ID: nht89-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 28, 1989

FROM: DENNIS D. FURR

TO: DIANE STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-2-90 TO DENNIS D. FURR FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; A35; STD. 222; HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE 17

TEXT:

The following is to serve as a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in regards to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and its lack of enforcement on the school bus manufacturers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for new school buses as a condition of sale.

The following is also to serve as a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in regards to Highway Safety Program Standard 17, (3) Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating, which directs the States to use the passive restraint system/ bench seat by a seating position that is less than the 15 inch seating position required in Standard 222, S4.1 as directed by the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

If this is not the correct format, and or procedure, please advise me of the correct format, and or procedure.

The reason for this petition stems from the fact that school bus manufacturers are rating some, but not all school buses for 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat, and in doing so has nullified the safety feature s of the passive restraint system, and by their rating of the school bus has placed one third of the school buses rated capacity outside of the head, and leg impact zones of the passive restraint system.

The rating of some, but not all school buses for 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat by the school bus manufacturers has also encouraged the States/school districts to order school buses from the manufacturers that are not in compliance to the Federal Standards for the passive restraint system as a condition of sale when following Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a violation of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act for the States/school districts.

Understanding that in order for the occupant to be protected by the protective compartment of the passive restraint system, the occupant must be seated inside of the impact zones of the head, and legs, and the rated capacity of the school bus has to be a reflection of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat.

In considering this petition two things has been kept in mind.

The first is the Standard for the passive restraint system is the minimum specifications.

The second is Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. : 1392 (f);

Safety Standard 222, S4.1; "The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W" and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number."

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Section 103 (d); "Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a state shall have any authority either to establish, or to continu e in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard. Nothing in this secti on shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable standard."

The school buses that are rated at 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat is those school buses equipped with bench seats that when divided by the figure 15 in S4.1, ends in a decimal of point five or more, and is carried to the next whole number.

As an example, the 39 inch bench seat is being rated for 3 passengers, but when following S4.1, and the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the 39 inch bench seat is designed for only 2 passengers.

By the school bus manufacturers rating the 39 inch bench seat for 3 passengers, this gives each passenger a 13 inch seating position.

The number of seating positions in S4.1 is considered by the figure 15, and not by the figure 13.

It is quite true that the figure "15" in S4.1, FMVSS 222 is not defined as a seating width, minimum or otherwise.

It is my understanding that the specifications in FMVSS 222 is minimum specifications by direction of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and following the instructions in S4.1, there should not be any doubt what the figure "15" is.

"The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W".

The symbol "W" is the product of division, and the answer to the two part formula.

"And calculated as the bench width in inches."

The bench width in inches is the first part of a two part formula, and is a variable.

"Divided by 15" is the instructions to divide, and the figure "15" is the second part to the two part formula, and is the only known fact.

Since the purpose of the formula is to find the number of "seating positions", it is obvious that the only known fact which is the figure "15" has to be the width of "a" seating position.

"And rounded to the nearest whole number" is additional instructions to ensure that any seating position less than 15 inches is not included in the product of the formula.

It is common practice to carry any decimal 5 tenths and over to the next whole number.

However the instructions in S4.1 says "and rounded to the nearest whole number.", and for the 39 inch bench seat, I understand that to mean 2, understanding that any decimal is not a whole number.

Also understanding that S4.1 does not say rounded to the "next" whole number, which would have included the decimal.

To be sure that a decimal part of the figure "15" can not be rounded to the "next" whole number as a condition of sale, you only have to understand the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Section 103 (d);

"Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a sate shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor v ehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Safety Standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable standard ."

Understanding the decimal part in the product of the formula is not identical to the figure "15: in S4.1, and can not be considered as "a" seating position, but is currently being counted as a whole seating position when rating some, but not all of the p assive restraint systems as a condition of sale by the school bus manufacturers.

Again, the purpose of the formula is to find the number of "seating positions", and the figure "15" is the specification in S4.1 The number of seating positions is a variable, dependent upon the length of the individual passive restraint system/bench sea t, and is not a specification.

As a result, the number of seating positions in a bench seat as a condition of sale must reflect the number of 15 inch seating position, or the number of seating positions that is greater than the 15 inch seating position that

is in the individual bench seat, and the rated capacity of the school bus must reflect that number.

I have been told the use of the figure "15" in the FMVSS 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (for a 38 inch wide seat.), and for a 39 inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger tha n the hip width of a 5th percentile adult female.

(Refer to your letter to Congressman Wolpe, dated February 23, 1989.)

In order to get the figure "15" in S4.1 to produce a minimum seating position of 13 inches in a 39 inch bench seat you would have to divide the 39 inch bench seat by 15, round the 2.6 to the next whole number to get 3. Then divide the 39 inch bench seat again by the 3 to get the 13 inch seating position.

I do not see that formula in S4.1, and do not understand the provisions in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act to permit the NHTSA, or the school bus manufacturers to reword S4.1 to obtain the exceeded number of seating positions in a bench seat for ra ting the school bus as a condition of sale.

Understanding that the NHTSA can exceed the number of designed seating positions in the 39 inch bench seat for testing, (their use), and can provide their own formula for doing so.

However, as a condition of sale, FMVSS 222, S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act has to be followed.

For the NHTSA to permit the school bus manufacturers to rate the school bus by the NHTSA's formula for testing the bench seat, and as a condition of sale, is a deliberate distortion of FMVSS 222. S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

By the manufacturers of the passive restraint system borrowing the 3 to the 39 inch bench seat that the NHTSA has used for testing, the manufacturers have not followed, or complied by FMVSS 222, S4.1 as a condition of sale.

I have also been told that the 13 inch seating position in the 39 inch bench seat is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female.

HSPG means Highway Safety Program Guideline, and its recommendations is to the states for operating their school buses, and is not enforceable by the NHTSA because it is only a guideline, recommended, and directed to the States, and is not a Safety Stand ard that the manufacturers have to comply to.

FMVSS means Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, and is requirements for the school bus manufacturers to follow, and be in compliance with, before the school bus can be sold to the public, and is enforceable by the NHTSA.

If anything is to be consistent, Highway Safety Program Guideline 17 should be consistent with Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and not vice versa.

Any seating position less than the 15 inch seating position in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1 is pre-empted under the provisions of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The NHTSA has in an elective guideline given directions to the States to use a seating position that is less than required in the enforceable FMVSS 222 when following the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act clearl y states;

Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, (no State or political subdivision of a state) shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard.

Understanding if a State did elect HSPG 17 either by law, or history of use by the 13 inch seating position by the school districts, the States/school districts has established a safety standard that is not identical to the applicable Federal Standard, a violation of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Also understanding that if a State requested a school bus manufacturer to deliver a school bus with a rated capacity based on the 13 inch seating position, and the school bus manufacturer complied to the State, the school bus manufacturer has not complie d to the applicable Standard as a condition of sale.

To understand that only a seating position greater than, or equal to the 15 inch seating position can be specified either as a states specification, recommended in another Safety Standard, or used for rating a new school bus you only have to follow the s ame logic in the Preamble to Amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, Docket No. 73-3; Notice 6.

You can also see that the seating position of the 5th percentile adult female in HSPG 17 is a contradiction to the NHTSA's own opinion for the requirements of a states specification.

Understanding that the seating position of the 5th percentile adult female does not meet, or exceed the requirements in FMVSS 222, S4.1.

The Physicians for Automotive Safety (PAS), requested that the seat back height be raised from the 20 inch level specified by Safety Standard 222 to a 24 inch level. While PAS's request was denied, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gave this opinion, in part;

"Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seat back height (S5.1.2) which manufacturers many exceed as long as their product conforms to all other requirements of the standards applicable to school buses. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra tion's opinion that any State standard of general applicability concerning seat back height of school

bus seating would also have to specify a minimum height identical to the Federal requirement.

Following this same logic for the minimum seating position, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's opinion "would have read".

Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seating position (S4.1) which manufacturers may exceed as long as their product conforms to all other requirements of the standards applicable to school buses. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 's opinion that any State standard of general applicability concerning a seating position width of school bus seating would also have to specify a minimum seating position identical to the Federal requirement.

In consideration of the above, I respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to amend Highway Safety Program Standard 17, (3) Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating, to reflect the 15 inch seating position as required in Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and as directed in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require the school bus manufacturers to rate their school buses by the actual number of 15 inch seating positions in the individual passive restraint system/bench seat that is on the school bus as a condition of sale, and as required in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and as directed in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to provide me with the formula that was developed that provided the pounds of force/inch-pounds of energy in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 that is indicated by the Symbol "W" being the force of 700W pounds in S5.1.3.2, the 350W pounds in S5.1.3.3, the 4,000W inch-pounds in S5.1.3.4, the 2,200 pounds of force in S5.1.4 (a), the 50 pounds of force in S5.1.4, (b), and the 2,800W inch pounds in S5.1.4.1.

Since there is a relationship between the symbol "W" and the pounds of force, and or the inch pounds of energy applied to the passive restraint system in testing, what percentile is the pounds of force/inch pounds designed to protect?

I would also like to know the source of the data for the percentiles listed in S7.1.3 in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

ID: nht89-2.85

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1989

FROM: Emory L. Lariscy -- Lariscy Enterprises, Inc.

TO: George Shifflett -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Patten #07-335838

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from P.J. Rice to E.J. Lariscy (A36; Std. 108; Std. 124; Std. 301); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Mundy to E. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Al so attached to letter dated 8-9-89 from L. Baer to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

With regard to our conversation of Aug. 24, 1989 we request you to submit to National Highway Traffic Committee for their interpretation and legality and now impairment of the use and marketing of vehicle safety light assembly.

We are enclosing the copy of patten application summary and background information for your reference.

It is our understanding after our conversation, that this new caution device does not require an S.A.E. or D.O.T number or sponsership.

This application deviates in size and placement of light for use in the trucking industry, (as pictured on enclosed rough draft). And in regard to the present potential truck fleet owners, would be mounted and/or located on the safety bumber bracket of semi-trailers: singularly or in pairs on said safety bumper bracket.

We are taking this opportunity to also submit copies of some of the inquiries and options we have had from major automobile and trucking firms.

We would appreciate your consideration and opinion and non disclosure any and all information submitted at this time.

P.S. Should you need clarification on said patten please contact Patten Attorney Wallace J. Nelson 34 Salt Pond Road Hampton, VA 23664 Ph (804) 851-1667 Enc.

EL-903 PATENT APPLICATION VEHICLE SAFETY LIGHT ASSEMBLY

FIELD OF THE INVENTI0N This invention relates generally to a vehicular safety system, and relates specifically to a braking and deceleration light warning

system to alert a trailing vehicle driver that the front vehicle is decelerating and, or may be, braking.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Rear end vehicular collisions are one of the most common accidents occurring on our road systems today and result in countless loss of money, time and sometimes, life to those involved. Although a number of systems have been proposed to alert trailing v ehicle drivers of the deceleration of a lead vehicle prior to illumination of the brake lights, there remains a need for further improvement in this area.

The addition of a third eye-level brake light in the rear window of presently manufactured automobiles has, no doubt, helped to reduce the number and severity of rear end collisions. A reliable and more efficient system to alert a trailing vehicle opera tor that the lead vehicle is, or may be, decelerating prior to actual illumination of the vehicle brake lights could prove a valuable safety device that could further reduce the number and severity of rear end collisions now occurring.

Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide an improved braking and deceleration light warning system for automotive vehicles.

Another object of the present invention is a braking and deceleration warning light system that is easy to install by the novice mechanic or vehicle owner.

A further object of the present invention is a novel deceleration warning light system that may be installed on vehicles that are already provided with rear window brake lights.

An additional object of the present invention is a novel bracket member for connecting a deceleration light switch to the carburetor of vehicle.

Another object of the present invention is a braking and deceleration warning light kit that is economical to buy, easy to retro fit onto a vehicle and will reduce rear-end collision incidence and severity.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION According to the present invention the foregoing and additional objects are attained by providing a rear window mounted combination brake and carburetor such that when a vehicle ignition switch is in the "on" position an amber light is activated and beco mes visible in the rear window of the vehicle.

When the vehicle accelerator is depressed, the electrical connection to the amber light is interrupted and it ceases to burn until the accelerator is released. When the brake pedal is depressed a red brake light in the vehicle rear window is activated, along with the regular brake lights. The amber or yellow caution light is connected to an independent circuit from the brake lights and continues to burn as long as the accelerator is not depressed as further visual indication to a trailing

vehicle driver that the lead vehicle is decelerating and braking.

For vehicles already provided with a rear window mounted brake light, an amber deceleration light unit is installed on one or both sides of the brake light. When installing two amber light units they may be placed adjacent to, or spaced from, the centra l red brake light. The brake light in each instance is connected to the same electric system that actuates the rear mounted brake lights. The amber caution or deceleration warning light(s) is connected to a switch disposed on the vehicle carburetor and receives current from the vehicle fuse block such that the throttle valve arm on the carburetor maintains the switch closed when the vehicle ignition switch is "on" and the accelerator pedal is not depressed. When the accelerator pedal is depressed, the throttle valve arm moves out of contact with the switch to permit spring actuated opening thereof. Opening of the switch interrupts the current flow to the amber deceleration light causing it to go out. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht89-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAN TREXLER -- SPECIFICATIONS ENGINEER THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/08/89 FROM DAN TREXLER -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 3560

TEXT: Dear Mr. Trexler:

This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1989, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Erika Jones. You have received requests "to install a master electrical disconnect switch on many buses." When the switch is turned to the "off" position "it ren ders inoperative the warning signals (to the driver) required by FMVSS 105, 121 and 217. It also inactivates the hazard warning flasher required by FMVSS 108." You ask whether installation of the switch would constitute a noncompliance, or a "safety rel ated hazard." if it is accessible to the seated driver, or if remotely located in the battery or engine compartment, without ready access to the driver.

Although you have not explained the purpose of such a device, we understand that a battery disconnect switch of this nature is deemed desirable by many bus owners to prevent drains on the battery when the bus is at rest. When the switch is activated, th e bus cannot be started and driven because electric power is not available. Under this circumstance we do not believe that the switch either creates a noncompliance with any of the standards listed, nor constitutes a safety related defect, regardless of its location. When the bus is in operation the warning systems of the standards are not affected. The possibility of inadvertent activation when the bus is in use does not constitute a defect in performance, construction, components, or materials such as to create a safety related defect. To forestall any possibility of inadvertent activation, however, you may find it preferable to locate the switch away from the driver.

We understand that a purpose of this switch is to reduce the likelihood of fire after accidents in which there has been fuel spillage. In this circumstance, it is likely that the bus would be positioned either in the roadway or adjacent to it. Safety w ould be enhanced if the hazard warning signal power source were separate from the batteries inactivated by the disconnect switch, so that these warning lamps could continue to operate.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY

TITLE: INFLATION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 109, PART 575.104; LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, OCC 3994.

TEXT: In telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke and Marvin Shaw of my staff on August 10, 1989, you requested written confirmation of your interpretation of a requirement set forth in the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Stan dards (UTQGS; 49 CFR @ 575.104). Specifically, you noted that @ 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) specifies that one "inflate the tire to 24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa." There is a similar provision for readjusting the inflation pressure of tires during traction testing in @ 575.104(f)(2)(i)(D).

You stated that these provisions are clear as to the appropriate inflation pressure to be used during the testing of tires whose inflation pressure is expressed solely in English units (as pounds per square inch or "psi") or solely in metric units (as ki lopascals or "kPa"). However, you suggested that there is some uncertainty about the appropriate inflation pressure to be used with tires whose inflation pressure is expressed in both English units and the equivalent metric units, an increasingly common practice. You stated that you have been inflating tires whose inflation pressure is expressed in both English and metric units to 24 psi during testing for traction grading, and asked that we confirm that this is the proper inflation pressure for these tires. Your interpretation is correct.

The language of the regulation sets forth a general requirement for an inflation pressure of 24 psi, and a subordinate requirement that tires "with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals" use an inflation pressure of 180 kPa. An examination of the b ackground of this language shows that the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa is to be used only for tire sizes that have inflation pressures specified only in kilopascals.

As you know, the UTQGS were originally promulgated with a requirement that all tires use an inflation pressure of 24 psi during the traction testing. This created some problems for tires whose inflation pressure was expressed solely in metric units. In a February 7, 1979 letter to Mr. Leon Conner, the agency stated:

In the situation where no cold inflation pressure exactly equivalent to the specified pressure of 24 psi is stated in [the tire tables] for a tire size designation, the tires to be tested are inflated to the pressure listed for the tire size designati on in [the tire tables] which is nearest to 24 psi, i.e., 180 kPa for tires with inflation pressures measured in kilopascals. The agency plans to issue an interpretive amendment to the regulation clarifying this point.

As indicated in the letter to Mr. Conner, the agency proposed to amend the UTQGS in a notice published October 1, 1979 (44 FR 56389). The preamble to that notice described the proposal as being addressed to tires that do not have any inflation pressure corresponding precisely to 24 psi, and proposing to amend the regulation to provide that those tires should use an inflation pressure of 180 kPa. The final rule adopting this change stated that it was adopting the inflation pressure proposed in the NPRM . See 45 FR 70273, October 23, 1980. This background indicates that the agency intended tires to be inflated to 180 kPa during traction testing only if no information was shown for that tire size under a column for an inflation pressure of 24 psi in the tire tables formerly incorporated in Standard No. 109. The only tire sizes for which information was not shown in a 24 psi column were tire sizes whose inflation pressure was expressed exclusively in metric units. Hence, any tires whose inflation press ure is expressed in both English and metric units should be inflated to 24 psi during the UTQGS traction testing.

Our second comment concerns the fact that in the turn signal mode the unused turn signal lamp would continue to be illuminated when the brake pedal is applied. Thus, an observer would see a flashing turn signal and a steady burning one, whereas with an ordinary vehicle, the observer would see only the flashing turn signal. Whether the presence of the steady burning turn signal on the side of the vehicle opposite the flashing turn signal would detract from the effectiveness of the flashing turn signal, and by obscuring its message make it "partially inoperative", is difficult to judge. Certainly, when a vehicle is signaling a turn, it does not appear necessary to also indicate, to the front, that it is stopping.

These remarks also serve as some comments of this Office as to "safety benefits" that might result from vehicles equipped with your device. Certainly, no standard lighting equipment on vehicles today indicate from the front that the brake pedal is being applied. This is an interesting concept, and we appreciate your interest in enhancing motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/89

FROM: JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY & MOODY ENTERPRISES

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION FMVSS-108 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY AND MOODY ENTERPRISES; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 09/14/89 FROM S. WATANABE -- STANLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY TO STEPHEN P. WOOD NHTSA; OCC 3931

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

My company is planning to market nationwide a vehicle aftermarket kit which effects the front turn signals on motor vehicles. The intent of this letter is to inquire as to whether or not vehicles equipped with our product would be in conflict with exist ing vehicle lighting standards established by N.H.T.S.A..

Prior to writing this letter I had telephone conversations with several individuals there at N.H.T.S.A. and the consensus was that, since our product does not interfere with the normal operation of the existing vehicle lighting equipment, there would be no conflict. It was recommended, however, that I write this letter to you in order to obtain an official evaluation of our product and to receive a reply in writing.

Our product is really quite simple. We connect both front turn signal lamp filaments so that when the brake pedal is pushed and the rear brake lights are illuminated, both front turn signal lights are also illuminated. If a turn signal is activated eit her before or during application of the brakes, the front turn signal light flashes in its normal manner thereby indicating the direction of turn while the other front turn signal light will be illuminated as long as the brake pedal is being pushed.

This product is intended to add a significant measure of safety to vehicles by providing a forward indication as to whether or not the driver of the vehicle is attempting to apply the brakes. This would be a benefit to other drivers and pedestrians alik e.

According to the directional analysis of 1987 motor vehicle traffic accidents published by the National Safety Council, this safety improvement could have been helpful in reducing 41.6% of all two car accidents (8,652,800) and 29.5% of all two car fatali ties (12774). In addition, we believe that a significant number of pedestrian-car accidents (90,000 total resulting in 8200 fatalities in 1987) could have been avoided had the car been equipped with a forward directed brake application indicator.

Although we are requesting your evaluation concerning our product's compatibility with vehicle lighting standards, we also would appreciate any comments which you or others would offer concerning your opinion as to the safety benefits which would result from vehicles being equipped with a forward directed brake application indicator.

For your information, we are sending a similar letter to each state requesting their opinion concerning our product and their state vehicle lighting regulations.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. A prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MARK RECCHIA -- FIAT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S.A. BRANCH

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recchia:

This responds to your telephone call asking about an apparent inconsistency between the requirements of S4.1 of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, and NHTSA's laboratory procedures for flammability compliance tests (June 1973). You as k whether the laboratory procedures are correct in specifying that all materials found in the vehicle occupant compartment must meet the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. I regret the delay in responding. The answer is no.

Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302 sets forth a listing of the components of vehicle occupant compartments that must be certified as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. Paragraph S4.1 includes a reference to "any o ther interior materials . . . that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash." That paragraph represents a complete listing of all components in new vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requiremen ts. Any component not identified in paragraph S4.1 is not subject to those requirements.

Paragraph 10.1 of NHTSA's laboratory procedures also lists the components of vehicle occupant compartments that must meet Standard No. 302. That listing was intended to include only the components described in S4.1 of the standard, but inadvertently mak es a general reference to "[a]ny other materials" in the vehicle interior compartment (item number 19) without including the modifying clause, "that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash." The modifying clause shou ld have been included, since Standard No. 302 applies only to the vehicle components identified in S4.1 of the standard.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: H. HASEGAWA -- AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL SECTION STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/22/89 FROM H. HASEGAWA TO RICHARD L. VANIDERSTINE, RE REVISION OF FMVSS NO 108 [DOCKET NO 85-15 NOTICE 8

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hasegawa:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of May 22, 1989, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency.

You have two questions with respect to the amendment to Standard No. 108 published on May 9, 1989 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 8).

Your first question is the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1.(a), which you point out was not previously a requirement of Standard No. 108. You suggest the need for a delayed effective date (but give no reason why one may be needed).

Paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) will be effective June 8, 1989. Although the requirement is a new one (the restriction on motion of a headlamp when an external aiming device is applied to it), it was proposed as part of the December 29, 1987 NPRM, and no comments received indicated a need for a delayed effective date. Your supposition is correct; S7.5.5.1 will apply to all headlamps with an external aiming system, including those incorporating replaceable bulbs.

Your second question relates to paragraph S7.7.5.1(b), and you ask "whether the requirement of '0.1 in. max.' will be determined, either during the test or after the test". In pertinent part, subsection (b) states "nor shall the lamp recede more than 0. 1 in. (2.5 mm) after being subjected to an inward force...." This means that the measurement is determined after the test.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BRADLEY J. BAKER -- PRESIDENT CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/21/88 FROM BRADLEY J. BAKER -- CLASSIC MANUFACTURING TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; OCC 2717

TEXT: Dear Mr. Baker:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with reference to a product your company manufactures, a "car dolly used to tow a vehicle behind motor homes." You question whether the dolly is a motor vehicle, and if so, whether identifi cation lamps are necessary for it. I regret the delay in responding.

The car dolly appears to be a vehicle drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and thus a "motor vehicle" subject to the jurisdiction of this agency. Specifically, it would be a "trailer", since it is a motor vehicle without motive power, designed for carrying property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires identification lamps on all trailers whose o verall width is 80 inches or more. Therefore, if the overall width of your dolly is less than 80 inches, it need not be equipped with identification lamps.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 31, 1989

FROM: J. BRETTSCHNEIDER -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TO: RICHARD VAN IDERSTINE -- DOCKET SECTION, NHTSA

TITLE: PERFORMANCE OF THE IMPACT TEST ACCORDING SAE J1383

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-29-90 TO J. BRETTSCHNEIDER, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA.

TEXT:

According to the above-mentioned SAE Standard (recommended practice), Section 4.10.3, the impact test has to be performed ... along the mechanical axis ...

SAE Standard J 579, Section 2.14 defines the mechanical axis as ... perpendicular to the aiming plane through the geometric center of the lens.

Now the questions arise

- where is the geometric center of a lens without aiming pads?

- where is the geometric center of a lens which moreover covers two compartments, one for the lower beam and one for the upper beam?

Please give us your advice.

Thanking you in advance.

ID: nht89-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 31, 1989

FROM: CADWALLADER JONES -- PRESIDENT, JONES FORD INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-20-90 TO CADWALLADER JONES, JONES FORD INC., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; VSA 102(14); PART 571.3]

TEXT: We need some help in the interpretation of Section 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This involves the sale, lease or rental of Ford Motor Company manufactured Econoline Vans and Club Wagons. We understand that these vehicles having more than 10 designated seating positions are not intended for use as "school buses" and are not designed to comply with certain Federal Motor vehicle safety standards uniquely applicable to school buses. We understand that a school bus is defined in S ection 571.3 as a "Motorvehicle -- designed for carrying more than 10 persons -- that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed a nd sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation."

We have questions of further definition of "school bus" and of "student".

1. Is there an age limit or occupational definition of "student"?

A) Adults being transported to and from adult education classes by United Way.

B) College students-athletic teams, etc.

C) Churches that don't have day schools but transport children on occasions

D) Highschool students-athletic teams, etc.

E) Playground teams-no connection with schools

F) Day care center

We understand the prohibition against installing smaller size seats in a window van and painting it school bus yellow like we used to do in the '70s. It's these "fringe" uses that are not on a daily basis about which we are concerned.

We will appreciate your help in this area.