ID: nht92-6.5

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Thomas D. Turner to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7241)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, with respect to the automatic extension of a stop signal arm. You were especially concerned with the interaction between a provision in Wisconsin's Administrative code requiring activation of the stop signal arm under specified conditions and the stop signal arm activation requirements set forth in Standard No. 131. I have responded in detail to your questions below.

Before I answer your question about your company's design for complying with both the Wisconsin Code and Standard No. 131, I would like to note that it does not appear that the Wisconsin regulation is inconsistent with Standard No. 131 with respect to the stop signal arm activation requirements. The Wisconsin Administrative Code states that:

"Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation."

S5.5 of Standard No. 131 states that "The stop signal arm shall be AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated..." (emphasis added) Both the Wisconsin requirement and the requirement in Standard No. 131 tie the activation of the stop signal arm to the operation of the red signal lamps. In addition, the Wisconsin regulation also ties the activation of the stop signal arm to the opening of the service door. Based on this information, it appears that a manufacturer could comply with both Standard No. 131 and the Wisconsin regulation by designing its school buses so that opening the service door automatically activates both the stop signal arm and the red flashing lamps. If the Wisconsin regulation were interpreted in a way that does not tie the automatic extension of the stop signal arm to opening the service door, then there could be an inconsistency with Standard No. 131.

You asked whether Blue Bird's system for activating the stop signal arm in accordance with Wisconsin's requirement complies with the requirements of Standard No. 131. You explained that, on its school buses sold in Wisconsin, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. Under this system, the red flashing lamps are activated before the service door has been opened and before the stop

signal arm has been extended. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that Blue Bird's system would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 131.

Standard No. 131 explicitly requires the stop signal arm to be automatically deployed whenever the red signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 are activated. As explained in the final rule adopting Standard No. 131, "any system of activation is permissible provided the stop signal arm is extended during, at least, the entire time that the red warning lamps are activated." (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991). As described in your letter, the system your company has developed for its Wisconsin school buses has the red warning lamps activated by a manual switch and the activation of those lamps does not activate the stop signal arm. Hence, that system does not comply with the explicit requirement of Standard No. 131 that the stop signal arm be automatically extended whenever the red warning lamps are activated.

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

ID: nht92-6.50

DATE: May 18, 1992

FROM: William E. Lawler -- Manager, Specifications, Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/23/92 from Paul J. Rice to William E. Lawler (A39; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Thank you for taking the time this afternoon to discuss some of the questions surrounding the inclusion of seat belt attachment hardware in the test requirements of FMVSS 210, "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages". At your suggestion, we are submitting some questions to you for clarification so we can give appropriate guidance to our customers, the heavy truck OEM's as to how the FMVSS 210 test is to be performed and interpreted.

1. RETRACTOR FRAMES

a. If a test harness is used, can one end of the harness be attached to the attachment hardware (retractor frame), or must it be attached to the retractor spool?

b. If the harness must be attached to the spool, may it be attached around the spool as opposed to being inserted into the spool?

See Figure 1 (attached).

c. We assume it is the intent of the agency to test only the strength of the attachment hardware--not the locking mechanism of the retractor built in accordance with FMVSS 209.

2. BUCKLE ATTACHMENT

a. A commonly used design is the "cable buckle". The buckle assembly is positioned in convenient reach of the seat occupant by attaching the buckle to a cable by a method called swaging. The attachment hardware consists of a flat end containing a hole for an attaching bolt and a ferrule which is swaged to the cable. The ferrule and the flat end are made in one piece. See Figure 2 (attached).

Please confirm that the attachment ferrule bolted to the seat/ vehicle is what is required to withstand the forces dictated by FMVSS 210; separation of the cable from the ferrule would constitute malfunction of the test harness and not non-compliance to FMVSS 210.

b. Please confirm that the test harness could delete the buckle mechanism and attach directly to the upper end of the cable in the cable/ferrule assembly.

We appreciate your help in clarifying the interpretation of the standard with regard to these questions. As we discussed, we would appreciate receiving your answer by fax to save time.

Thank you for your help.

(Drawings omitted)

ID: nht92-6.6

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Mary C. Andrews

TO: Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/6/92 from Paul J. Rice to Mary C. Andrews (A39; Std. 125)

TEXT:

We are in the process of developing a new warning device for motorists to carry in their cars.

It will be a 24 inch high inflatable plastic cone with reflector strips on the sides. It will be weighted down with sand in the enclosed bottom.

Our question to you is would this meet with any and all restrictions the Department of Transportation has for warning devices.

If you would like to see a drawing of the item, we can supply you with one.

Looking forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Thank you.

ID: nht92-6.7

DATE: June 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Neil Friedkin -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/16/92 from Neil Friedkin to Marvin Shaw (OCC 7200)

TEXT:

This responds to your follow-up letter to the agency requesting that the agency provide "the applicable 1986 standard for convertible passenger cars." In an earlier letter, you had asked about our regulations with respect to converting a vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your inquiry.

To begin, there is no single standard applicable to convertible passenger cars, or any other motor vehicles. Instead, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish many standards that apply to passenger cars, including convertible passenger cars. These standards, which are collectively called the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. They cover many different vehicle systems, including controls and displays, vehicle lighting, braking, occupant crash protection, and fuel system integrity.

As you review the safety standards in Part 571 to see which aspects of performance are of particular interest to you, you will see that the standards are generally identical for passenger cars and convertible passenger cars. There are some differences, however, including the permissible location for the center high mounted stop lamp (S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) and the inapplicability of the roof crush standard to convertibles (S3 of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance). Additionally, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required the front outboard seating positions of 1986 passenger cars that were not equipped with automatic crash protection (either air bags or automatic belts) to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder belt and all other seating positions to be equipped with either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt (S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208). However, convertible passenger cars were permitted to offer either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every designated seating position, including the front outboard positions (S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at

(202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-6.8

DATE: June 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter K. Brown -- President, KC HiLites, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Peter K. Brown to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7288)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 6, 1992, with respect to your "quad beam" product. You point out that, in normal operation, the headlamp lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated; "quad beam" ensures that the lower beam remains activated when the upper beam is used. We advised you on July 2, 1990, that installation of "quad beam" would be acceptable on certain types of four-lamp headlighting systems. You have now asked whether the device can "legally be used on two headlamp systems, either sealed beam or replaceable bulb type?"

Paragraph S5.5.9 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states that "(except for certain four-lamp systems enumerated in S5.5.8) the wiring harness or connector assembly of each headlamp system shall be designed so that only those light sources intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position, and that only those light sources intended for meeting upper beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position." This would preclude installation of the "quad beam" on two lamp headlamp systems.

ID: nht92-6.9

DATE: June 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hal Balzak

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/3/91 from Hal Balzak to NHTSA, U.S. DOT

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you have received a copy of this standard and would like clarification of two issues. Your questions are addressed below.

Your first question asked whether Standard No. 201 applied to passenger cars manufactured between January 1, 1968 and September 1, 1981. The answer to this question is yes; the standard applied to all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

Your second question asked whether Standard No. 201 applies to instrument panels manufactured for replacement of damaged units. The answer to this question is that, by its own terms, Standard No. 201 applies only to new motor vehicles. This means that the standard applies to original equipment components, including instrument panels, but not to replacements for those components.

However, you should be aware of an important provision in Federal law. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that "(n)o manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." This provision applies to both new and used vehicles.

You specifically asked about the replacement of damaged instrument panels. I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with the safety equipment installed on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-7.1

DATE: May 18, 1992

FROM: Timber Dick -- General Manager, Safeline Children's Products Company

TO: Deirdre Fujita -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Michael Pyne -- NHTSA Enforcement; Kathleen Weber -- UMTRI

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/92 from Paul J. Rice to Timber Dick (A39; Std. 213)

TEXT:

We spoke on several occasions recently regarding Safeline's certification of the Sit'n'Stroll 2-in-1 Carseat/Stroller under FMVSS 213. In particular, our discussions focused on NHTSA's interpretation of the regulations, and whether a manufacturer could certify a rear-facing carseat at a weight greater than 20 lbs.

We were prompted to investigate certification at a higher weight than the standard 20-lb limit as a result of numerous safety studies (several of which are enclosed) which indicate that children are exposed to a lessened risk of cervical spine fractures, and consequent para- and quadriplegia, if they are rearward facing to a higher weight limit. I have a baby boy born with a 99%+ head circumference, and I've been afforded additional peace of mind by keeping him rear-facing in his Sit'n'Stroll as he has reached 25 lbs in body weight.

Safeline is committed to providing the highest degree of safety possible within practical and regulatory constraints. To this end, we recently tested the Sit'n'Stroll at the University of Michigan facility rear-facing using a 35 lb, NHTSA-approved dummy. FMVSS 213 positioning procedures were interpreted in a logical manner. The enclosed test results are a powerful testimony to the safety benefits afforded by use of the Sit'n'Stroll in this configuration.

Please note two important conclusions of the test. First, even with the 35-lb load, the test seat was well within the back angle limits imposed by FMVSS 213. Our maximum back angle was just 50 degrees, as compared to the maximum permissible of 70 degrees. Second, and in my eyes perhaps more compelling, our Head Injury Criteria was 289, a remarkably low figure as contrasted with the permissible 1000.

Safety experts across the nation have contacted Safeline to applaud our efforts to give parents of babies (like mine) with disproportionately large heads an safer way to transport their children. We submit that it is in the best interests of the taxpayers and their children to allow FMVSS 213 interpretations which would permit rear-facing carseats to be certified with 35-lb dummies to a weight higher than 20 pounds.

We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this matter.

ID: nht92-7.10

DATE: May 8, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bill Willett

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/17/92 from Bill Willett to NHTSA (OCC 7240)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 17, 1992, with respect to motor vehicle lighting. You believe that a "flickering brake light is an improvement to the existing dim-bright red light now used." The light you have in mind is one which "flashes on and off at a faster rate than that of the turn signal and emergency flashers." The light is intended "to alert the driver that the brakes are applied as long as the brakes are used . . . ." You have asked "Is there any Federal law preventing me from doing research by adding another device to the vehicle lights."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that stop lamps be steady-burning when the brakes are applied. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from any modification that renders wholly or partially inoperative motor vehicle equipment, such as stop lamps, installed pursuant to a standard such as Standard No. 108. Were the existing stop lamps to be rewired to flash, we would regard the change from steady burning to flashing as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of this prohibition. However, please note that the prohibition includes only four categories of persons, and does not apply to modifications made by a "survey group member" who is not within one of those categories. Nor does it apply to modifications made by a vehicle owner.

In addition, you should check with the authorities in Alabama to ensure that your modifications do not violate any provision of the State motor vehicle code.

ID: nht92-7.11

DATE: May 8, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J.W. Lawrence -- Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/25/91 from J.W. Lawrence to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 6634)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 25, 1991 requesting information on whether metric sizes and threads for attachment bolts would be considered "equivalent hardware for the requirements of S4.1(f) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. In general, it is permissible to use metric hardware for the installation of safety belts. However, as explained below, it is unclear whether the metric fastener M12, as described in your follow-up letter of December 13, 1991, is equivalent to the attachment hardware specified in Standard No. 209.

The Department of Transportation is implementing the policy of using metric dimensions, in addition to American Standard dimensions, in our regulations. Currently, FMVSS No. 209 "Seat Belt Assemblies," requires the safety belt anchorage bolt to be

"7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13 UNC-2A attachment bolts or equivalent hardware" (S4.1.(f)).

The SIZE of the bolt specified in your letter is equivalent to the safety belt anchorage bolt specified in Standard No. 209. Since the M12 nut is approximately halfway between a 7/16 and a 1/2 inch bolt, it is clear that the size would fulfill the requirement of the standard. However, it is not clear from the information provided, whether the class of thread fit of the metric bolt is comparable to the requirements of the standard. The standard does specify a Class 2 bolt. A Class 2 thread provides clearance under all conditions and allows external threads to be plated with no resultant assembly difficulties. This is the most common commercial grade fit. Therefore, if the bolt thread fit is equivalent, we would consider this metric bolt to be equivalent hardware to the bolt specified in Standard No. 209.

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.

ID: nht92-7.12

DATE: May 6, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Shigeyoshi Aihara -- Manager, Information Services, Ichikoh America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/92 from Shigeyoshi Aihara to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7113)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 16, 1992, requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the fogging prohibition of S7.4(i)(6) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Initially, we would like to call your attention to the fact that S7.4 (i)(6), which you quoted in its entirety, was amended on March 11, 1991, to delete the requirement that a headlamp meet the photometric requirements after a humidity test. S7.4 (i)(6) now states in pertinent part that, after a humidity test conducted in accordance with S8.7, "the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification."

You have attached a drawing of a vented headlamp with an onboard aiming system. The headlamp is available with two different types of bubble indicators. Your first question is: "After the humidity test, both types ... show the fogging in the location as shown in attached sketches. But, this fogging is gone at normal temperature. *** Is such fogging acceptable after the temperature test?" Your second question is whether "'the inside of the housing' means the lens and reflector portions" or "the entire inside portion of headlamps?"

The humidity test was adopted in 1983. Allowing humidity or water in headlamps causes slow degradation of the reflector over the long term. The presence of humidity results in spots on the reflector and lens, and eventual photometric failure. The humidity test is designed to assure that the vents in vented headlamps eliminate moisture in the headlamp when exposed to air flow with the headlamps off, thus assuring adequate performance in long term use. The provision for onboard headlamp aiming devices was not adopted until 1989, and did not specify that they be located within the headlamp.

From the foregoing, it is evident that the humidity test for replaceable bulb headlamps was not adopted to address a problem inherent in the exposure of onboard aiming devices to moisture. These devices were not in use at the time the humidity test was added to Standard No. 108, and they do not contribute directly to the photometric performance of the headlamp.

From the diagram you enclosed, the aiming device appears located behind the reflector. It is not possible to determine from your letter whether moisture forms on the exterior or the interior of the aiming device. Although S7.4 (i)(6) prohibits moisture "inside the headlamp" and the aiming device is located inside the headlamp, we would not read the prohibition as extending to the aiming device if the moisture occurs inside that device.

Even if the moisture occurs on the exterior of the aiming device, it does not affect the photometric properties of the headlamp. The agency does not wish to impose inadvertent design restrictions that are not directed towards safety, and therefore regards any moisture that may occur on the exterior of the aiming device as outside the prohibition of S7.4 (i)(6). This interpretation, however, is limited to the specific design that you have presented.