ID: nht92-6.12

DATE: June 10, 1992

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael Love (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On April 3, 1992, I wrote to you requesting an interpretation of FMVSS 108 regarding center high mounted stop lamps. Your interpretation of the regulations with regard to our proposed design was not consistent with our interpretation. Therefore, we have come up with an alternate design which we believe will be consistent with your interpretation. Since this new design raises several questions, we are requesting another interpretation. The attached document contains that request.

Please contact me at 702/348-3198 if you should have any questions.

Attachment

PORSCHE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

Porsche is considering a new design of center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) for its 911 Carrera model. In order to accommodate a moveable rear spoiler, the CHMSL would consist of two separate lamps: Lamp A would be mounted on the front edge of the moveable spoiler; Lamp B would be mounted on the rear edge of the moveable spoiler. Both lamps are on the center line of the car. This dual light system would function as follows:

From 0 to 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the down position. The CHMSL Lamp A would function (when the brakes were engaged). CHMSL Lamp B would not function.

At 5O+/-5mph when the spoiler is rising, Lamp A would function until the spoiler is approximately 35% up. At this point Lamp B would begin functioning and Lamp A would be disabled.

Above 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the up position and Lamp B would function (when the brakes were engaged).

As the speed drops below 5O+/-5mph the Spoiler would remain in the up position until approximately 9+/-3mph and Lamp B would function.

At 9+/-3mph when the spoiler is lowering, Lamp B would function until the spoiler reached the 35% up position. At this point Lamp A would begin functioning and Lamp B would be disabled.

With this design we expect that all photometric and height requirements of FMVSS 108 will be met with switching from Lamp A to Lamp B while the spoiler is moving. It is possible that it will be necessary to have both Lamp A and Lamp B functioning together for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements.

We have identified the following issues and request NHTSA's views on them:

The switching from Lamp A to Lamp B does not violate the "steady burning" requirement of FMVSS 108.

There is no problem with having two separate CHMSLs as long as they fulfill the requirements of FMVSS 108 while they are capable of functioning, either separately or together.

Having Lamp B drop below the height requirement of FMVSS 108 is not a problem if it is not capable of functioning while below that level (i.e.: If it is no longer capable of functioning (lighting), then it is no longer a lamp by definition).

ID: nht92-6.13

DATE: June 9, 1992

FROM: Jim Sasser -- United States Senator

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Jim Sasser (A39; Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Jerry R. Curry to John J. Duncan, Jr.

TEXT:

I have been contacted by several Tennesseans regarding their concern about a federal law governing the use of vehicles with a capacity for eleven or more individuals. I have enclosed a sample letter for your reference.

Many schools in Tennessee formerly used passenger vans to transport athletic teams and have been forced to discontinue use of the vans due to this law. The elimination of the van service has placed a tremendous financial burden on these schools and forced some to eliminate some of their minor sports programs.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your giving careful consideration to this matter and providing me with a report which addresses whose responsibility it is to meet the federal safety standards. Does the individual who sells the van have responsibility or does the school which purchased the vehicle? Moreover, I would further appreciate the report addressing the question of the liability involved in the event of an accident.

Thank you for your courtesy and assistance.

Attachment

Letter dated 5/29/92 from Robert High, Athletic Director, Brainerd High School, Chattanooga, Tennessee to Jim Sasser. Text of letter:

Mr. Sasser:

Recently there has been much concern in regards to recent memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Department of Education. The memo I have reference to concerns a law that dates back to 1970's. This memo is a federal law pertaining to the use of vehicles with a capacity of eleven or more passengers.

Many schools throughout the state have used both 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport their athletic teams to and from athletic events. There are several systems that have been required to stop using their vans for transportation in athletics due to that law. This situation has and could create a tremendous financial burden on schools, a problem we already have due to budget cuts.

If vans are eliminated from schools, I foresee several problems. Several schools would have to eliminate most of their minor sports simply because of the cost for renting buses on a daily basis. Also, the availability of buses at the time of day you need them.

We are desperately asking for your help in seeing that this law is amended or changed in order to permit the use of these vehicles. I personally don't understand the rationale in allowing a van to transport 10 passengers, but not 11, 12 or 15.

Here at Brainerd, we field 12 athletic teams and 2 squads of cheerleaders. We only have 2 revenue producing sports with those being football and basketball. I am hopeful that we will not have to result to cutting out minor sports because of a transportation cost problem.

We appreciate your support in this matter.

ID: nht92-6.14

DATE: June 8, 1992

FROM: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: M. Dunn; R. Rogers

TITLE: Re: R-BAR Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I wish to thank you for your response to my letter of March 31, 1992.

We understand that the R-BAR, once installed on the seatback, becomes part of the seatback and therefore is subject to the test requirements of F.M.V.S.S. #222. Further, in determining the proper test procedures for this device, in accordance with the stated regulations (CFR 49 571.222 S6.4.) and including Laboratory Procedures #TP-222-01 (re: B. Pretest Procedure, step #6), we understand that since the R-BAR is part of the seatback, and adjustable, that the testing procedures are to be done in its most upright position.

Please advise us if this is a proper interpretation of this (S6.4) regulation.

Once again, thank you in advance for consideration in this matter.

ID: nht92-6.15

DATE: June 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert S. McLean, Esq. -- King & Spalding

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/9/92 from Robert S. McLean to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your request for additional information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts. In response to your March 9, 1992 letters, I sent you a March 30, 1992 letter explaining how our requirements apply to automatic belts. Specifically, I explained that an automatic shoulder belt is not a Type 2a belt, as defined in Standard No. 209, and that automatic belts are not required to include any warnings required for Type 2a belts. I noted that all the requirements applicable to automatic belts are set forth in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208.

On May 19, 1992, you sent a FAX to Steve Kratzke of this office asking for a further clarification of the requirements applicable to automatic belts. You followed the FAX up with a telephone call on May 27, 1992, during which you explained that you were seeking an opinion from me with respect to an interpretation that is being asserted in litigation in which you are involved. The issue involves the crash protection requirements in Standard No. 208. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection and sets forth specific belt installation requirements for each option. However, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 contains an important proviso. This section provides that an automatic seat belt assembly may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option set forth in S4.1.2 and in place of any seat belt assembly that would otherwise be required by that option.

You explained that another party in your litigation is asserting that an automatic belt, which consists solely of a shoulder belt, could not be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 to meet the crash protection requirements of any option in S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. This is so because, according to this argument, an automatic belt which consists solely of a shoulder belt is not a "seat belt assembly." The reason it is asserted that a shoulder belt alone cannot be a "seat belt assembly" is that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 requires that "a seat belt assembly shall provide pelvic restraint." Since an automatic belt that consists solely of a shoulder belt does not provide pelvic restraint, this argument concludes that automatic belts that do not provide pelvic restraint must not be "seat belt assemblies" within the meaning of Standard No. 209. If these belts are not seat belt assemblies, they are not eligible to be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 in place of seat belt assemblies otherwise required by Standard No. 208.

This argument is without merit. Contrary to the assertion in this argument, automatic belts which consist solely of a shoulder belt are "seat belt assemblies" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 209. That section defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any

accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." An automatic belt consisting solely of a shoulder belt falls squarely within this definition. Thus, an automatic belt consisting solely of a shoulder belt may be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 to meet the crash protection requirements of the standard and in place of any seat belt assembly that would otherwise be required.

It may be that this argument was offered because the person was not aware that automatic belts are not generally subject to the provisions of Standard No. 209 that apply to manual seat belt assemblies, as explained in my March 30, 1992 letter to you. Thus, S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 does not apply to automatic belts. In place of Standard No. 209's general requirements for manual seat belt assemblies, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 sets forth special requirements for automatic belts. No provision of S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 precludes the use of automatic belts that consist solely of a shoulder belt.

I hope this information clarifies any lingering questions you may have had. As before, if you need any further information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-6.16

DATE: June 5, 1992

FROM: Le Van Lac -- Vice President, Pioneer Electronic Services, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: For Legal Interpretation of 108-6, Sec. 5.1.3

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/31/92 from Paul J. Rice to Le Van Lac (A39; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

We at Pioneer plan to sell a new car speaker in the U.S. We contacted Mr. Harry Thompson at your office and he advised me to write a letter with explanation to you in order to get your advice.

1. NEW CAR SPEAKER WITH ILLUMINATION: Car speaker will illuminate by a 12 volt DC car battery. this car speaker will be installed in the rear deck of a car. Cosmetically it it well designed with Pioneer brand name to be printed on the rear side of the speaker cabinet.

2. PURPOSE OF ILLUMINATION SPEAKER: By lighting Pioneer brand name with blue color at night (when the head light is switched on), we intend to give a favorable and refined impression to driver, passengers. This illumination car speaker will satisfy the customers who wish to have a high end and unique car speaker.

3. CONSTRUCTION: Light was originated from a lamp. There are 8 lamps for each left and right speaker. The light will go through a filter and then a transparent panel as the drawing.

Power consumption of a lamp inside the car speaker using filament type (glass tube) at 1.54 watt.

The brightness of this blue light illuminated through the filter and transparent panel is just 1/40 of the high mount stop lamp (measured at 1 meter at 14.4 volt). Therefore, this illuminated speaker will not impair the effectiveness of the existing lighting equipment installed into the car.

Attached is the information of this 4-way high-end speaker TS-X450 that has been selling at other countries.

Please help to review our request and we hope to receive your approval soon.

Thank you very much.

Attachment (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-6.17

DATE: June 4, 1992

FROM: Bart Gordon -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Adele Derby -- Associate Administrator for Regional Operations, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Bart Gordon (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Pursuant to your conversation with Claudia Deane of my Washington staff, I am writing to request a clarification of NHTSA's regulations regarding the use of 11-15 passenger vans for school purposes.

In my home state of Tennessee, there is currently some confusion as to whether schools which are in possession of these vans can use them to transport students. The vans are not being used as primary transportation, but instead are used for extracurricular activities such as transporting the debate team or the cheerleading squad.

It is my understanding that there are regulation against selling these vans for school use. My question is whether schools which currently own vans can use them.

In speaking with state officials, the point of confusion seems to specifically lie in the application of NHTSA's definition of a school bus to these vans, and following on this, whether the vans are required to be in compliance with school bus class safety standards. The state's interpretation of NHTSA's regulations has led them to advise schools to stop using the vans in the 11-15 passenger category.

I appreciate your attention to this question and look forward to receiving a response in the near future. If I can answer any questions or provide you with further information, please feel free to contact my office.

ID: nht92-6.18

DATE: June 3, 1992

FROM: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TO: Michael Perel -- Research and Development, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Steven Henderson (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your advice during our telephone conversation of May 19, and for your fax of May 20. The following letter, although originally written before our conversation, has been modified after consideration of the DOT regulations contained in your fax. I hope this letter contains sufficient information for evaluation by your legal department. Please excuse my reiteration of information from our previous conversation.

My name is Steven Henderson. I am a PhD student at McGill University, studying in the field of visual perception. I am requesting your assistance in advancing the examination of a U.S. patent application for a motorcycle hazard signalling device (filed the week of March 23, 1992). I also wish to know the opinion of your legal department regarding the extent to which DOT regulations apply to the signalling device.

About 4000 motorcyclists die every year in North America. I believe many of these deaths are due to the small size and low visibility of motorcycles, and, in collaboration with my coinventor David Kernaghan, have developed a device giving motorcyclists and bicyclists the capability of temporarily increasing their conspicuity to automobile drivers when circumstances warrant. The device is a flasher system that, in addition to signalling turns in the standard fashion, flicker the headlight, tail light, and signal lights at a rate of 10 flashes per second whenever the horn button is pressed. This flicker in the visual periphery of the car driver will initiate a reflexive saccade toward the motorcycle's location. (Vision researchers have found the human eye to be maximally responsive to a flash frequency of 10 Hz.) If the horn button is pressed while a turn is being signalled, the headlight flickers at a rate of 10 Hz, and only the actuated signal light gives out 2 Hz bursts of 10 Hz flicker. (My experience and those of other riders is that a motorcyclist is often aware of a developing dangerous situation one or two seconds before an approaching car driver sees the motorcycle, giving the device-equipped motorcyclist the opportunity to avoid an accident by signalling his or her presence to the car driver.) A photocell prevents the headlight from flickering at night. The device is also intended for use with automobile signal lights (but not automobile headlights).

The first question I wish to pose concerns the legality of the device under Section 571.108 S5.6 of the DOT regulations. On the face of it the device does appear to be proscribed by these regulations. However, the regulations are clearly intended to govern the characteristics of headlamp systems that are continuously modulated over extended periods of time, while my proposed system will be used only for very brief intervals (when the horn is sounding). The transitory nature of a signal such as a horn allows its use, even though the continuous blowing of the same horn would be considered a nuisance, and would surely be in violation of noise abatement bylaws. Indeed, the presence of a

working horn is mandated by law for all licensed vehicles, showing that a device that would be illegal if used continuously, can even be required by law if its utility as a warning device is recommended. Furthermore, the device does not violate the spirit of laws governing flashing lights and emergency vehicles, as its use would certainly not cause a motorcycle to be mistaken for an emergency vehicle. (The lights displayed at the front of an emergency vehicle are of a different color, flicker frequency, and intensity.) Finally, this DOT section may prohibit transient headlamp flicker without prohibiting transient signal light flicker at all.

The second question concerns the advancement of a patent application of the device. I strongly believe that in the interest of public safety, the device should be tested, and if found effective, should be made available to the motoring public as quickly as possible. However, as any competent technician or motorcycle mechanic could easily copy the device upon seeing it in use, I feel that patent protection must be secured before a test program is begun. Unfortunately, under normal circumstances the U.S. patent office takes about eighteen months to render a judgement after a patent application has been filed. If you and your legal department agree that the public interest is served by the advancement of examination in this case, I ask that immediate action be requested, in accordance with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 708.01. The section states:

37 CFR 1.102.Advancement of examination.

(a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of the Commissioner to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of a request under paragraph (b) of this section ...

(b)Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason, may be advanced for examination.

Furthermore, the current U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL states that:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established to carry out a congressional mandate to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from auto accidents on the Nation's highways... (p.464)"

I believe that this congressional mandate indicates that the proposed invention should be "deemed of peculiar importance" to the NHTSA, and I therefore ask that the director of an appropriate department within the NHTSA make request for an advanced application under section 708.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, by supplying to me a letter addressed to the US Patent Office, which my patent attorney will forward, along with supporting documentation, to the U.S. Patent office.

I understand that such a letter is not an endorsement of the device by the NHTSA, and that the intent of the letter is solely to facilitate a research program to determine the device's lifesaving potential. Your letter would be communicated only to the U.S. Patent Office, and would never be used in a

publicity campaign or to in any way suggest that the device had received the endorsement of the NHTSA. I would certainly be willing to sign a letter to that effect.

Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht92-6.19

DATE: June 2, 1992

FROM: Jeffrey Puentes -- President, Sacramento Registration Service

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Jeffrey Puentes (A39; Part 567; VSA Sec 102(3))

TEXT:

We are the agents for a client who would like to sell kits to the retail public.

What is your definition of a Kit Car? How far into the manufacturing process can a party assemble a kit before it is classified as an automobile?

What definitions and/or rules (laws) must he follow in order to begin selling kits for kit cars to the retail public?

If you should have any questions or concerns regarding this letter, please feel free to contact us here at the below listed numbers.

We thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht92-6.2

DATE: June 22, 1992

FROM: Trevor J. Buttle -- Project P4

TO: Office of Chief Council, U.S. DOT

TITLE: Our Ref 1547; Your Fax No. 0101 202 366 2106; Re: FMVSS 102, Transmission Lever Shift Sequences

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/1/92 (est) from Paul J. Rice to Trevor Buttle (A39; Std. 101; Std. 102)

TEXT:

I am responsible for certification of a passenger vehicle being developed with a view to U.S.A. export in 2-3 years.

Could you please advise on the following concern relating to S3.1.4 of the above standard:

o The (transmission shift lever position) information is to be "displayed in view of the driver". - S3.1.4.1. I believe this relates to the 95% eye range contour, hence requiring a display on or near to the instrument binacle. Is this correct, or (as seems to be the current practice for some auto makers) is the floor shift identification sufficient? This query relates to auto and manual transmission.

o Could you also clarify whether the display should be permanently illuminated for night usage (again, some auto makers have opted to make this facility switchable).

Your assistance with these issues would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-6.20

DATE: June 2, 1992

FROM: John Tanner -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: John A. Cline -- Director, U.S. DOT, Congressional Liaison

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to John Tanner (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Enclosed are copies of letters I received from school systems in Tennessee who are opposed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations against the use of 11-plus passenger vans to transport students. Our office has been in contact with Dr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation at the Tennessee Department of Education about this matter.

It is my understanding that Dr. Farmer sent memos to our school systems in 1977 and 1990 about the NHTSA regulations. I respectfully request that you review their concerns and give to them your utmost consideration. Any information on the possibility of amending these regulations would be helpful so that I may respond to these constituents. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Attachments

Letters from:

Johnny Williams, Principal, North Side Junior High School, Jackson, Tennessee Sam Miles, Principal, Peabody High School, Trenton, Tennessee Jackie Vaughan, Principal, Greenfield High School, Greenfield, Tennessee Farris Lowery, Huntingdon High School, Huntingdon, Tennessee Chuck West, Principal, Dresden High School, Dresden, Tennessee Mr. Ward, Principal, Crockett County High School, Alamo, Tennessee

Text of the form letter:

Dear Legislator:

Recently throughout our state much concern has mounted in regard to recent memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education. These memos have directed attention to an early 1970's federal law pertaining to use of vehicles with a capacity of eleven (11) or greater.

Over the years, many schools throughout the state have made use of 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport athletic teams and other school groups to and from school related event. These vans are NOT used for "pick-up" and "drops" on public roadways. Now, many systems have either had to park their vans or they are under a deadline to do so. This action already has or will create a tremendous financial burden on schools already strapped with financial hardships due to budget cuts. We fear the ultimate result will be the elimination of certain athletic teams and other school functions simply due to

the enormous expense involved in renting buses on a daily basis. Also, another tremendous problem is that of finding buses available at the time of day needed.

We desperately need your help in seeing that this law is amended or changed in order to permit the use of these vehicles. To insure that vans are maintained in a safe condition, they can be required to have the same inspection as that imposed on regular school buses.

We have real problems with a law that states we can legally use a van equipped to transport 10 passengers but we cannot use a van equipped to transport 11, 12 or 15 passengers. We do not understand the rationale in allowing a van to transport 10 passengers, but not 11, 12 or 15. We appreciate your concern in this matter and desperately need your support.