ID: 3197yy

Mr. Marc M. Baldwin
Parker, McCay & Criscuolo
Suite 401
Three Greentree Centre
Route 73 & Greentree Road
Marlton, NJ 08053

Dear Mr. Baldwin:

This responds to your September 25, 1991, letter in which you asked "the specific date when 2-point seatbelts were outlawed." Lap, or 2-point, belts have never been outlawed by this agency. Rather, 3-point, or lap/shoulder belts have been required at certain seating positions in certain vehicles. Lap belts are still permitted as the only occupant restraint at a seating position in all vehicles at some seating positions. Such seating positions include all seating positions that are not outboard seating positions and all seating positions that are not forward-facing. Your letter mentioned that you are specifically interested in this information for pending litigation regarding a 1984 passenger car convertible. Passenger car convertibles manufactured in 1984 were permitted to have lap belts installed at all seating positions. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts.

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in passenger cars. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warnin

ID: nht79-2.3

DATE: 08/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Freedman Seating Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/16/88 letter to Glenn L. Duncan from Erika Z. Jones (Redbook A32; Std. 207); Letter dated 4/28/77 to Gordon P. Cress from Frank A. Berndt (Std. 210); Letter dated 2/1/88 to Erika Z. Jones from Glenn L. Duncan; Letter dated 11/16/97 to Erika Z. Jones from Glenn L. Dunn (OCC 1278)

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking how much deflection or deformation of seat belt anchorages is allowed under the requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, for anchorages that are attached to or are a part of revolving pedestal seats. You mention cases in which seat bases deflect so much that the seat touches the floor before the forces required by the standard are attained.

As noted in your letter, paragraph S4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 210 specifies that 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. Likewise, the agency has stated in the past that the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided structural integrity of the seats is maintained.

Although Safety Standard No. 210 would allow some deformation of the seat base for anchorages that are part of pedestal seats, the structural integrity of the seats would have to be maintained during the force test. Further, you should note that Safety Standard No. 207 requires the forces for testing seats and the forces required by Safety Standard No. 210 to be applied simultaneously for seats that have belt assemblies attached to them. Thus, the pedestal seats discussed in your letter would have to maintain their structural integrity when subjected to the combined forces required by both standards. The agency Would not consider pedestal seats to be in compliance with these requirements, if the seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened.

I hope this letter has clarified the agency's position regarding the force requirements of both Safety Standard No. 210 and Safety Standard No. 207.

SINCERELY,

FREEDMAN SEATING COMPANY

June 22, 1979

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs: This letter is a request for clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210.

As a seat manufacturer and supplier for the Recreational Vehicle Industry, we have developed products which are intended for use in a variety of vehicles, and therefore must certify their compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards when installed in these vehicles. It has become common practice for seating companies as ourselves to test certain "seating systems" on laboratory test equipment, rather than in each vehicle, and certify that the "seating system" complies with applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards when installed properly. In the case of revolving seat pedestals which are designed to be "seat belt anchorages" (by definition, the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure) this laboratory testing raises certain questions relative to interpretation of MVSS No. 210. Per MVSS 210, "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." Since no limitations are set for seat belt anchorage deflection, many seat manufacturers have ignored this aspect totally, and tested seat bases (seat belt anchorages) to force requirements only. In some cases, the seat bases deflect so much that the front edge of the seat is touching the floor before the required force is eventually attained. (See enclosed photographs.) While it would appear obvious that these bases are not in compliance with MVSS 210 for driver application, since the seat back would have impacted the steering wheel prior to the required force being attained, (the steering column is sustaining part of the force) the bases appear to be in compliance with MVSS 210 when installed at a location in a vehicle where there is nothing to obstruct free movement of the seat.

Our request at this time is that the Department of Transportation supply us with its interpretation of MVSS 210 to the extent that it would consider seat bases of this type in compliance or not in compliance with the standard.

Secondly, with respect to the intent of the safety standards, it would appear that future consideration should be given to setting deflection limitations in Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207 and 210. If the "seating system" or "seat belt anchorage" is able to sustain required forces only after the occupant has impacted the steering wheel or windshield, it appears that we have met a safety standard without providing the intended safety.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Robert J. Wahls Chief Engineer

ENC.

Kenco Builds Stress Machine

A new stress test machine for van and motorhome seat bases has been designed and built by Kenco Engineering, Middlebury, Indiana, to meet the specifications required by the Department of Transportation (D.O.T.). The machine operates hydraulically and can exert 8,000 pounds of pull. The seat base pictured above has sustained 6,750 pounds, well over the D.O.T. requirement of 5,000 pounds for 10 seconds. Kenco will use the machine for testing seat bases, tire carriers and other products which undergo stress in use.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam4882

"Dear Mr. Harmon: This responds to your letter asking whether Standar No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, permits the installation of a built-in child restraint system (i.e., a child restraint system that is an integral part of the vehicle) in a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and if so, what requirements apply. As discussed below, a child restraint system built into an MPV would fall within the definition of 'child restraint system' in Standard No. 213 and would therefore have to comply with all the provisions of the standard that are generally applicable to child restraint systems. Since such a restraint would not be portable, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, by its own terms, or those of the compliance test procedure for that requirement, specifically applicable to 'add-on child restraint systems' only. Since it would be built into an MPV instead of a passenger car, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, for the same reasons, specifically applicable to 'built-in child restraint systems' only. The following sections of Standard No. 213 contain requirements that would apply to a child restraint built into an MPV: S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). The principle requirements of the standard that would not apply are those in S5.l.l relating to dynamic performance. In view of the importance of the dynamic performance requirements for ensuring the safety of child restraint systems, we intend to begin rulemaking to apply those requirements to all built-in systems, not just to those installed in passenger cars. In the meantime, we suggest that manufacturers of such systems for MPVs carefully consider whether the systems provide protection comparable to that provided by built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars. You should also be aware that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1381-l431) imposes responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety-related defects. Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If the manufacturer or the agency determines that a safety-related defect (or noncompliance with an FMVSS) exists, the manufacturer is obligated under 151 et seq. of the Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Legal Analysis Standard No. 2l3 applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft. See section S3. The term 'child restraint system' is defined as 'any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.' See section S4. A child restraint system that is an integral part of an MPV would come within this definition. Some of Standard No. 2l3's requirements apply generally to 'child restraint systems,' i.e., without regard to whether a child restraint system is built-in or add-on or whether, if it is built-in, it is installed in a car or other type of vehicle. Since a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV comes within the definition of 'child restraint system,' it is required to meet all such requirements unless excepted. The following sections of Standard 213 contain requirements which apply generally to 'child restraint systems': S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). In a number of instances, however, particularly with respect to dynamic performance, Standard No. 2l3 either specifies separate requirements for 'add-on child restraint systems' and 'built-in child restraint systems,' or provides a test procedure for these two types of child restraint systems only. The standard defines 'add-on child restraint system' without respect to the type of vehicle to which it might be added, i.e., as 'any portable child restraint system.' The term 'built-in child restraint system' is defined more restrictively, as 'any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car.' (Emphasis added.) A child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV does not come within either of these definitions, since such a restraint is neither portable nor a part of a passenger car. Therefore, Standard No. 2l3's requirements for 'add-on child restraint systems' and 'built-in child restraint systems,' do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. Similarly, those requirements for which the standard specifies a test procedure for 'add-on child restraint systems' and 'built-in child restraint systems' only do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht73-2.22

DATE: 02/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your petition for reconsideration of 49 CFR 575.103 dated January 12, 1973, you enclosed a copy of "International Camper's Manual for Truck-Camper Leading(Illegible Word) and asked whether its data content and format complied with the requirements, and especially @ 575.6.

Section 576.6 allows a document provided with a vehicle to "contain more than one table", but it "must clearly and unconditionally indicate which of the tables applies to the vehicle with which it is provided". Although pages 8 and 9 of the Guide explain how to use the tables, and page 6 refers the owner to the "capacity plate" for the proper weight rating, there appears to be nothing within the booklet itself that indicates which of the 16 tables applies to "the vehicle with which it is provided".

Other issues raised in your petition will be considered in the agency's response which will be published shortly.

Sincerely,

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY

MOTOR TRUCK DIVISION

January 12, 1973

Douglas W. Toms -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration -- 49CFR 575.103, Truck Camper Loading, Docket No. 71-7; Notice 5

Dear Mr. Toms:

International Harvester Company (IH) respectfully files this petition requesting the Administrator to amend the new Consumer Information Regulation as published in the Federal Register p. 26607 on December 14, 1972.

On August 15, 1972 the NHTSA issued a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Truck Camper Loading, with a mandatory effective date of January 1, 1973. On December 14, 1972 the NHTSA by issuance of 575.103 rescinded Standard No. 126 and enacted the new Consumer Information Requirements as a replacement for Standard No. 126.

IH is deeply concerned since it has put forth considerable time, effort and expense in developing and publishing information required to comply with the January 1, 1973 effective date of Standard No. 126. As a means of complying with Standard No. 126, production quantities of a 28-page IH Truck Camper Loading Guide (10 copies enclosed) were recently printed. We believe that this Camper Guide would be quite beneficial and effective in providing information to the consumer to assure proper selection of a compatible slide-in camper unit. In view of above, IH must support and favor the NHTSA's previous position of regulating requirements for truck camper loading information as a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard in preference to a Consumer Information Regulation.

It is apparent that revisions would have to be made to the above mentioned IH Camper Guide in order to comply with 575.103. We will not be able to implement these necessary revisions in time to meet the February 1, 1973 availability deadline as required by Docket No. 71-7, Notice 5. The amount of additional lead time needed by IH is, of course, dependent on the nature of the changes that would have to be made to the attached MVSS 126 Camper Guide to make it compliant with 575.103. Some of the obvious changes include certain references, definitions and effective dates that have been modified by NHTSA in the transition from MVSS 126 to 575.103.

There is one additional area in which some question exists. Heretofore IH has not been required to furnish consumer information under Part 575. We are therefore requesting an official interpretation from the NHTSA that the data content and format as presented in the attached IH Camper Guide - Part No. 1086777-R1 does in fact comply with 49 CFR Part 575. We are particularly concerned about Section 575.6.

As noted earlier IH will not be able to comply with the 3/1/73 effective date of 575.103 due to the time that would be required to revise and republish our Truck Camper Loading Guide. If the changes are of a minimal nature (i.e correction of references, definitions and dates) we will need approximately 60 days beyond the date that NHTSA responds to this Petition. If more extensive revisions are required, we anticipate that a minimum of six months lead time would be needed.

The following points will summarize the basic content of this Petition:

1. IH favors promulgation of subject requirements as Safety Standard No. 126 instead of a Consumer Information Regulation.

2. However, if NHTSA sees fit to implement as a Consumer Information Regulation IH is requesting a favorable interpretation that the basic content and format of the IH Camper Guide that has been developed to meet MVSS 126 would likewise satisfy the statutory requirements of 575.103. Consequently, if only minimal changes are required to the existing IH Camper Guide, the revised information can be made available within 60 days after the NHTSA response to this Petition is received by IH. If more substantive changes are required, it is estimated that approximately six months lead time will be required by IH.

IH would further point out that NHTSA's promulgation of 575.103 has, in fact, violated procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act in that interested parties were not provided opportunity to comment upon providing the subject information under Part 575 Consumer Information prior to final enactment of 575.103. Therefore, should NHTSA decide not to grant any of the alternative modifications requested herein, we request that the subject regulation be reissued as a Notice of Proposed Rule Making as stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act.

D. E. Schmidt -- Assistant Manager of Engineering

ID: 10008

Ms. Eileen Jones
17 Ballinger Court
Burtonsville, MD 20866

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your faxed letter of May 19, 1994. As you explained in your letter:

My three month old son has a physical condition whereby the formula that he drinks refluxes back into his throat causing him to choke and become unable to breathe. Due to this condition, I cannot keep his infant seat in the back of the car where I will be unable to reach him and thus prevent him from choking.

My problem lies in that I have a passenger as well as a driver's side air bag in our 1993 Ford Taurus Wagon. Due to the danger of having an infant's seat in the front of a car with a passenger air bag, I have contacted local Ford dealers as well as the overall Ford customer service people and have been told each time that they will not disable my car air bags for me as it is against federal law.

You requested "a waiver of a portion of the federal guidelines regarding air bags in automobiles."

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement.

The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the act under Standard No. 208 was issued. That section provides that--

(n)o manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or

element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "render inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we would regard a temporary deactivation of the passenger- side air bag in your car in the same way. Based on the results of recent agency research, NHTSA has concluded that rear-facing infant restraints should not be placed in the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger-side air bag. NHTSA would consider the special medical needs of your child as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that temporarily deactivates the air bag to accommodate your child.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "render inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, our willingness to permit this deactivation is conditioned on the reactivation of the air bag by the dealer as soon as your son can use a forward-facing child restraint. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that other passengers in this seating position use their safety belts while the air bag is disconnected.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:6/13/94

ID: 77-4.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 15, 1977, letter asking several questions pertaining to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

You first ask whether side-facing seats installed in school buses for purposes of transporting handicapped or convalescent passengers are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 222. The answer to your question is yes. These seats are not considered "school bus seats" as that term is defined in S4 of the standard. The remaining forward-facing seats installed in the same bus, however, would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard.

In a related matter, you ask what your responsibility would be should a non-handicapped passenger use a handicapped passenger seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) realized when it adopted the limited seating exception applicable to seats for the handicapped that these seats might on occasion be used by non-handicapped passengers. The agency is continuing to study such problems in order to ensure that buses designed to accommodate handicapped passengers provide a sufficient level of safety for all individuals they routinely transport. Standard No. 222 does not place a responsibility upon school bus users to permit only handicapped students to sit in side-facing seats. Of course, any passenger seated in such a seat will not benefit from the protection provided by forward-facing seats that meet the requirements of the Federal standard.

In a final question, you ask whether the position of a wheel-chair in close proximity to the rear emergency exit of a bus would violate S5.4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 217. The NHTSA will measure the opening using the described parallelepiped device as the vehicle is constructed in its unloaded condition. Since the wheelchair would not be present when the vehicle was in its unloaded condition, your location of the wheelchair would not violate the standard.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

September 15, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton

Subject: FMVSS-222 and FMVSS-217 We are enclosing three (3) prints of a proposed Model 2200 with a seating plan for handicapped and non-handicapped persons.

Several questions have arisen concerning the legality of the proposed seating plan, and we are requesting your advice on these issues:

1. The side facing seats over the rear wheelhouses do not have to meet FMVSS-222 as per 571.222 (amended) S4, Definitions as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 134 - Monday, July 12, 1976. Are we correct in this case?

2. The other seats - 8 in number and all forward facing - must meet FMVSS - 222, are we correct in this case?

3. The preamble on page 28508 of the aforementioned Federal Register speaks to, and we quote "The decision to withdraw requirements for side facing used by handicapped or convalescent students will result in cost savings to manufacturers and purchasers. The action may encourage production of specialized buses that otherwise not be built if the seating were subject to the standard." Since it speaks only to the handicapped or convalescent, what if non-handicapped person occupies the seat? This can occur frequently since most of these buses are used for both non and also handicapped persons. Are we in compliance?

4. This question deals with FMVSS 2.7. As indicated in our floor plan, one wheelchair is close proximity to the rear emergency door. Since a wheelchair is movable and not an occupant seat, is the position of the chair in conflict with the FMVSS-S5.4.2.1(a)?

Once again we will mention that the configuration is of a specialized vehicle.

Thanking you in advance, we remain

James Tydings, Specification Engineer

ID: aiam1458

Dear Mr. Bradford: This is in reply to your letter of August 3, 1973, petitioning fo amendment to paragraphs S4.9 and S5.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 which would allow the use of a buckle release mechanism design that requires, before release, some foreshortening of the belt system to reduce the load on the release mechanism. This design cannot meet the existing requirements of S4.9 of Standard No. 213 with the device under load. We wrote to you on August 20, 1973, and on December 17, 1973, requesting additional data. We have not received a response from you to either letter.; We have decided that your petition should be denied. Our objection t the design you wish to employ is that it cannot be released when the belt restraint system is under load. The NHTSA believes, and has adopted its position in Standard No. 213, that a fundamental safety requirement for any occupant restraint release mechanism is the ability to release when it is under a load imposed by the weight of the occupant. In many vehicle crashes restraint systems may be loaded in this fashion when occupants must be removed.; We do not disagree with your argument that mechanisms which releas under load may more readily be released by children when release is undesirable. We believe the greater safety problem, however, is presented by designs which are difficult to operate because they require a prior unloading of the release mechanism. These systems may not be able to be released, even by adults, in crash situations. Data we have received indicates substantial difficulty in the ability of adults to release a child from a child seat in situations (total darkness) simulating emergencies. The study in question has been conducted by the National Swedish Road and Traffic Research Institute and is on file in Docket No. 2-15.; Moreover, we believe buckle release mechanisms should be operable b older child occupants, particularly in situations such as in upside-down configurations where a load is imposed on the mechanism. This purpose is met by the existing requirements of the standard but would not be met were we to grant your petition.; In your petition you argue that even a lower release force does no necessarily mean that the occupant will be able to escape easily from the restraint system. While this may be true, as no requirements are specified in Standard No. 213 regarding ease of belt removal, it is not a justification for increasing the difficulty of operating the buckle release mechanism.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: nht92-4.41

DATE: August 11, 1992

FROM: Steven Henderson -- McGill University

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/28/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Steven Henderson (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of June 29 concerning our motorcycle headlamp warning device. I certainly agree with you that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands. Nevertheless, I ask for your patient indulgence in considering the counterarguments I present below.

I will argue that the potential benefits of our device are so congruent with both the congressional mandate of the NHTSA ("to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses ... on the Nation's highways") and the intent of the author(s) of Standard No. 108, as to warrant the inclusion in the standard of an exception referring specifically to the operating characteristics of the device. My understanding is that an exception may be incorporated into the standard when in specific situations the public safety would be increased by a rigorously specified departure from die standard. That is, the exception allows the spirit of the law to rule while protecting the letter of the law from violation. Nevertheless, an exception governing a device should only be granted if its use would not cause any difficulties that the original standard was framed to prevent. I will address these issues below. Your further point that "the safety benefits of the device are speculative and unproven" is very relevant and well taken, and again I ask for your tolerant consideration of my discussion on that point.

Briefly, my understanding of the issues you raise regarding the device's noncompliance with Standard No. 108 are:

a) the headlamp modulation is greater than 17% and so the device does not comply with S5.6.1(c). (Please note that modulation is between intensity levels within a single beam, and is available for use with either the high or the low beam.)

b) the headlamp flash rate of 10 per second supersedes the maximum allowable rate (S5.6.1(a)) of 280 per minute, or 4.67 hz.

c) the taillamp(s) would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d).

d) the turn signal flash rate of 10 hz would not comply with the SAE specification of 60-120 flashes per minute (1-2 hz) referred to in Standard No.108.

Within my discussion of each of the four specific instances of noncompliance I will also attempt to infer the intent of the clauses cited. If the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case, I feel that the granting of an exception should be

considered by the NHTSA.

First, S5.6.1(c) calls for a modulation intensity of not greater than 17%, the presumed intent being to reduce distraction and annoyance to other drivers whenever such a modulating headlight system is in view. For a device that is used steadily (as is the device described in S5.6), when the presence of a motorcycle is recognized, the modulation becomes redundant and so carries no useful information. Without a limit on its magnitude, the modulation would likely interfere with the other visual processes needed for operating a motor vehicle. On the other hand, our device is only used intermittently and only at need, so that when the presence of the motorcycle is recognized by the car driver, the horn button is released and the modulation stops. As the device is only used to attract attention when necessary and at no other time, no redundant information from the device is ever present in the visual scene to distract other drivers. Therefore our proposed device does not conflict with the inferred intent of S5.6.1(c). Furthermore, to maximize the likelihood that the motorcycle will be seen and an accident avoided, the exception for the device should permit 100% modulation on the condition that modulation can only occur in conjunction with the sounding of the horn.

Second, S5.6.1(a) specifies a modulation rate of between 200 and 280 cycles per minute, or 4.67 hz, while our device has a modulation rate of 600 cycles per minute, or 10 hz. Despite the salience of the 10 hz flash rate, the likelihood of distraction to other drivers is nonexistent, as again the device is only used at need rather than continuously (see the counterargument given above). The 10 hz flash rate is particularly appropriate for use as a warning signal. Figures 1 and 2 (from Snowden and Hess, 1992) show that at every retinal eccentricity, light modulation of approximately 10 hz is more easily seen (or seen at a greater distance) than modulation of any other frequency. Finally, referring to Appendix A, the "brightness enhancement effect" (Bartley, 1939) also achieves maximum enhancement at a rate of about 10 flashes per second, the frequency corresponding to the alpha rhythm of the human visual cortex. As the 10 hz enhancement effect was reported in a document commissioned by the NHTSA and published as Report No. DOT HS 807 121 (1987), I believe that the intent of the author(s) of Standard No.108 (the NHTSA) would be to exploit the safety advantages to be gained by the use of 10 hz light modulation, given the knowledge gained from the visual system research that has been conducted since Standard No.108 was written, and given the safe means to use this knowledge. (Please also note that the 50% duty cycle of the proposed device yields maximum brightness enhancement, as shown by the figure in Appendix A.) I therefore contend that as the flash rate of 10 hz is not contrary to the inferred intent of S5.6.1(a), and further, that its use will not cause any of the difficulties that S5.6.1(a) was likely Written to prevent, that the requested exception should permit the use of a 10 hz flasher frequency, again on the condition that modulation can occur only in conjunction with the sounding of the horn.

Please observe that the first two points of noncompliance result from an attempt to apply to our device, an exception granted to allow the use of another device that is explicitly described in the standard. Our device is unique and clearly differs from the device referred to in S5.5.10(c) and described in S5.6. (In our attorney's opinion the patent search we commissioned found no prior art of sufficient similarity to jeopardize our

patent claims, as shown in the prior art section of the enclosed patent application - see Appendix B.) Therefore, the noncompliance of our device with an exception drafted in specific reference to a different device should not be taken as grounds for prohibiting our device. Rather, I contend that our device is not contrary to the spirit and intent of Standard No.108, and that introducing an exception for the device into the standard would be the most appropriate course of action for the NHTSA to take. Section 5.6 establishes a clear precedent for introducing an exception into the standard by the NHTSA, if public safety would thereby be expected to increase.

Third, when the horn button is pressed the taillamp flashes at a rate of 10 hz, rather than being steady-burning as required by S5.5.10(d). However, a taillight's purpose is to mark the rear of a motor vehicle during nighttime driving when it would otherwise be invisible. For this reason the law requires that taillights be lit at night. The law makes no such requirement during the day. The law does require that motorcycle headlights be lit during the day. Consequently, the taillight, being wired in parallel with the headlight, is also always lit during daytime riding, although not required to be by law. At night the taillight will always be steady- burning, as required by S5.5.10(d), because the flasher device is only able to induce taillight flicker during daylight hours due to the photocell circuitry incorporated to prevent the headlight from generating strobe effects at night. Therefore, the device is in compliance with S5.5.10(d), as it will cause the taillight to flash only at times that it is not required by law to be lit. At such times as the taillight must be lit to mark the rear of the motorcycle to following drivers, it can not be made to flicker by pushing the horn button, and so the device does not violate the intent of the standard.

Fourth, if the horn button is pushed while a turn is being signalled, the appropriate signallight will give out 2 hz bursts of 10 hz flicker (the other signallight remaining dark) and so will not comply with the flash rate of 1-2 hz "specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108". Note first that the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are simultaneously in use will be relatively rare. In addition, the salient difference between a 10 hz flash rate and a 2 hz flash rate allows both to be seen simultaneously and with little or no interference between the two perceptual channels. In other words, an observer who sees a turn signal if a uniform fight is flashing at 2 hz will also see a turn signal if a 10 hz flickering fight is flashing at 2 hz, due to the independence of the temporal channels of the visual system. This channel independence has been most clearly shown by Hess and Snowden (1992) who state that:

The results for 0 and .3 c/d (Fig.4) (shown here as Fig.3) suggest that probes of 1 Hz are detected by a temporal mechanism with a low pass temporal characteristic while probes of 8 Hz are detected by a band pass temporal mechanism centered at 8-10 Hz...For stimuli of mid spatial frequency (1 and 3 c/deg) the results of Fig.5 (shown here as Fig.4) suggest the presence of at least 2 temporal mechanisms, one low pass underlying the detection of low temporal frequency probes and one band pass centered at 8 Hz and underlying the detection of higher temporal frequency probes (p.50).

I have also included their Figures 7 and 8 (shown here as Fig.5 and 6) from

the same publication to illustrate that the temporal frequency of 2.4 hz (above the highest signal light rate specified by SAE) is also detected by the low pass channel tuned to 1-2 hz frequencies, and not by the band pass channel tuned to 8-10 hz frequencies. This result demonstrates empirically that no perceptual interference will occur between the signal flash of 1-2 hz and the hazard flash of 10 hz. Thus, if the signal switch and the horn switch are used together, the SAE-specified turn signal flash of 1-2 hz will be perceptually present, the hazard signal flash of 10 hz will also be perceptually present at the same location, and the two signals will not interfere. Therefore, as widely separated temporal channels in vision are independent, our device is in compliance with the SAE specification of a 1-2 hz flash rate for turn signals, and the additional presence of a 10 hz flash rate for a hazard signal at the same location does not introduce a point of noncompliance between our device and Standard No. 108.

For the reasons given above, I feel that the action by which the NHTSA could most appropriately carry out its congressional mandate would be to write an exception into Standard No. 108, with the exception clause containing the specific assertion that the proposed device is legally permitted if the device can only be actuated by the horn button. The temporary granting of the exception (for an interval of one or two years) will allow the "speculative and unproven ... safety benefits" of the device to be evaluated. If such benefits exist, and the device could help save hundreds or even thousands of lives every year, testing must be carried out.

Before discussing two studies by which the device's benefits can be assessed, I wish to offer from personal experience some anecdotal evidence that demonstrates the need for this device. In 1971, while riding my Triumph motorcycle on a mountain highway in British Columbia, I had a head-on crash with a car at a closing speed of about 60 miles per hour. The car's driver had gradually crossed into my lane as he prepared to turn left onto a gravel road. I moved to the center line in an attempt to squeeze past his car, whereupon he saw a car about fifty yards behind me and attempted to return to his own lane. I was thrown over his car and trailer and sustained a ruptured spleen, some broken bones, and a concussion. The other driver subsequently testified in court that he never saw me, although the accident took place on a clear sunny summer afternoon. That accident would almost certainly not have occurred if I had had the use of the device I have described to you. Furthermore, the responses of other motorcyclists to whom I have described the device are uniformly enthusiastic. We have all felt the helplessness of seeing a motorist inadvertently threatening our lives because he or she has not seen us and we have no means to make ourselves more visible. This device would give motorcyclists the means to do so. If the NHTSA grants a temporary exception to allow safety tests, I believe that many motorcycle manufacturers and insurance companies would enthusiastically support and participate in the studies outlined below. The purpose of the first study is to generate videotape records of automobile drivers' responses to the device's warning flashes. Several motorcycles will be equipped with warning flashers and special purpose cameras. The cameras will be similar in principle to those used by business security firms, in that they will constantly record onto a thirty second videotape loop.

Fifteen seconds after a horn button is pressed, the entire loop's contents will be copied to a permanent videotape record. This record will show, for

each instance of flasher use, the circumstances making such use necessary, as well as the car driver's reaction to the warning flashes. A telltale light or the flasher itself will be within the camera's field of view, furnishing a flasher activation record against which the car driver's preflash and postflash behaviors can be categorized as either appropriate or inappropriate. Each record of a change from inappropriate to appropriate behavior that coincides with flasher activation will be prima facia evidence of the safety benefits conferred by the device. Although this study should generate compelling visual evidence for any safety benefits that exist, the study will not generate logically compelling statistical evidence for the effect, as the criticism can logically be made that the car driver could have seen the motorcycle and responded appropriately in any case (such as by coming to a halt after beginning to pull out from a side street, or by pulling back into the correct lane rather than attempting to complete an overtaking maneuvre), even without flasher activation. Although the cost of conducting the first study is not prohibitive, to carry out the study will certainly require funding support. Clearly however, no group or company will fund the study without assurances from the NHTSA that the device may be legally used if the research demonstrates that the device reduces accidents and saves lives.

The second study is an example of the statistically rigorous experimental design needed to incontrovertibly establish that the device does confer a safety benefit as well as to allow an estimation of the benefit's magnitude. This study requires that a motorcycle manufacturer install flasher systems onto several hundred of their motorcycles. As the motorcycle accident rate in North America in 1987 was approximately 1 accident for each 13 registered motorcycles (U.S. Census figures), a large number of participants is required to allow a statistically significant measure of the device's safety benefits to be made. For example, a safety benefit having sufficient strength to reduce the accident rate by 25 percent (a reduction of 1000 fatalities per year) requires 800 motorcyclists in each of two groups (only the experimental group being equipped with the flashers) to show a statistically significant effect at p less than .05, and 1380 motorcyclists in each group to show statistical significance at p less than .01. Again, no motorcycle manufacturer will conduct so costly a test - even with the support of motorcycle insurance companies - unless the NHTSA has signalled a willingness to allow the device to become available if a safety benefit can be shown.

My most fervent wish is that in light of the reasoning offered above regarding our flasher system, you will reconsider your initial position as stated in your letter of June 29, 1992, and introduce into Standard No. 10 an exception allowing the use of the device I have described. In addition, I again ask (further to my letter faxes of June 3 and June 9) that you request an advanced examination of the patent application filed with the U.S. Patent Office on April 1, 1992 by Steven Henderson and David Kernaghan under Serial No. 863686.

Thank you for your interest and your patience. I look forward to your reply.

ID: 1984-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: LJM Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 21, 1984 Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President LJM Associates, Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91304

Dear Mr. Mandell:

This is in response to your further letter of December 15, 1983, regarding your lighting device, asking me to reconsider my views of November 22 that it offered the potential for impairment of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

To recap, your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rear lamps to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, it operates by lights (red? amber?) spreading from the center of the red translucent panel outward, in either or both directions. I concluded that the novelty of the device offered a great potential for confusion; in the stop mode, a following driver will see the steady red light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, and also the dynamic lights spreading out from the center of the red panel. You have indicated that modification of the flash rate will not be a problem, and were the light spread activation perceptually almost simultaneous with that of the stop lamp, the possibility of impairment would diminish.

I also commented that the same dynamic light spread is seen but meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously (your system's hazard warning mode). Since all lamps are flashing, we believe that the potential for impairment is much less in this instance.

We note that you have added two further functions since last writing us about your device: displays of words in the hazard mode indicating whether road service or police aid is needed. This is an interesting concept and we regard it as a supplement to the hazard signal which would not impair its effectiveness.

In the final analysis, aftermarket equipment such as you propose to offer, which is not itself incorporated into the Federal lighting standard, is subject to the "approval" or "disapproval" of the various jurisdictions in which motor vehicles equipped with it are being operated. It is a mistaken impression that the Federal Government "approves" or "disapproves" aftermarket equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act gives us no authority to "approve" or "disapprove." We can and do, however, point out potential problems of a safety nature that may arise from use of a device that is not covered by a safety standard.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LJM Associates, Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91304 (213) 347-2695

December 15, 1983

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Chief Counsel, Frank Berndt, Vincent Taylor

Dear Sir:

This letter is in response to your response letter dated November 22nd and my subsequent phone conversation to Mr. Taylor. Both sets of communications have indicated a lack of approval but no legal disapproval of my product. The purpose of this letter is to achieve approval from your department.

In response to the letter or Mr. Berndt, I do not believe that there is any potential confusion between my "emergency flasher" indication and "brake" indication since they are presently totally different in current usage. One of these is normally used for a stopped vehicle while the other is used to indicate that a vehicle is stopping. In either case the response of the other driver is to stay clear of the indicating vehicle, thus the desired response is in all cases preserved. If this still concerns you and this is the only obstacle to approval then the emergency response can be changed to a flashing CAUTION indication.

In response to my phone conversation with Mr. Taylor, your concern was solely related to the "brake" indication in that the moving arrows might cause a confusion to other drivers. I strongly disagree with this opinion as my road tests confirm. The movement of the arrows cause the operator of other vehicles to be able to respond at least as quickly as with just the normal brake indications. I do expect that an improvement does exist because the physiology of the human mind is such that a driver can respond to movement very quickly due to origins of the human species. The normal brake indication depends upon this by a causing an intensity transition, but this can be ineffective due to the wide range of brightnesses of brake lights found on automobiles today which can cause a confusion if the operator is distracted during night-time operation. You stated that your objections would not exist if the arrows were not moving. I agreed that a very slow movement would be ineffective and distracting. The difference between our positions is just the speed of movement, infinity being your position, my position being approximately 3/4 second to complete the arrow or approximately the same speed of a blinker I think further consideration would show that my proposal is in no way detrimental and may actually be a safety feature (the speed may be further increased if it will allow me to obtain an approval).

Further functions have been added to reflect a need of at least my local police department. These needs are that emergency flashers only indicate a problem but not the type of attention needed. Thus I have added two indications for this identification:

BREAKDOWN ROAD SERVICE REQUEST

POLICE HELP POLICE AID REQUEST

In conclusion, it appears that active disapproval is not forthcoming from your department but I still would appreciate obtaining at least a passive approval. Your comments would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lee Jay Mandell

ID: 21391.0gm

Mr. Rob McLaughlin
Health & Safety Manager
Circus Circus Hotel
500 North Sierra Street
Reno, NV 89503

Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

This responds to your letter and recent telephone call requesting permission to modify the lap and shoulder belt of a 1996 Nissan Altima that serves as a company mail vehicle and is used on a daily basis by a disabled employee of Circus Circus. You explain that the employee has a very limited use of her right arm and, due to her stature and her disability, finds that the existing combination lap/shoulder belt restricts her ability to drive. In order to accommodate this employee, you ask if the vehicle may be modified so that the existing lap/shoulder belt be replaced with separate lap and shoulder belts that would allow the employee to use only a lap belt when driving the car.

We would like to explain that the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to not exceed specified injury criteria during a test. In the instant case, Nissan certified that the vehicle met all applicable safety standards with an occupant protection system that includes a one piece lap and shoulder belt at the driver's seating position.

In order to accommodate the special needs of your employee, your company may, as explained below, modify the existing belt system or, in the alternative, install a separate lap belt for use by the disabled employee while leaving the existing original equipment belt system in place.

After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

If your company chooses to install a separate lap belt system in addition to the existing lap and shoulder belt provided by Nissan, the installation of such a belt, provided it did not interfere with the operation of the original equipment belt system, would not violate the prohibition on making a required safety device or feature inoperative. However, the seller of the belt, which in this case is presumably the repair business performing the modification, must ensure that the belt meets the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt assemblies (copy enclosed). Although we urge that care be taken in the installation of a second belt system, including selection of the belt and strength and position of the belt anchorages, Federal standards for those aspects of performance would not apply to such an additional voluntarily installed belt. The belt system itself, would still have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209, since it would be considered a "seat belt assembly."

The other course that may be pursued in resolving this issue is to modify the original equipment belt system to accommodate the particular disability of the employee. Currently, there is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses may modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

If your company chooses to have the existing belt system modified, this letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that replaces the existing combination lap/shoulder belt with separate lap and shoulder belts to accommodate the Circus Circus employee's condition

As noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the existing seat belts to accommodate your employee's condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. Nissan should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. In addition, if the vehicle is sold, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

We do not have specific information regarding how the occupant protection system for a Nissan Altima with separate lap and shoulder belts will perform in a crash. We note, however, the installation of separate lap and shoulder belts increases the possibility that the vehicle will be operated with one or more of these belts disconnected. The lap/shoulder belt provided with the vehicle was provided as one component of the overall restraint system and operation of the vehicle with the either just the lap belt or shoulder belt fastened may have a serious safety consequences, particularly since the vehicle is equipped with an air bag. In air bag equipped vehicles, the seat belts are designed to work in conjunction with the air bag and serve an important role in reducing or preventing injuries, including those that may result when an occupant is in close proximity to a deploying air bag. You may wish to ask Nissan what effect replacing the existing lap/shoulder belt with separate lap and shoulder belts may have on the vehicle, which may influence your decisions regarding modification of the seat belts.

You may be interested to know that the agency is considering regulating the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this rulemaking would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 28, 1998, in the Federal Register and expect to issue a final rule in the near future.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. James Cirone
RCS Conversions
#3 East Freeport Blvd.
Sparks, NV 89431

ref:208
d.10/17/00