ID: nht89-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/89

FROM: SAMSON HELFGOTT -- HELFGOTT AND KARAS

TO: ERICA K. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERICA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108(A) 2(A); REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNI NG LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL IN FORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST; SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS H-85-30 ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

My client, Harold A. Caine, and the Safety Autodrivers Foundation for Education (S.A.F.E.) of Freeport, New York, have come up with a proposal for an amber (SAE approved) lamp that would be placed adjacent to the center high mounted brake lamp of a ve hicle. The amber lamp would have its own independent wiring and separate compartment so as not to interfere in any way with the operation of the center brake lamp. The amber lamp would be illuminated upon ignition and remain on until such time as the b rake lamp is illuminated so that the two lamps would be mutally exclusive and the following driver would be presented with either an amber or a red lamp, but not both together.

Accordingly, there would be no confusion between these lamps. We believe that there would be no impairment of the center brake lamp and that the amber lamp would not render the center brake lamp inoperative in any way, since it would operate independ ently thereof. We also do not believe that there would be any impairment from any other existing lamps.

We would appreciate knowing whether such amber lamp would be acceptable both for original equipment as well as for the after-market sales, under terms of Standard #108.

In a test conducted by Dr. A. James McKnight of the National Public Services Research Institute (Attachment A), he has found that with the presence of such amber lamp,

the improvement in breaking response time was between 0.2 sec. and 0.3 sec.

We believe that this improvement may occur for a number of reasons. Firstly, the presence of the amber lamp adjacent to this center brake lamp and preferable directly below the center brake lamp, focuses the attention of the rear driver to the center of the leading vehicle so that when the brake lamp turns on, it saves some time from the rear driver having to first focus his attention onto that center point at the back of the leading vehicle. Secondly, the illumination of an amber lamp psychologica lly gives a "warning" effect to the trailing driver so that he is already in a state of awareness and readiness when the brake will be applied and the red lamp is turned on. Thirdly, the lamp provides the effect of a rear running light as is supported b y the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (Attachment B).

One feature of the amber light system is to include the use of a photo-electric cell that would control the brightness and prevent glare, based on existing ambient lighting conditions. The brightness would be within the minimum and maximum range of S tandard #108. The areas of red and amber illumination will also comply with the Standard #108 requirements.

It has additionally been found that the amber color is better perceived than either the green or the red color and, especially at greater distances, the amber lamp will be more easily visible. In addition, the amber lamp illumination will not be subj ect to chromeostereopsis errors in distance judgment by any part of the driving population, whereas green or red could be subject to a significant error in judgment of its distance.

In support of these explanations, I am also enclosing an affidavit from Dr. Merrill J. Allen, Professor of Optometry at Indiana University, together with some biographical information about him (Attachment C). This affidavit was originally submitted in the United States Patent and Trademark Office as part of the prosecution of a patent application to Mr. Caine. The application has been allowed and is shortly expected to issue.

We would appreciate receiving your response on this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely yours,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/89

FROM: RAYMOND F. BRADY -- RODNEY D. MCGALLIARD

TO: NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO RAYMOND F. BRADY, REDBOOK A33(2), PART 572.3; LETTER DATED 12/16/88 FROM RAYMOND F. BRADY TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel:

I would like to know the status of your response to two letters I sent recently regarding limousines. I have attached copies of the letters, which were mailed on December 16 and 19, 1988. As you can see, one of the letters is a Freedom of Informatio n Act request, which requires your office's response within ten (10) days.

Please let me know immediately how soon I can expect your response to these letters.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/89

FROM: KAREN E. FINKEL -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

TO: JOAN TILGHMAN -- NCC-20 NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/27/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KAREN E. FINKEL, REDBOOK A33(2), STANDARD 217

TEXT: Dear Joan:

As we discussed on the phone earlier this week, NSTA members (who are school bus contractors) have a question regarding push-out windows on school buses.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Standards, Sec. 393.61, states that push-out windows are required and that they must conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. However, in reading FMVSS 217, there are different requirements for buses and school buses. School buses are not required to have push-out windows. Therefore, the question arises whether school buses being used by school bus contractors in interstate commerce, for other than to and from school work, must have push-out windows.

Because many contractors are purchasing buses now in order to have delivery for the coming school year, and they do not know whether to purchase them with push-out windows or not, I would appreciate a very response to this question.

Thank you for your assistance in clearing up this confusion. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/89

FROM: PAUL WALKER -- SUNQUEST INC PRESIDENT

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO PAUL WALKER, REDBOOK A33 [4]; INTERP 205; INTERP 302

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

A new product has been developed by this company, which we are being strongly encouraged by the U.S. Department of Commerce to export to the Middle East. The product is remote-controlled electronic automobile window shades. This product is targetted in itially to the Saudi Arabian market because of their extreme heat. The window shades protect the interior of the automobile, and automatically roll up when the ignition is turned on. They cannot be lowered while the engine is running.

Technological support is provided to us by the Georgia Institute of Technology. Total production for the next two years will be for export only, because of the strong demand created by the extreme heat aforementioned.

Saudi Arabia's Standards of Organization require a letter or statement from the appropriate U.S. agency stating that there is no objection to the product in the U.S. market if we export in large quantities. We would be pleased if you could supply this letter or direct us to the appropriate source. Your prompt reply will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/89

FROM: T. CHIKADA -- MGR., AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING, ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: INSTALLATION OF DECORATIVE EXTRA LIGHTING DEVICES ON MOTORCYCLES, WHICH ARE NOT SPECIFIED IN FMVSS NO. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-20-90 TO T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; STD. 108]

TEXT: We have an idea of producing two decorative extra lighting devices which are not specified in FMVSS No. 108.

As shown in the attached sheet, these decorative devices will be installed on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively. The distance between center of light source of device A and B is 290 mm.

The light source of device B is incandescent bulb, and that of device A is LED. Color of emitted light of both devices (A and B) is red. Both devices (A and B) are energized when tail lamp is on. And they (A and B) are so designed as to have the maximu m intensity less than that minimum intensity of tail lamp C. (It is a matter of course that the minimum and maximum intensities of tail lamp C satisfy the requirement of FMVSS No. 108.)

Please let us have your answers for the following questions.

Q.1 Is it permitted to equip a motorcycle with the above mentioned accessory lamps?

Q.2 If the answer to the above question is "YES",

1) is it acknowledged to use LED as the light source of device B?

2) should maximum intensity of each lamp (A or B) separately be less than the minimum intensity of tail lamp C? or should combined maximum intensity of both lamps (A and B) be less than the minimum intensity of tail lamp C?

We are looking forward to your advice.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht89-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/89

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA

TO: HOWARD WOLPE -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED 12/21/88 FROM HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS TO JAMES BURNLEY; LETTER DATED 12/12/88 FROM DENNIS D. FURR TO HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wolpe:

Thank you for your letter to former Secretary Burnley on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr of Lansing, Michigan. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for admi nistering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Mr. Furr is concerned about the potential safety problems that may result if school bus seats are being overloaded. In particular, Mr. Furr asks whether NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guideline (HSPG) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR @ 1204.4 ), is consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222), with regard to seating specifications. Mr. Furr is particularly interested in how manufacturers are calcul ating the number of seating positions on a bench seat.

I am pleased to address your constituent's concerns. Before I begin, I want to note that we have answered a number of similar inquiries from Mr. Furr in past years.

We have two sets of "regulations" for school buses. The first, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Compliance with these standards is mandatory fo r new vehicle manufacturers, and is enforced by this agency with civil penalties. FMVSS No. 222, with which your constituent is concerned, is one such safety standard. The second set of "regulations," or guidelines, for school buses was issued under th e Highway Safety Act. Guidelines issued under this Act are not mandatory for the states; rather, they are recommended practices. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, to which Mr. Furr frequently refers in his letter, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and pertains to Federal funding of State highway safety programs.

Both FMVSS No. 222 and Guideline No. 17 contain specifications for school bus seating. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 states: "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." The guideline for seating accommodations in HSPG 17 states:

Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufacturers to provide seating accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 4 9 CFR 571.3.

Mr. Furr appears to see a conflict between the formula used in calculating the forces to be applied to the seats of large school buses under FMVSS No. 222, on the one hand, and the use by States and manufacturers of 13-inch seating positions for rating t he capacity of a 39-inch seat, on the other hand. I believe that Mr. Furr's belief in the existence of a conflict rests on a misunderstanding.

We view Standard No. 222 and HSPG 17 as complementary, not inconsistent. HSPG 17 reflects NHTSA's belief that all school bus passengers should be seated in the interest of safety. To that end, the guideline provides that there should be a seating posit ion for each passenger and that the position should be at least large enough to accommodate a 5th percentile adult female. The hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches.

The figure "15" in FMVSS No. 222's compliance formula is not a minimum requirement for the width of a seating position. It is the number which is used to establish the number of designated seating positions and ensures that the forces applied to the sea t during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash. It is also the number which ensures that the width of the smallest seat is approximately equal to the hip width of the 5th percentile female. That is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female. Use of the figure "15" in the FMVSS No. 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (f or a 38-inch wide seat.) That is only slightly smaller than the 12.8 inch hip width of the 5th percentile female. For a 39-inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger than the hip width of a 5th percentile female.

It should be remembered, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the FMVSS No. 222 formula is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all size occupants. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of wide ly varying ages and sizes, reasonable accommodations may vary between those values. The decision on how many passengers may be

comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved.

NHTSA does not have the authority under either the Highway Safety Act or Vehicle Safety Act to regulate how States use school buses. Therefore, NHTSA could not preclude a State from carrying more passengers on a bench seat than there are designated seat ing positions. However, this agency argues with Mr. Furr that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalizati on. We believe that Mr. Furr's concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by his working with the local school board and state officials.

Mr. Furr is also concerned about a reference in our occupant crash protection standard (No. 208) to a 95th-percentile adult male occupant size. He asks why FMVSS No. 222 uses a 15-inch seat dimension, when FMVSS No. 208 references the 95th-percentile ad ult male occupant size in specifying occupant sizes which safety belts must adjust to fit.

Both FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 222 are directed at providing occupant crash protection. Both of these standards set forth comprehensive requirements that are directed at protecting occupants likely to be inside a vehicle in a crash. With regard to sch ool buses, the agency determined that the crash protection requirements should be developed taking into account the full size range of passengers typically riding on school buses. If we designed the force and deflection (energy-absorbing) characteristic s of the seats for the 95th percentile males, the seats may be too stiff for a small child.

Finally, Mr. Furr asks whether, when voluntarily installing safety belts on large school buses, States are violating Federal law by using S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 in determining how many positions (and belts) there are on a bench seat. The answer is no. FM VSS No. 222 requires safety belts only for the passenger positions of small (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) school buses. Under S5 of the standard, belts on a small school bus bench seat are installed at "W" seating positions, as determined under S4.1. If a State wishes to order belts on its new large school bus and to use the same method for determining the number of belts to be installed, the State may do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/89

FROM: HARRY REID -- SENATE

TO: DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/25/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; REDBOOK A33 [4]; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/03/8 9 FROM STEVEN P. ELLIOTT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE RE AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTOMOBILE AIR BAGS; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICL E CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985; RESEARCH NOTES ON CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH 03/31/89, FROM VERNON ROBERTS

TEXT: Dear Director:

The City of Sparks Police Department has a problem with the air bags that are equipped in their patrol cars.

The Police would like the United States Department of Transportation to authorize them to disconnect the bags. I would appreciate it if you could look into this matter. A copy of a letter from the Sparks City Attorney is enclosed for your review.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/89

FROM: DAN TREXLER -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES

TO: JOAN TILGHMAN -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/89 EST; FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 04/27/88 FROM L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; LETTER D ATED 12/20/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO MELVIN SMITH -- ILLINOIS DOT

TEXT: Dear Ms. Tilghman,

Several months ago I spoke with you over the phone regarding the enclosed letter. Please let me know if we can expect a response i.e., interpretation, to this in the near future.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht89-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/89

FROM: KEITH A. MCDOWELL -- VICE PRESIDENT -- ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS GROUP AMERICAN SEATING CO

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/22/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM KEITH A. MCDOWELL TO NHTSA, OCC 2908

TEXT: Honorable Chief Justice:

I have not received a reply on my letter dated December 9, 1988 regarding seat belts on buses. May I have your answer?

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/89

FROM: PETER J. YANOWITCH -- DAVIS MARKEL AND EDWARDS

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: IMPORTATION OF PORSCHE MODEL 959

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/20/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO PETER J. YANOWITCH, RE IMPORTATION OF PORSCHE 959, REDBOOK A33 (2), IMPORT REGULATIONS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I represent a non-resident of the United States who intends to import a Porsche Model 959 under the United States Customs' Procedure 19 CFR Part 1280 (b)(1)(v), which permits such individuals to import an automobile for personal use for a period not t o exceed one year from the date of entry so long as the automobile is not sold within the United States.

I respectfully request that you confirm to me in writing that if a non-resident of the United States utilizes this United States Customs Procedure, the Department of Transportation would not have jurisdiction to impound, confiscate, destroy, require a bond, or otherwise take any action with respect to the vehicle, so long as the non-resident fully complies with the provisions of 19 CFR Part 1280 (b)(1)(v).

I further request that you confirm that the Department of Transportation would not object to the non-resident driving this vehicle on the road during the one year period.

My client is prepared to confirm to your agency by sworn testimony that he will comply with the requirements of the United States Customs Regulations. Due to certain time constraints, I would appreciate your response by March 10, 1989.

Thank you for your cooperation. I have enclosed a self-addressed Federal Express Airbill which will be charged to my firm for your convenience.