at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and rear wheel centerlines and placing the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface is sufficient to rigidly fix a passenger car in position for test purposes. Your letter raises the issue of how the Standard No. 214 test should be conducted if the specified procedure does not result in a particular vehicle, such as one with a divided body, being rigidly fixed in position.

For purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA would take the following actions. First, the agency would examine whether the procedure set forth in S4(a) would result in the vehicle being rigidly fixed in position. This could involve considering various tiedown arrangements within the areas specified by S4(a). If the agency determined that the procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix a vehicle in position, e.g., the entire cab of a pickup truck would tilt upward during a test, it would then follow the specified procedure but also add an additional tiedown attachment as necessary to rigidly fix the vehicle in position. In making this additional attachment, the agency would take care to ensure that the attachment did not interfere with the side door strength test.

I can offer the following comments on the three alternative test methods you described. NHTSA would not follow the Alternative 1 test procedure since the vehicle would not be rigidly fixed in position under that procedure. The agency would also not follow the Alternative 3 test procedure since it does not include one of the tiedown arrangements specified by S4(a). The agency might follow an approach along the lines of Alternative 2, assuming that it determined that the S4(a) procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix the vehicle in position.

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

ID: nht92-3.25

DATE: October 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

COPYEE: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association; Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association; Ford Motor Company; Freightliner Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from J. W. Lawrence to Administrator, NHTSA (9203090012)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 5, 1992 letter to the Administrator on the subject "Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS 108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements."

In that letter, Volvo GM petitioned "for the revocation of the 'Figure 2' requirements published in the December 12, 1991, Register. . . ." However, the notice published on that date (56 FR 64733) was not an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Instead, it was only a denial of a petition for rulemaking to allow tail lamps on vehicles 80 inches or wider to be mounted at locations up to 24 inches forward of the extreme rear of the vehicle, and to allow turn signal and stop lamps to be mounted up to 60 inches forward of the rear instead of "on the rear" as required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 expresses the general requirement that lamps be located so as to meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE standard. Figure 2 was included in the notice to illustrate the agency's interpretation of the visibility requirements for stop, tail, and turn signal lamps set forth in specific SAE vehicle lighting standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. A copy of that figure is enclosed. However, Figure 2 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108 itself.

Since Figure 2 is not part of Standard No. 108, a petition for rulemaking is not the appropriate way to address the problem you have raised. Accordingly, we are treating your letter as a request to change our interpretation of the SAE's specifications. As explained below, the agency is adopting a new interpretation that is consistent with your concerns and arguments.

The rationale for the agency's denial of the petition was that the amendments requested would adversely affect the ability of the lamps to meet the SAE specifications incorporated into Standard No. 108 that the lamps on both sides of a vehicle's rear end be simultaneously visible from any angle between and including 45-degree angles to the rear left and right of the vehicle. As noted above, Figure 2 pictorially represents NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE's uniform geometric visibility requirements. Using the SAE standard for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles as an example, NHTSA provided the following quotation from J1395:

"Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to

the right for the right lamp. *** To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex of at least 13 sq. cm. measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

Since the SAE measurement of photometry is made at a distance of 3 meters from the lamp, NHTSA also stated that compliance with the visibility requirements is to be determined at a distance of 3 meters.

NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE language quoted above, which Figure 2 illustrates, and which you have found objectionable, was:

"Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters."

You state that the term "simultaneously visible" does not appear in the SAE specifications. You also argue that the 3 meter requirement has no connection to the 45-degree installation visibility. These issues have also been raised with us by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), which met with us to express its views, not only on turn signal lamps, but stop and tail lamps as well, and by Ford Motor Company, and Freightliner, Corp. in several telephone calls. We are furnishing copies of this response to these three parties, as well as to the original petitioner, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA).

First of all, let me assure you that NHTSA had no intention of imposing any new requirements upon industry in its interpretation reflected in Figure 2, and that the reaction of industry to this interpretation came as a surprise to us. Although your letter concerns only the turn signal specifications for wide vehicles, we have reviewed this matter with respect to tail lamps and stop lamps as well, given the concern of other industry members.

Our review has led us to place added weight on the fact that the SAE visibility requirements are not consistently expressed from SAE standard to SAE standard. This difference in expression particularly calls into question our interpretation regarding turn signals. This same difference has led MVMA to apply one interpretation to turn signals, and another to stop and tail lamps. We shall discuss these two interpretations separately, and compare them with NHTSA's single, across-the-board interpretation. Under NHTSA's interpretation, the minimum specified lens area of a left stop, turn signal, or tail lamp, as seen at 45 degrees to the left of that lamp, must also be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp, and at all degrees in between (and vice versa) when viewed at a 3-meter radius from the rear.

As suggested above, MVMA does not believe that an across-the-board interpretation is appropriate, given the different expression of the turn signal specification for vehicles in J1395 and J588. SAE J1395 provides that visibility is "from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp." (Emphasis added.) The first underlined passage suggests that the viewing angle is a left 45 deg. angle, using a line parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis as the frame of reference

for that angle, and that this viewing angle relates to the left signal lamp only. The passage says that the angle is 45 deg. to the left "for" the left lamp, and not 45 deg. to the left of that lamp. The second underlined passage indicates a similar limitation on the applicability of the language regarding the 45 deg. angle to the right. Even more specific is the corresponding requirement in SAE J588 NOV84, Standard No. 108's specification for turn signals on vehicles less than 80 inches wide. It provides: "signals from lamps mounted on the left side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the left and signals from lamps mounted on the right side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the right."

For both wide and narrow vehicles, MVMA interprets the 45 degree left visibility requirement as applying only to the outboard side of the left turn signal lamp, and a 45 degree right visibility requirement only to the outboard side of the right turn signal lamp. NHTSA agrees that MVMA's interpretation regarding turn signal lamps is more fully consistent than NHTSA's interpretation with the language of these SAE standards. Adopting this interpretation moots the question of the particular distance at which visibility is to be determined. However, the fact that the SAE standard did not specify a measurement distance tends to strengthen the case for the MVMA interpretation since its interpretation obviates the need for a measurement distance, while the former NHTSA interpretation necessitated one.

The MVMA and TTMA interpretations of the stop and tail lamp requirements are less clearly superior to NHTSA's in their faithfulness to the language of the SAE standards. Indeed, whether any of the competing interpretations is superior in this regard is harder to assess because the language regarding these lamps is more ambiguous. The SAE specifications for stop and tail lamps, incorporated in Standard No. 108, are respectively J586 FEB84 (narrow vehicles) and J1398 MAY85 (wide vehicles), and J585e Sept. 1977. Under all three of these SAE standards, "signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle", which is specified as "of 45 deg. to the left and to 45 deg. to the right" (J586), "of 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J1398), and "from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J585e).

TTMA and MVMA restrict the left-right 45 degree visibility requirement to the individual lamp in a horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 1 of the December 1991 notice. Under this interpretation, the minimum specified lens area that is seen at 45 degrees to the left on the left lamp must be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the left lamp, but need not be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp (and vice versa). In MVMA's view, there was never an intent by the SAE to expect that the minimum lens area of both lamps would be visible from both sides of the vehicle. MVMA also argued that there was no justification to use the photometric measuring distance of 3 meters to determine visibility.

Some aspects of the SAE standards regarding stop and tail lamps seem to favor the MVMA/TTMA interpretation, while others favor the NHTSA interpretation. For example, if these SAE standards are interpreted in light of the interpretation given above to the SAE turn signal requirements, then those stop and tail lamp standards will be interpreted as specifying

angles of visibility whose frame of reference is each individual lamp instead of the vehicle as a whole. As in the case of the turn signal requirement, the absence of a specified measurement distance for stop and tail lamp visibility tends to support an interpretation that does not depend on such a distance being specified. On the other hand, the absence of any language, like that found in J1395, relating the angle or angles of visibility to any individual lamp, suggests a single continuous horizontal angle spanning the entire rear of a vehicle.

NHTSA has decided to adopt the TTMA/MVMA interpretation of the stop and tail lamp visibility requirements. We have said that NHTSA did not intend to impose new burdens on industry by its interpretation, and there appears to be no present safety justification to do so. The existing level of rear lighting safety on the nation's roads is that which is represented by industry's interpretation of the SAE visibility requirements. Thus, there would be no derogation of the exiting level of safety by concurring with an industry interpretation. Further, given the lack of clear support for either of the competing interpretations, any attempt by NHTSA to apply its former interpretation to enforce these requirements in a court of law could be very problematic.

This letter will serve as notice to the industry that the agency will follow the interpretations stated herein in its future enforcement activities. The SAE visibility materials do not specify any measurement distance. Therefore, to carry the new interpretation to its proper conclusion, NHTSA is no longer specifying a measurement distance of 3 meters to judge compliance with the visibility requirements. Industry and NHTSA are both in agreement, however, that, wherever located, any of these lamps are required by S5.3.1.1 to continue to meet its photometric output at any applicable group of test points, unless excepted by the subsequent conditions of that paragraph.

Finally, you comment that Table II "does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers". We do not understand your remark since Table II clearly specifies that turn signal lamps be located on the rear of all vehicles to which the Table applies, and not trailers alone.

ID: nht92-3.26

DATE: October 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Preston Golder -- Road Reflectors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Allan Schwartz (Std. 108) and letter dated 9/14/92 from Preston Golder to Legal Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7747)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 14, 1992, asking about the legality under Federal law of your "Auto Neon System", an accessory which reflects a glow from under the vehicle.

We answered an inquiry from Mr. Allan Schwartz about a similar device, in a letter dated April 21, 1992. I enclose a copy of our response to Mr. Schwartz for your information.

ID: nht92-3.27

DATE: October 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William G. Rosoff -- Chief, Entry Rulings Branch, Department of Treasury, U.S. Customs Service

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/18/92 from William G. Rosoff to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7748)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 18, 1992, forwarding a letter and documentation from Dr. Irina Elovaara. Dr. Elovaara imported a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States around October 9, 1991, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(d), and is requesting permission to keep it here longer than the one year that the regulation permits. You inform us that Customs does not have the authority to grant an extension or exception.

Paragraph 591.5(d) permits nonresidents of the United States to temporarily import a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States for a period not to exceed one year, provided that the importer will export it not later than the end of one year after entry. Dr. Elovaara, who holds a visiting fellow appointment at the National Institutes of Health, apparently must export her vehicle not later than October 9, 1992. However, her one-year appointment has been extended for three months, through December 31, 1992, and she wishes to keep her car here until that time. In the meantime, according to Dr. Elovaara, her car has been insured, inspected, and titled in Maryland, as well as passing an emission test.

Paragraph 591.5(d) reflects this agency's attempt to accommodate the terms of the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles, to which the United States has subscribed. Under the Convention, a contracting state shall allow nonresidents to import a motor vehicle for their private use on the occasion of a temporary visit without payment of import duties and import taxes and free of import prohibitions and restrictions, and the importation shall be covered by temporary importation papers. However, the period of validity of the temporary importation papers shall not exceed a year from the date of issue. Thus, under the Convention, a "temporary" importation would appear to be one that does not exceed a year. This is the genesis of our regulatory requirement that a nonresident, upon importing a nonconforming vehicle for private use, declare that the vehicle will be exported not later than a year after its entry, and the reason why the regulation contains no provisions for extension of a period beyond one year.

Given the existence of the Convention, we believe you are correct in your conclusion that Customs has no authority to provide an extension or exception, and we have drawn the same conclusion as to the authority of this agency. The question becomes whether, in the absence of timely export of the vehicle, either agency effect to implement the remedies available to it. This is a matter within the general discretionary authority of each agency. The primary concern of this agency, as you know, is motor vehicle safety. Given the fact that Dr. Elovaara's vehicle has already been

subjected to local registration, inspection, emissions and insurance laws, we do not believe that there would be any adverse impact upon safety if her vehicle remains in the United States for three additional months, even if that would constitute a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We hope that this resolves Dr. Elovaara's concerns.

ID: nht92-3.28

DATE: 10/05/92

FROM: ROBERT F. GAYER -- EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, SALT RIVER PROJECT

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

COPYEE: TOM LANGENFELD -- GREAT DANE TRAILER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-14-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO ROBERT F. GAYER (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: Salt River Project, Transportation Services requests an interpretation of FMVSS 121 in regard to compliance of the brake systems on four (4) semi-trailers owned and operated on public streets and highways by Salt River Project. The manufacturer of the four trailers, Great Dane Trailer of Savannah Georgia has stated to Salt River Project that these trailers do not need to comply with "121", because they are "Heavy Haul Trailers". Salt River Project does not agree with Great Dane Trailer, and thus the request for the interpretation. All four (4) trailers are as follows:

Semi Trailer, flatbed, extendable - 40 feet to 65 feet.

GVWR - 68,000 lb.

Length - 45 to 65 feet

Width - 96 inches

Deck Height - 59 inches

Overall Height - 119 inches at Headboard

Axles - 20,000 lb. Rockwell, two (2) each

Service Brakes - Full Air, S-cam, with one Bendix No.

RE-6 Relay Emergency Valve only.

Note: There is no trailer spring brake valve installed on these trailers, of any kind; and only one (1) air reservoir.

Parking Brakes - MGM Spring Applied, Air Released

Trailer Serial Nos: 1GRDM8025KM013401

1GRDM8027KM013402

1GRDM8029KM013403

1GRDM8020KM013404

Attached is a copy of the SRP Vehicle Data Record for one of the trailers, and a "line set" sheet supplied by Great Dane Trailer for one of the trailers.

These four trailers are identically equipped.

Specifically, SRP is concerned that these trailers do not comply with the law, and leaves SRP open to litigation should an accident and resulting lawsuit arise, because of noncompliance in the area of S5.2.1.1 that trailers must have a reservoir that "is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by loss of air pressure in the service brake system"; and S5.2.1.5 that states "be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices". We are aware of Docket 90-3 Notice 2 (corrected to Notice 3 by Notice 4) which revises a portion of FMVSS 121, but do not know the affect it will have on our concerns.

Attachments: SRP Vehicle Data Record

Great Dane Line Set Sheet (TEXT AND PHOTOS OMITTED)

ID: nht92-3.29

DATE: October 2, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale E. Dawkins -- Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/4/92 from D. E. Dawkins to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7714)

TEXT:

This responds to your September 4, 1992 letter, in which you notified the agency of your intention to modify the Hybrid III dummies to be used in your company's certification testing for Standard No. 208. You stated your opinion that the Hybrid III test dummy currently specified in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart E is unacceptable for determining whether vehicles equipped with two-point automatic belt systems comply with the injury criteria in Standard No. 208. This opinion is based on the chest deflection measurements you have obtained, which you characterize as "erroneous, erratic, and nonsensical."

You indicated your belief that the inaccurate measurements arise because the ball on the end of the slider rod of the chest deflection transducer "frequently" will pop out of its guide track. According to Chrysler, this occurs because the rubber bump stops on the dummy's sternum act as a fulcrum to pry the ball on the end of the slider rod out of its guide track during crash tests, during which the two-point torso belt deflects the dummy chest in both the fore-aft and lateral directions.

Chrysler believes that this problem can be solved simply by modifying the thorax of the Hybrid III dummy by moving the rubber bump stops from the specified location on the sternum to the spine box of the dummy. Your letter indicates your belief that such a modification will not affect the calibration or measurement accuracy of the chest deflection transducer or the biofidelity of the Hybrid III thorax. You indicated that Chrysler intends to make this modification to the Hybrid III dummy thorax and use the modified dummy for Chrysler's certification testing of a 1994 model year vehicle for purposes of Standard No. 208.

NHTSA's position on the issue of what steps manufacturers must take before certifying that their vehicles or equipment comply with an applicable safety standard has been often stated and applies with equal force in this situation. The compliance test procedures set forth in Standard No. 208 must be followed by this agency during our compliance testing. In this instance, that means that NHTSA's compliance testing will be conducted using the Hybrid III test dummy specified in Part 572, Subpart E, with the rubber bump stops in the location specified therein.

Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers are not even required to conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply with applicable safety standards. However, to avoid liability for civil

penalties in connection with any noncompliance that may be determined to exist, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) requires that the manufacturer exercise "due care" to assure compliance and in making its certification. It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that it exercised "due care" if the manufacturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, "due care" might also be shown using modified test procedures if the manufacturer could demonstrate that the modifications were not likely to have had a significant impact on the test results. In addition, "due care" might be shown using engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like.

In this case, then, the relevant issue is not whether Chrysler uses a modified version of the Hybrid III test dummy for its certification testing. Instead, the issue is whether Chrysler can show that it would exercise "due care" despite using a modified Hybrid III test dummy for its certification testing. This agency does not make any determinations as to whether "due care" has been exercised except in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Hence, Chrysler will have to make the initial decision as to whether a certification based on the modified Hybrid III dummy could be made in the exercise of "due care." Your letter states that Chrysler's modifications to the test dummy "will not affect the calibration or measurement accuracy of the chest deflection transducer or biofidelity of the Hybrid III thorax." If Chrysler can demonstrate that these statements are correct, Chrysler may be able to show that it exercised "due care" in connection with the use of the modified Hybrid III dummy.

Of course, a manufacturer that can show it exercised due care would still be subject to the statutory obligation to notify owners and remedy any vehicles that are determined not to conform to Standard No. 208. However, this same obligation would apply even to manufacturers that had conducted testing using an unmodified Hybrid III test dummy.

Turning from Chrysler's particular question to the standard in general, NHTSA notes that it has undertaken research examining the issue of chest deflection measurements by the Hybrid III test dummy. An extensive discussion of the agency research and analysis of this issue may be found in the interim final rule postponing the use of the Hybrid III dummy in vehicles that do not use either seat belts or air bags (55 FR 39280; September 26, 1990; copy enclosed). In that notice, NHTSA indicated that it had received significant data from sources outside the agency, including General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, INRETS (a French government research and development group), and the Motor Industry Research Association (a British group).

The agency would be very interested in examining any data or test results that Chrysler may have on this subject, especially the assertion that the ball on the end of the chest deflection rod comes out of its track during crash test conditions. Please send all such information to: Barry Felrice, NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, Room 5401, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any

further information or have some further questions on this subject.

ID: nht92-3.3

DATE: 10/28/92

FROM: WOLFGANG W. KLAMP

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, DOT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO WOLFGANG W. KLAMP (A40; PART 591)

TEXT: I was referred to you as the result of a conversation with Mr. Ken Weinstein of your office.

My wife and I are both U.S. citizens working in Vancouver, Canada on Temporary Work Permits issued by Canada Immigration. My wife works as a Branch Manager for Crawford & Co., responsible for providing medical case management services for her company in British Columbia and Alberta. When my wife was hired we temporarily resided in Canada moving back to the U.S. during the past month. Crawford & Co., a registered Canadian company provides my wife with a company car, in fact, the company requires that she drive a company owned vehicle because of the nature of her work and the fact that she does not go directly to her office on a daily basis. The company issued her a Canadian made 1992 Ford Tempo which is licensed and insured in British Columbia. The company pays for all insurance, registration and license fees. When and if she leaves the company's employ, the car would remain in Canada.

The issue is that several times now we have been stopped and she was most recently detained by Customs officials at the Douglas (Peace Arch) Border Crossing to be told that the Tempo did not meet DOT requirements and therefore could not be "imported" to the U.S. and that the next time we attempted to cross the border in this vehicle we would not be allowed to enter the U.S. with it. Customs officials stated that the vehicle would have to go through a formal entry process which would include; posting a bond of 1 1/2 times the value of the vehicle (approximately US$ 20,000 - US$ 25,000); the vehicle would have to be sent to a conversion facility in Concord, California (at a cost of approximately US$ 4,000 to US$ 5,000 plus transportation charges to and from the conversion facility) to be brought up to DOT and EPA standards for "imported" vehicles, all because we are U.S. nationals who choose to live in the U.S.

It is our contention that; since my wife has no ownership interest in the vehicle; the vehicle will remain the property of Crawford & Co. and will never be sold or transferred to a resident of the U.S.; and the fact that the vehicle is not used for business purposes at any time in the U.S., and while we clearly understand that U.S. customs has a responsibility to carry-out DOT regulations, we feel that the ruling based on their interpretation of DOT regulations is patently unfair and arbitrary. Other Canadian owned vehicles freely enter the U.S. and are not subject to the same restrictions placed on this vehicle, including those Canadians who reside in the U.S. six months out of each year.

We are not trying to circumvent DOT or Customs regulations, but, we are hopeful that good judgement and fairness will be considered in this appeal to you. We respectfully request your determination on our unusual circumstance, and further, should you decide in our favor that a letter be directed to: Mr. Art Morgan, district Director, U.S. Customs Service, 1000 - 2nd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 advising him of your determination.

Your expeditious reply would be appreciated since this whole situation has serious implications with regards to my wife's employment situation. Should you have any questions, please call me at the numbers above. Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration, I remain,

ID: nht92-3.30

DATE: October 2, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dan Trexler -- Thomas Built Buses

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Lyle Walheim (Std. 131) and letter dated 8/10/92 from Dan Trexler to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7641)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your questions about requirements addressing the activation of a stop signal arm and the permissibility of a manual override device. In addition, I am enclosing a September 14, 1992 interpretation letter from this agency to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, which explains these requirements.

As your letter indicates, there are two different types of lamp systems on school buses: a four lamp system with four red lamps and an eight lamp system with four amber and four red lamps. You asked several questions about the stop arm's activation and the manual override device.

You first ask whether the stop arm is required to extend every time the signal lamps in a four lamp system are activated. (emphasis in original). As a general rule, S5.5 of Standard No. 131 requires that the stop arm be automatically extended at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps are activated. Nevertheless, Standard No. 131 includes an exception to this general rule which permits the installation of an override device. If the override device were activated, then the stop arm would not extend.

Your second question addresses the operation of the stop arm on buses with an eight lamp system. Specifically, you ask whether the stop arm is required to extend only after the red signal lamps have been activated by opening of the bus entrance door or is the stop arm required to extend at any time the red signal lamps are activated. (emphasis in original).

As stated above, Standard No. 131 includes provisions addressing the activation of the stop signal arm. Standard No. 131 requires the stop arm to be automatically extended whenever the red signal lamps are activated, whether those lamps are activated by opening the bus door or for some other reason. Of course, the stop arm may be extended for a longer period of time than when the red signal lamps are activated, given that Standard No. 131 includes the phrase "at a minimum" in explaining when the stop arm must be extended. In the final rule establishing Standard No. 131, the agency addressed methods of stop arm activation used by Washington State, Illinois, and Florida in which the stop arm was activated to control traffic before the door was opened. (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991).

Your third question asked whether a device may be used that is capable of remaining in the "override" position with only a one time activation by the driver. The override would have an audible signal that would automatically

sound for at least 60 seconds and would automatically recycle each time the service door was opened, with the engine running. As mentioned above, Standard No. 131 permits a device that prevents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm. In our September 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Lyle Walheim from the State of Wisconsin, we explain a situation in which an override would be permissible. Based on S5.5 of Standard No. 131 and the September 14, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Walheim, it would appear that the override device you describe also would be permissible.

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.