ID: 9929

Mr. Neil Rowe
Rowe Manufacturing
1266 Highway 96 - Box 386
Gladbrook, IA 50635-0386

Dear Mr. Rowe:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to your product, the Glad Grip. You stated that this product serves as a handle to help connect and disconnect truck tractor air brake hoses at the glad hand. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your product. However, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSS for your product.

Our standard for brake hoses (FMVSS 106) applies to air brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies installed as original equipment and to those sold in the aftermarket. Standard 106 defines "brake hose end fitting" as a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose. You describe the Glad Grip as a device which attaches to the end fitting of an air brake assembly and the glad hand. Since the brake hose that attaches to the Glad Grip is equipped with its own end fittings, the Glad Grip itself is not an end fitting. Therefore, Standard 106 is inapplicable.

While it does not appear that you will market your device as original equipment on new vehicles, bear in mind that FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, applies to trucks and trailers. Any new truck or trailer that has your product as original equipment must meet the standard's requirements with your product installed.

I note also that, while NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the Glad Grip contains a safety related defect, you as the manufacturer

of the product would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Further, the Glad Grip is also subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 393.45 and 393.46 (copy enclosed), which are regulations administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for commercial vehicles. If you are interested in these FHWA requirements, you can write to that agency at the addressed provided in the enclosed information sheet.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:106 d:5/18/94

ID: 9945

Mr. Richard Kreutziger
Executive Director
New York State Bus Distributors Association
102 Grace Street
Penn Yan, NY 14527

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your fax of May 4, 1994, requesting information on a May 4, 1994, final rule (59 FR 22997) delaying the effective date of one section of the November 2, 1992, final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413). Your letter enclosed a bulletin from Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. concerning "options" which can be deleted because of the delay of effective date. Your fax notes that New York state regulations exceed the minimum requirements of Standard No. 217 and requested any information we can provide on how the delay of effective date affects buses in the State of New York.

The November 2, 1992, amendment to Standard No. 217 set requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The May 4, 1994, delay of effective date affects only the amendments to S5.2.

Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2)

The November 2, 1992, final rule revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses. As amended, S5.2.3 states, in part:

The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening.

The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses are

required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. The November 1992 rule amended S5.2.3.1 by specifying additional exits to meet the new minimum area requirement of S5.2.3. If, after deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), additional exits are needed to meet the minimum area requirement of S5.2.3, any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) an emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows.

The May 4, 1994 final rule delayed the effective date of the amendment of S5.2.3.1 only. The effect of the delay is that, until September 1, 1994, manufacturers may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217 by installing either a rear emergency exit door, or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window.

Your letter notes that New York regulations exceed Standard No. 217 in that they require additional exits. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... 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. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that are different from the applicable standard except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law requiring exits in addition to those required by Standard No. 217 would be preempted under '103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. Any exits required by New York regulations on public school buses which exceed the requirements of Standard No. 217 would be considered voluntarily installed for purposes of federal law.

Emergency Exit Release (S5.3)

The November 2, 1992, final rule added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either emergency exit windows or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the release mechanisms comply with the requirements of S5.3. The effective date for the amendments to S5.3 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4)

The November 2, 1992, final rule revised the extension requirements for side emergency exit doors on school buses and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either side emergency exit doors or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with the new extension requirements. The effective date for the amendments to S5.4 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

I note that the bulletin enclosed with your letter implies that, due to the delay of the effective date of the November 2, 1992, final rule, flip-up seats are not needed to meet the new requirements of S5.4. This information appears to be incorrect, since the May 4, 1994, final rule did not delay the effective date of S5.4. Compliance with the new requirements of S5.4 might entail the installation of flip-up seats. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch. Thus, if New York requires side emergency exit doors, flip-up seats adjacent to those exits might have to be used to enable the bus to meet these requirements. For example, a flip-up seat might be needed to meet the requirement that the aisle for a side exit must be at least 30 centimeters wide.

Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5)

Finally, the November 2, 1992, final rule revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effective date for the amendments to S5.5 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit." For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. The identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3).

Please note that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the November 2, 1992, final rule. In a July 7, 1993, letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company NHTSA stated that it would issue a correction notice that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

I have enclosed a copy of the May 4, 1994, final rule for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. Mitchell, IN 47446 Enclosure

ref:217 d:5/18/95

ID: 9948

Mr. J. L. Steffy
Triumph Designs Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate
Hinckley, Leics. LE10 3BS
England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your FAX of May 5, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You describe a motorcycle lamp "which comprises a headlight with high and low beams and 2 symmetrically (sic) flanking front auxillary (sic) lamps possessing low beam (sic) that augment the headlight." You ask for our comments.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits auxiliary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 108 includes certification to S5.1.3 and represents its determination that the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it.

Your letter contains too little information for us to comment further. For example, we do not know whether the candela of the auxiliary lower beam lamps is higher, lower, or the same as the main lower beam of the headlamp. Nor does the letter indicate whether the supplementary lower beam lamps are extinguished when the upper beam is activated.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/31/94

ID: 9950

M. Guy Dorleans
Valeo Vision
34, rue St-AndrJ
93012 Bobigny Cedex
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

This responds to your FAX of April 20, 1994, to Mike Perel of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108.

The drawing in your letter depicts a four-lamp headlamp arrangement in which the outermost lamps (lower beam) incorporate HB4 light sources, and the innermost lamps (upper beam), HB3 light sources. In operation, the outermost lamps alone provide the lower beam. However, when the upper beam switch is thrown, all lamps are energized. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that "outer unit must fulfill table 15a for Low Beam, an (sic) also that inner must fulfill with HB3 alone table 15a High Beam."

Paragraph S7.5 of Standard No. 108 specifies requirements for four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp systems such as the one you describe. The photometrics that apply to such systems are set forth in paragraph S7.5(b): "The photometrics as specified in subparagraphs (c) through (e) of this paragraph (depicted in Figure 26) . . . ." Because subparagraph (d) applies to a headlamp equipped with dual filament replaceable light sources and Types HB3 and HB4 are single filament sources, the applicable subparagraph is (e), and, more specifically, the four-headlamp specifications of (e)(3).

This will confirm your understanding. Under S7.5(e)(3), the lower beam is to be produced by the outermost lamps and designed to conform to the lower beam requirements of Figure 15; the upper beam by the innermost lamps and designed to conform to the upper beam requirements of Figure 15. This is confirmed in Figure 26. However, the photometrics of Figure 15A will apply on and after September 1, 1994, (Paragraph S7.1).

Simultaneous activation of both upper and lower beams is permitted by S5.5.8 of Standard No. 108 for headlighting systems designed to conform to Figure 15. Later this year, we will amend Standard No. 108 to substitute Figure 15A for Figure 15, effective September 1, 1994.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:6/6/94

ID: 9958

The Honorable Mike Parker
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2404

Dear Mr. Parker:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District, concerning your constituent's desire to install television monitors in school buses to air "drug-free videos." You asked whether the installation would be consistent with our school bus regulations.

I am pleased to explain our school bus regulations. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection." The standard has head impact protection requirements that require the area around a school bus passenger to be free of surfaces that could injure the child in a crash. All new school buses must be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 222.

Our regulations do not prohibit Jones County from installing the video equipment in their school buses. Since the FMVSS only apply to new school buses, we do not require existing school buses to continue to meet FMVSS No. 222. Further, NHTSA does not regulate in any manner how individual owners choose to modify their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District may install the television monitors in its school buses without regard to whether the head impact protection requirements of FMVSS No. 222 are maintained. However, we would urge Jones County to install the television monitors safely. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and to ensure that the seating area is free from harmful structures. To protect school bus

passengers, we suggest to Jones County that any video equipment installed on a school bus should be outside of an area that a school bus passenger might impact in a crash. Further, the equipment should be installed so that it does not become unsecured, especially during a crash where any projectile can be very dangerous to the vehicle occupants.

We also note that the Safety Act limits how certain commercial businesses may modify new or existing school buses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with any FMVSS. If any of these parties installed the video equipment in a manner that rendered inoperative the compliance of the school bus with FMVSS No. 222, a possible violation of '108(a)(2)(A) could result.

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District, the owner of the school buses, could install the equipment itself in its own shops without violating this or any other provision of the Safety Act. As mentioned above, NHTSA urges the school district to ensure that the equipment does not degrade the safety of the school buses, particularly with regard to the head impact protection provided by the buses.

I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding to your constituent. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please feel free to contact John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, at this address or at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Hart Acting Administrator

ref:222#VSA d:5/31/94

ID: 9977

Mr. David Ori, Manager
Bureau of Motor Vehicles
Vehicle Control Division, Room 104
T&S Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Dear Mr. Ori:

This responds to your letter to Mr. James Gilkey of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 to certain limousines. You were concerned about the permissibility of applying sun screening or window tinting to such vehicles during the original manufacturing process, and during the "second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process."

By way of background information, the National Highway 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. Under this authority, NHTSA issued Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," to specify performance requirements for various types of glazing and to specify the location in the vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. One provision in Standard No. 205 requires a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance in any glazing area requisite for driving visibility. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the vehicle's windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 205. As you correctly state, second stage manufacturers and alterers also have certification responsibilities. Specifically, a final stage manufacturer is responsible for certifying a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR '567.5. Accordingly, you are correct that a final stage manufacturer is

required to certify that its finished product, including the glazing materials, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards. 49 CFR '567.7. However, this provision does not apply to the "addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations, such as painting." NHTSA views the addition of window tint film as a "minor finishing operation." Accordingly, a person adding such tint film would not be considered an alterer and therefore would not be subject to certification responsibilities.

However, aside from certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. ' 30112a, "a person may not...sell, offer for sale, [or] introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce...any motor vehicle...unless the vehicle...complies with [all applicable standards]." Thus, it would be a violation of the statute to sell a new vehicle whose windows which are requisite for driving visibility had been tinted to allow less than 70 percent light transmittance.

Moreover, with respect to vehicles that are no longer new, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." Thus, a person in any of these categories may not apply tint film that would cause the light transmittance of the glazing requisite for driving visibility to be under 70 percent.

You stated your belief that limousines that seat less than 10 persons may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product, since such products would violate Standard No. 205. We wish to clarify one aspect of your statement. Limousines that seat less than 10 persons are considered "passenger cars" under NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA considers all windows in a passenger car to be requisite for driving visibility; accordingly, all windows in a passenger car/limousine must have a minimum 70 percent light transmittance. However, please note that tinting may be used in these vehicles, provided the tinted windows meet the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

You further asked whether a limousine that seats 10 or more persons is subject to the Federal window tinting requirements. A limousine with a capacity of more than 10 persons is considered a "bus" under our regulations. There are specific requirements in Standard No. 205 that apply to buses (or bus/limousines). Under these requirements, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered to be requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying section S6.1(b) of Standard No. 111), and thus subject to the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in a bus/limousine, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Accordingly, Standard No. 205 does not prohibit the use of tinted glazing materials for bus/limousine windows to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205#567 d:9/7/94 The agency defines "passenger car" as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less." In turn, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A "bus" is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

ID: 9984

Victor Larson, P.E.
Cryenco, Inc.
3811 Joliet Street
Denver, CO 80238

Dear Mr. Larson:

This responds to your FAX of May 17, 1994, with reference to the application of conspicuity material to the sides of cryogenic tank trailers.

You point out that the only side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road is at the center of the tank, approximately 90 inches above the road surface. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that conspicuity material can be placed at this location "if that is the only available mounting area" and that it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface.

We confirm your understanding. Standard No. 108 specified an original mounting height for conspicuity material as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers should mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers, in order to achieve the full conspicuity benefits of the material. In the case of your tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at a belt line that is 90 inches above the road surface would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility

in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

You inform us that some trailers have rear and midship cabinets that could be used, in conjunction with the belt line location, to provide a location for striping, although this would result in a non-aligned striping pattern. With respect to trailers equipped with cabinets, you asked whether compliance would be satisfied if only the belt-line location is used. The answer is yes, provided that the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) is met, i.e., which provides that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." Since the strip need not be continuous, this would allow discontinuities in a strip mounted at 90 inches in which the cabinets were not used.

Your final question is the required orientation of striping for conspicuity; some of your customers have requested placement of material at a downward angle of approximately 30 degrees to accommodate their graphics better. The standard does not explicitly address the issue of orientation. However, as noted in response to your first question, trailer manufacturers should mount conspicuity material in a vertical plane, or as nearly thereto as the trailer shape allows, so that the full conspicuity benefits of the material may be realized. If there is no available vertical surface on which the material can be mounted, we urge that a wider stripe of conspicuity material be used to provide the minimum required performance at the installed downward angle. The manufacturer of the conspicuity material which you use should be able to determine whether an increase in the width of the striping would allow the material mounted at or near the downward angle that your customer prefers to provide performance comparable to a narrower strip mounted in a vertical plane.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:10/14/94

ID: 9990

Mr. Alberto Negro
Chief Executive Officer
Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.
39300 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473

Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, asking if Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection "allows the advisory information required by ... S4.5.1 to be printed in English and also in one or more foreign languages."

On March 10, 1994, NHTSA published a notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of the September 2, 1993 final rule which amended Standard No. 208 to require air bag labels (59 FR 11200). In that notice NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets the labeling requirements of the September 2 final rule as requiring manufacturers to supply the information in English. Once this requirement is met, manufacturers may supply the same information in other languages, so long as it does not confuse consumers. As long as the non- English language label is a translation of the required information, NHTSA does not interpret it to be "other information." However, manufacturers are not permitted to include additional information in the non- English label.

I am enclosing a copy of that notice for your information.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d:6/8/94

ID: 99aiam3.ogm

Mr. George L. Parker
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
1001 19th St. North
Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22209

Dear Mr. Parker:

The Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards, L. Robert Shelton, has asked me to respond to several concerns that the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) has raised in both correspondence and in a meeting with the agency on August 19, 1998, regarding the interpretation of Standard 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and the compliance test procedures for that section. Your letter asks that the agency:

• again consider limiting multiple impacts in cases in which target areas are near each other,
• clarify the definition of "convertible roof frame" in the context of Standard 201,
• provide guidance on the position of sun roofs for targeting purposes,
• clarify the procedure for relocating target areas when those targets must be moved, and
• address what AIAM considers to be unacceptable potential variability between target area locations as derived by manufacturers for certification testing and by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance testing.

In the August 19, 1998, meeting, AIAM and other industry participants presented additional information relating to multiple impacts. They also raised issues concerning lower face and cheek contact during testing, and procedures for relocating targets in the event that movable seat backs make a target area inaccessible for testing.

Multiple Impacts

Your letter indicates that AIAM shares the concern raised by the (former) American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) regarding multiple impacts and that you wish to raise an additional point on this issue. As your letter indicates, AAMA filed a petition for reconsideration in response to the April 8, 1997, final rule modifying the head impact provisions of Standard 201. The AAMA petition, filed on May 23, 1997, requested in part that the agency consider limiting impacts for certain target areas to one impact per individual piece of trim. In its petition, AAMA contended that test impacts may result in damage to trim components that may extend beyond the area in the immediate vicinity of the impact point. AAMA also stated that impacts by the lower face and other portions of the Free Motion Headform (FMH) that are outside of the forehead impact zone may also damage trim so that the ability of the vehicle to withstand an impact at an adjacent target area is compromised. Your letter refers specifically to the potential for an impact by the lower face to cause collateral damage to a second target area when the first is being tested. You state that the lower face and the forehead impact zone of the FMH are approximately 200 millimeters apart and that the existing limitation in S8.14(c) excluding impacts into target areas that are separated by 150 mm or less does not preclude a second impact into a target area that has been damaged by lower face contact resulting from an impact to a nearby target area. Due to this phenomenon, you argue that impacts should be limited to one impact per component.

As you are undoubtedly aware, NHTSA published a denial of the AAMA petition on April 22, 1998. (63 FR 19839) In denying the AAMA petition, the agency noted that AAMA had not submitted any data supporting its position and that the agency continued to believe that the 150 mm minimum distance between target areas was sufficient to prevent overlapping impacts. Accordingly, NHTSA denied the AAMA request to limit impacts to one impact per component.

AAMA presented additional data relating to the consequences of contact between lower portions of the Free Motion Headform and interior trim components during the August 19, 1998, meeting. These data indicate that contact between the lower portion of the FMH and interior trim during testing of one target area may degrade the performance of the trim in the area of the contact to an extent that it may be difficult, if not impossible, for the vehicle to meet the specifications of Standard 201 when tested at a target area in the vicinity of the lower face contact.

The agency recognizes that Standard 201 does not require that a component sustain multiple impacts at a single target area without any degradation in performance. S8.14(c) currently provides that no impact may occur within 150 mm of another impact. This distance was selected because of the possibility that collateral damage could occur when the forehead impact zone of the FMH, which is 125 mm wide, makes contact with an intended target point. In setting this distance, NHTSA did not consider the length of the FMH as well as its width. The agency will initiate rulemaking to consider the possibility of amending the Standard to provide that on certain vertical interior surfaces, notably pillars, roll bars and stiffeners, a target area that is within 200 millimeters of another target area, measured from the center of each target, that has been impacted by the FMH during a compliance test shall be not be tested. The proposal would be limited to vertical surfaces since lower face impacts are most likely to occur on vertical surfaces where the distance between the lower face and the forehead impact zone becomes an issue. However, in cases in which a target on one side of the vehicle is not used because of its proximity to another impact area, the corresponding target on the other side of the vehicle will be used. By testing in this fashion, the agency will be able to test all target points to the requirements of Standard 201 without requiring that targets meet these requirements in multiple impacts.

Lower Face Contact and HIC Calculation

Another item of concern discussed at the August 19, 1998, meeting was the effect of lower face or cheek contact on the measurement of compliance with the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) specified for Standard 201. AIAM, AAMA and others are concerned that, in a number of test configurations, the lower portion of the FMH "face" contacts the vehicle interior either at the same time or very shortly after the forehead impact zone of the FMH contacts a target area. They allege that the contact between the lower portion of the FMH "face" and the vehicle interior in these circumstances results in additional acceleration that may cause the resultant HIC to be higher than it would be if the contact were between the forehead impact zone and the intended target area alone. AAMA recommended that in cases in which the injury reference values are exceeded during compliance testing and it is subsequently determined that early lower face involvement is the cause, the test be rerun with an increased off-set angle sufficient to create an identifiable degree of separation time between forehead impact and the lower face contact. Data developed by General Motors and presented at the August 19, 1998, meeting were used to support the contention that an off-set angle of 25 degrees is needed to delay lower face impact beyond the HIC calculation time period. During that same meeting, Mitsubishi presented an example of a series of tests in which impacts to an upper roof target area resulted in contact between the lower face of the FMH and a nearby B-pillar target, BP-1. According to Mitsubishi, the lower face contact occurred within 6 milliseconds of the forehead striking its intended target, and the accelerations resulting from both impacts could not be distinguished. The result of these two cumulative impacts was purportedly to increase the HIC score to fifty percent above that measured when no lower face contact occurred.

NHTSA does not intend to initiate rulemaking to increase the offset angles beyond those currently contained in Standard 201. In the August 18, 1995, final rule establishing new specifications for Standard 201 (60 FR 43031), the agency indicated that the final rule allowed a five degree lower face offset for targets on the A-pillar and other targets that are not pillars and a ten degree offset for any other pillar. The offset angle provisions were inserted into Standard 201 after several manufacturers submitted comments indicating that early lower face contact could change measured acceleration levels when compared to impacts on an identical target in which lower face contact did not take place. Tilting the FMH in this fashion would create an offset clearance that would delay lower face contact beyond the time of the HIC calculation, which NHTSA found occurred within 20 milliseconds. The five and ten degree offset angles also did not fundamentally alter the kinematics of the FMH other than to delay lower face contact, so that the safety consequences of allowing the use of these angles were not significant. As inserting the five and ten degree offset angles did not have real safety consequences, the agency felt it was appropriate to do so.

Although the data presented at the August 19, 1998, meeting indicate that the existing five and ten degree offsets may not be sufficient to prevent lower face contact during the time of HIC calculation, the agency has reconsidered its earlier position implying that accelerations from lower face contact occuring within 20 milliseconds of forehead impact should not be included in the HIC score. NHTSA has reviewed the research data used during development of Standard 201 to construct the transform function used in calculating HIC when the FMH strikes a vehicle interior. These data include the results from testing in which the FMH was launched into padded and unpadded surfaces mounted at different angles to represent the interior of a vehicle. In some of these impacts, portions of the lower face of the FMH struck portions of the target structure during the period in which the HIC calculation was taking place. As these data were used to develop the method of determining HIC scores in Standard 201, consideration of the effects of impacts of the lower front surface of the FMH on interior surfaces has already been integrated into the transform function. Because the transform function provides the means for determining HIC when the FMH strikes an interior surface, any implication that lower face contact should not be allowed during the time of the HIC calculation because that contact would improperly influence HIC, is contrary to the research data used in developing the Standard. Accordingly, lower face impacts should be included in Standard 201's evaluation of vehicle performance in those instances in which lower face contact results in a higher HIC score.

In real-world crashes, contact between the vehicle interior and portions of the head other than the forehead is common. The agency believes that the interests of safety demand that countermeasures be developed so that impact accelerations do not produce a HIC greater than 1000 in those instances in which the impact occurs over a larger area of the head. While the offset angles now contained in Standard 201 do not significantly reduce impact speed or the kinetic energy resulting from impact, further increases in the lower face offset could have significant safety consequences. Adopting a 25 degree offset, as suggested by AAMA, would reduce the effective impact speed of the FMH by 10 percent and the kinetic energy of the impact by 18 percent. In addition, allowing the FMH to rotate freely during HIC calculations would also dissipate a small portion of the total kinetic energy. Adopting AAMA's recommendation would be equivalent to a 20 percent reduction in the intended allowable impact energy.

While our review of the underlying data indicates that the use of any offset angles is unnecessary, NHTSA does not presently plan to initiate rulemaking to eliminate the existing offsets, as retaining them does not have any negative impact on safety. Increasing the present offset angles beyond that which is currently specified in Standard 201 could, however, have significant safety consequences. The agency is therefore retaining the existing offset angles and is rejecting the suggestion that they be increased.

Impacts with Glazing

Chrysler engineers presented a front header impact test at the August 19, 1998 meeting in which the FMH struck a front header target and then glanced off the target and contacted the windshield. The particular configuration of the front header and the windshield resulted in the FMH striking the target area at a relatively shallow angle, making a glancing impact with the target area, and then contacting the windshield. The resultant HIC was over 1000, while subsequent impacts to the front header which did not involve the FMH striking the windshield produced a HIC of less than 1000.

Standard 201 is not intended to prevent injuries resulting from impacts with glazing. The current test procedure provides that during testing, window glass is to be placed in the down position. In the case of stationary glazing, such as windshields, rear windows, fixed quarter windows or glazing other than sun roofs, it may not be possible to move the glass to prevent impacts with the FMH when an adjacent target area is tested. If the glazing cannot be moved and the anterior portion of the FMH strikes the glass near or at the same time that the forehead impact zone strikes the target, and thereby affects the HIC, NHTSA will regard the test as invalid.

Definition of Convertible Roof Frame

Your letter also asks that NHTSA clarify the definition of "convertible roof frame" as used in S6.3(a) of Standard 201. That section defines "convertible roof frame" as the "frame of a convertible roof." Section 6.3(a) excludes convertible roof frames and roof linkage assemblies from meeting the impact requirements of S6.1 through S6.2. You wish to know if the definition of "convertible roof frame" includes cross members and braces as these components can be considered to be part of the roof frame and suggest that "cross members and roof braces should be excluded because they are difficult to target and test. . ." because they would tend to vibrate or deflect with impact. Finally, you indicate that these structures "are not likely to offer significant head impact risk."

Under common usage, a frame is considered to be a rigid structure formed of relatively slender pieces joined together to provide major support to a building or structure. Under the commonly accepted meaning of "frame," the cross members and braces of a convertible roof would be considered to be part of the "frame" as they are integrated into the larger structure that provides shape and support for the roof itself. Accordingly, as convertible roof frame is presently defined in Standard 201, such braces and cross members are, by definition, excluded from testing.

AIAM is also concerned about hard top convertible roofs. The agency addressed the issue of hard top convertible roofs in its April 22, 1998, denial of the petition filed by ASC, Incorporated.

As indicated in that notice, NHTSA believes that integrated or hard top convertible tops can and must meet the requirements of Standard 201.

Window and Sunroof Position for Targeting and Impact Testing

As observed in your letter, S8.2(c) of Standard 201 indicates that movable sun roofs are placed in the fully open position for compliance testing. However, the Standard does not address the position of movable sun roofs for targeting. AIAM asks if movable sun roofs are placed in the open or closed position for targeting purposes and suggests that NHTSA intended that movable sun roofs be placed in the closed position when targets are located. This conclusion is based on AIAM's view that certain targets, such as the front header target (FH2) could be located at the sunroof opening. AIAM believes that if this target is located on a sunroof opening with the sunroof open, manufacturers would have to test using test configurations in which the head form would travel through an area above the roof line prior to impact. In AIAM's view, such a test configuration "would not be realistic in the real-world" and goes beyond the intent of the Standard to provide protection against the "interior" head impact.

NHTSA believes that those targets that may be located at a sunroof opening should be located with the vehicle in the same condition as during testing. The sunroof should therefore be in the open position. The agency does not share AIAM's view that this procedure is contrary to the intent of the Standard or would produce an absurd result. Pursuant to S8.13, the headform may be launched against a target from any point inside the vehicle, limited only by the approach angle limits specified for that target. While the use of certain vertical approach angles may result in a portion of the head form traveling along a path above the roof line of the vehicle as it travels from a point inside the vehicle, the agency believes that the likelihood of this occurring is small. NHTSA also observes that as the headform originates inside the vehicle, such an impact could occur in real world impacts.

Measured Along the Vehicle Interior Requirement

As set forth in the August 18, 1995 final rule, S8(b) contained the procedure for relocating targets when it was not possible for the forehead impact zone of the FMH to contact a target. That procedure specified that the target could be relocated to any point within a 25 mm circle, measured along the vehicle interior, from the center of the original target. Your letter states that the April 8, 1997, final rule, which amended the procedures in S8(b) (and redesignated the section as S10(b)) for relocating target areas, modified the relocation procedure to allow movement within a sphere rather than a circle. You observe that the procedure continues to provide that the radius of sphere is determined by measuring from the center of the original target area along the vehicle interior and contend that this directive is inconsistent with the April 8, 1997, amendment, as that amendment changed the acceptable relocation area from a circle to a sphere. In your view, measuring the radius of this sphere along the interior would defeat the purpose of specifying a sphere rather than a circle.

We agree with your view. The existing language's specification that the distance be measured along the vehicle interior, which restricts the measurement to following the contour of an interior surface, is not consistent with the use of a sphere for relocating targets. Accordingly, the agency has deleted the reference to "measured along the vehicle interior" found in S10(b) through a technical amendment.

Variability in the Location of Head Impact Target Areas

Your letter also voices AIAM's concern that neither Standard 201 or the compliance test procedure addresses the potential for variation in the location of target areas as determined by manufacturers and the agency when compliance testing is performed. AIAM indicates that the potential for variation between both vehicles and target locations when performed by different parties jeopardizes the ability of manufacturers to certify their vehicle with a high degree of confidence. To address this difficulty, AIAM suggests that NHTSA specify an allowable variation within the 12.7 mm diameter size of the target marker and adopt a set of procedures for the agency to follow in locating target areas. In this suggested procedure, the agency would locate target areas through obtaining drawings of the target areas for a vehicle from the manufacturer and then reach a mutual agreement with the manufacturer regarding the "correct" target locations prior to any agency testing. Once this procedure is concluded, you also urge the agency to further reduce the potential for variations by using the manufacturer's drawings to locate the seating anchorage points to serve as a reference for locating targets with the use of a coordinate measuring machine. AIAM also suggests that a coordinate measuring machine be used to locate CGF1, CGF2, and CGR, reference points that are located in mid-air, to limit inaccuracies that may result from inaccuracies from other measurement and location methods.

The agency acknowledges that the potential for variation between the location of target areas as determined by the manufacturer and the agency exists. NHTSA is also aware that a certain degree of variation may occur between different vehicles manufactured to the same design. Nonetheless, the agency declines to adopt the procedures suggested in your letter. It is the intent of Standard 201 to ensure that proper protection is provided by the various components addressed by the standard and not merely a few target points. In adopting target points rather than zones, the agency rejected the argument that even zones would create unduly burdensome test conditions. (60 FR 43037). Moreover, the existing procedures for locating target areas were carefully developed by the agency and further refined since their inception to address manufacturer arguments that use of larger target areas would require an extensive amount of testing to verify compliance. While some degree of variation between different examples of the same vehicle or between target locations fixed by different entities performing tests is inevitable, NHTSA believes that such variations are not likely to be unpredictable or large. If the agency were to use manufacturer supplied drawings to locate target areas for compliance testing, it would be providing manufacturers with an undue degree of control over the compliance testing process and acting in derogation of the overall purpose of the Standard. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to assure compliance within the range associated with the target points.

The agency observes that the Standard 201 laboratory test procedure contains certain tolerances which, to a degree, address the issue of variability. However, your member companies should be advised that test procedures are not rules, regulations or agency interpretations regarding the meaning of a safety standard and are not intended to limit the requirements of any applicable standard.

Movable Seat Backs

During the August 19, 1998, meeting, concerns were also raised about the possibility of movable seat backs preventing access to target areas and preventing contact between the forehead impact zone of the FMH and the intended target. It is the agency's position that in the case of potential interference between a movable seat back and a target area, the movable seat back should be placed in any adjustment position that may be attained while the vehicle is in motion.

Accordingly, if a seat back may be reclined for comfort or is hinged to allow ingress or egress to an area of the vehicle, targeting and testing of target areas near that seat back will be conducted with the seat back in any position within the range of adjustment or movement.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:201
d.2/19/99

ID: a00473beltminder_cmc

Mr. Bruce H. Carraway, Jr.
Carraway Safety Belt Company
14 Kings Bridge
Atlanta, GA 30329

Dear Mr. Carraway:

This responds to your letter requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) work towards requiring that ignition interlock belt-minder systems be installed in all new motor vehicles. As discussed below, the agency believes that improving safety belt use rates with vehicle-based incentives can best be accomplished through voluntary installation of such devices.

According to your letter, you are considering a system that would prevent a driver from starting a vehicle unless all occupants were buckled up. Your letter described a system that would employ seat sensors to alert a driver if any vehicle occupant has not fastened his or her safety belt. An interlock system then would prohibit the vehicle from being started until the safety belt is buckled at each occupied seat. You then ask the agency to:

Please introduce a bill, or, have someone on your transportation committee that handles highway safety to introduce a bill, and, pass a law requiring [such safety belt interlock systems] for all new vehicles.

NHTSA considers safety belt use as its top priority in occupant protection. For each percentage point gain in national usage, we estimate that we will prevent about 250 fatalities. In 2003, safety belt use reached its highest level ever, with a national use rate of 79 percent. This was an increase from the 75 percent use rate reported in 2002. To achieve this rate, we relied on an array of programs that we have developed over the past few years, such as the Click It or Ticket program. We continue to support and promote programs to increase the use of safety belts. In March of this year, we announced the availability of $36.4 million in grants for states that develop innovative projects to increase safety belt use.

With respect to vehicle-based safety belt incentives, Congress has provided the agency with specific direction. As part of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress adopted a provision prohibiting NHTSA from requiring, or permitting as a compliance option, either ignition interlocks designed to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle or buzzers that sounded for a period of more than 8 seconds after the ignition was turned to the "start" or "on" position (codified at 49 U.S.C. 30124).

This provision was the result of opposition from various members of Congress and from members of the public to the belt-induced interlocks and audible alerts that manufacturers were installing in their vehicles to meet the existing compliance options in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Opposition was based on two factors: first, the low rate of belt use among the American public, 10 to 14 percent, meant that large portions of the population were subjected to either a 60 second audible warning or an ignition interlock; second, the available occupant detection technologies were insufficiently developed to determine reliably whether the two front outboard seating positions were occupied and the belt was being used by the occupant of a given seating position.

However, the legislative history indicates no intent on the part of Congress to prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily installing either interlocks or other belt system use-enhancement features. With increases to the national belt use rates since 1974, and improvements in occupant recognition technology, we believe voluntarily-installed systems can be very helpful in increasing belt use. The voluntary installation of belt reminder systems is not contrary to existing law, unduly complicated or expensive, or likely to result in a public backlash that would lead Congress to prohibit the use of such systems.

We do not believe the statutory prohibition against NHTSA mandating belt reminder systems should serve as a deterrent to manufacturers voluntarily installing vehicle-based incentives to improve seat belt use. In fact, NHTSAs Administrator,Dr. Jeffrey Runge, has sent letters to vehicle manufacturers encouraging them to enhance their vehicle-based systems. Based on the number responses from the vehicle manufacturers to Dr. Runges initial inquiries, we are gratified to report that many manufacturers appear to be moving in the direction of voluntarily-installed systems. See NHTSA Docket No. 13226 at http:\\dms.dot.gov. Further, we have facilitated the voluntary installation of such systems through a series of legal interpretations that would allow manufacturers to install both enhanced warning systems and vehicle interlocks. See letters to Mr. Robert C. Lange, February 28, 2003; Name withheld, September 13, 2002; and Mr. Bob Snyder, May 25, 2001 (enclosed).

We believe that by encouraging the voluntary installation of belt minder systems consistent with statutory provisions, we can improve safety belt use rates while avoiding the opposition to these systems experienced in the 1970s.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
8/13/04