ID: 2809o

Mr. Paul Scully
Vice President
Peterson Manufacturing Co.
4200 East 135th St.
Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, l988, asking for a clarification of a letter that this Office sent Wesbar Corporation on March 16, 1988, with respect to the term "effective projected luminous area."

Wesbar had asked whether it could include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" (Wesbar's language) in its calculation of the l2 square inch minimum effective projected luminous area required by S4.1.1.7 of Safety Standard No. l08. We replied that it could, assuming that the light shines through the reflector. You have pointed out that although a small amount of light escapes through a reflex reflector, the reflector is designed to return light from an outside source, rather than to direct light from a source inside the lamp, and that heretofore agency interpretations (e.g. on October 28, 1970, and October 28, 1979) had expressly excluded reflex reflectors from areas included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. Reflex reflectors are also excluded from the term by SAE J387 Terminology.

We appreciate your calling this matter to our attention. Previous interpretations by this Office clearly indicate that a "reflex reflector" is not to be included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. We also note that the SAE definition (paragraph 2, SAE J594f, January l977) is incorporated by reference into Standard No. l08, stating that this item of equipment is one that provides an indication of vehicle presence by reflected light (rather than projected light). We are providing a copy of this letter to Wesbar so that it will be apprised of our reevaluation, and our conclusion that the reflex reflector portion of a lens cannot be included in the calculations of the projected luminous lens area.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:108 d:8/l9/88

ID: 2976yy

Ms. Vicki Haudler
4636 S. Cedar Lake Rd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Dear Ms. Haudler:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars.

I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:5/l0/9l

ID: 22705.drn

Mr. Bob Douglas
American Transportation Corporation
751 S. Harkrider
Conway, AR 72032





Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your request that we write a letter to the Government of Israel's Minister of Transportation. You wrote that you needed this letter because you are:

working to secure a bid for commercial buses to be built here in Conway Arkansas and to be exported to Israel. They have requested that we provide them a letter that states that FMVSS 220 is an official regulation and that the regulation only pertains to school buses. They require that this letter come from NHTSA.

The following provides the information you request.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was enacted on September 9, 1966,

(P.L. 85-563), in order to reduce traffic accidents, deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. This law, now codified as chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, directs the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), to which motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must conform and to which the manufacturers of such vehicles or equipment must certify compliance. The responsibility to establish FMVSSs has been delegated (by regulation) to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

It is my understanding that the Israeli Government wishes to procure buses that are not school buses. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards on rollover protection that apply to non-school buses. NHTSA has issued FMVSS 220 (49 CFR Section 571.220), School bus rollover protection to establish performance requirements for school bus rollover protection, but does not apply this standard to non-school buses.

If you wish further information, please write to me at this address or contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at: (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:220
d.3/6/01

ID: nht92-5.8

DATE: July 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Berkley C. Sweet -- Vice President, School Bus Manufacturers Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Berkley Sweet to Barry Felrice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 29, 1992 asking what minimum passenger size (weight and height) was used in developing the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. You noted that several school districts are now transporting newborn and under-school-age children to schools which provide day-care service, and that you have received inquiries concerning the "limits, if any, on passenger size and age that can be safely transported on school bus seats."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, defines a "school bus" as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purposes of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA has never specified a passenger size and/or age range applicable to the compartmentalized school bus seats required by Standard No. 222. In developing the standard, however, NHTSA considered the range of sizes and ages of children attending preprimary through secondary school.

NHTSA has developed approximate size and weight guidelines for child restraint systems. For children from birth to 9-12 months (or up to 20 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of an infant or convertible seat facing the rear. For children from 9-12 months to 4 years (or 20 pounds to 40 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of a convertible or toddler seat. If a school is transporting children in these age and weight ranges, they may want to consider using a school bus with safety belts to secure a child restraint system. I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled "Transporting Your Children Safely" 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.

(Text of Consumer Information Sheet omitted.)

ID: nht92-1.34

DATE: December 8, 1992

FROM: George D. James, Jr. -- Safety Chairman, Unit 169 WBCCI

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA; Attention: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: RE Tekonsha Electronic Brake Control ("Control")

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-21-93 from John Womack to George D. James, Jr. (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: Thank you for your 12/4/92 reply to my 10/24/92 letter objecting to your "approval" of this brake controller. Because your agency does not "approve", "endorse" or offer assurance of compliance of any M.V, equipment, I err in thinking you have "approved" these controllers.

I still believe that using trailer brakes without activating the STOP LIGHTS is an unsafe procedure AND you imply approval.

You state that "at this time we do not have any data indicating a real-world safety problem created by the use of the Tekonsha brake control".

What data do you need to realize that a rear end collision (or a following vehicle choosing to leave the road to avoid one) or chain-reaction collisions caused by a slowing or stopping vehicle WITHOUT STOP LIGHTS BEING ACTIVATED is not a "real world" safety problem?

How many thousands of such accidents have already been recorded? How many violation citations with or without penalties have been made because of inoperating stop lights?

Mr. Wood, I've just talked with the Macon County Sheriff's Department and the State Highway Patrol (North Carolina) and they both confirm that:

1. There'll be a lot more collisions on the highways if vehicles are permitted to run with non-operating stop lights, and

2. Don't get caught here with stop lights not working or you'll for sure be ticketed.

Now by George, you KNOW this is right. YOU DON'T NEED "MORE DATA"! HOW CAN YOU SAY YOUR AGENCY'S GOAL IS MINIMIZING DEATHS AND INJURIES ON THE HIGHWAYS, and still defend your decision re these new brake controllers? HOW CAN YOU SAY YOU NEED MORE DATA INDICATING A POTENTIAL PROBLEM?

ID: nht91-1.35

DATE: February 7, 1991

FROM: Billy S. Peterson -- President, Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, DOT/NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Billy S. Peterson (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter is a request for clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

We have a client who wishes to mount two-part tail/stop lamps on the rear of their vehicle so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid. The specific question we have is:

Must the minimum photometric requirements be met by the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted to the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements?

The confusion arises from a letter from your office to this office dated 1/28/88 which stated that the trunk lid is considered a rigid body panel for purposes of this standard because it is meant to be closed during normal operation and, therefore, the mounting of reflectors and back-up lamps on it is allowed.

Another letter, addressed to Volkswagen of America, dated 7/30/80, states essentially the same thing except it contains the opinion that placement of the tail/stop lamps on the trunk lid may be viewed as a defect in performance, subject to recall. Our interpretation of this letter was that VW had planned to mount lamps only on the trunk lid and not the body quarter panel and this could pose a problem.

Since our client's intention to mount duplicate tail/stop lamps on both the body quarter panel and the trunk lid was not specifically addressed in the earlier letters noted above, this letter serves as a request for clarification of the requisite output requirements associated with that mounting arrangement.

A drawing of the proposed lamp combination is attached to this letter.

Attachment

Drawing of proposed lamp combination (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-3.47

DATE: May 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vicki Haudler

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Vicki Haudler to S. Kratzke (OCC 5943)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., (the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect)." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars.

I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career.

ID: 7378

Mr. Berkley C. Sweet
Vice President
School Bus Manufacturers Institute
7508 Ben Avon Road
Bethesda, MD 20817

Dear Mr. Sweet:

This responds to your letter of May 29, 1992 asking what minimum passenger size (weight and height) was used in developing the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. You noted that several school districts are now transporting newborn and under-school-age children to schools which provide day-care service, and that you have received inquiries concerning the "limits, if any, on passenger size and age that can be safely transported on school bus seats."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, defines a "school bus" as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purposes of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA has never specified a passenger size and/or age range applicable to the compartmentalized school bus seats required by Standard No. 222. In developing the standard, however, NHTSA considered the range of sizes and ages of children attending preprimary through secondary school.

NHTSA has developed approximate size and weight guidelines for child restraint systems. For children from birth to 9-12 months (or up to 20 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of an infant or convertible seat facing the rear. For children from 9-12 months to 4 years (or 20 pounds to 40 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of a convertible or toddler seat. If a school is transporting children in these age and weight ranges, they may want to consider using a school bus with safety belts to secure a child restraint system. I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled "Transporting Your Children Safely" 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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:7/28/92

ID: nht89-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/89

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

TO: BOB BERGMAN -- COMMANDER U.S. ARMY MISSILE COMMAND AMCPM-FM-TM ALABAMA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/07/89 FROM JERRY L. DOOLEY -- US ARMY TO NHTSA; OCC 3833

TEXT: Dear Commander:

This is in reply to a letter of August 7, 1989, from Jerry L. Dooley, Deputy Project Manager, Non-Line of Sight, with respect to "safety standards of the military nature", in particular those that would apply to the M1037 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheel Vehicle (HMMWV), as well as the M993 Bradley Fighting Vehicle System (BFVS).

This agency has jurisdiction over all motor vehicles, defined as vehicles driven or drawn by mechanical power which are manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Our principal role is the issuance of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the monitoring of the notification and remedial campaigns of manufacturers upon the occurrence of noncompliances with the standards, or safety related defects in vehicles. We have never issued safety standards for military vehicles. Quite the oppo site; although we interpret our authority as covering military vehicles, the agency has always specifically exempted from compliance with the standards any motor vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in ac cordance with contractual specifications.

Frequently, military contracts for procurement of vehicles will call for their conformance with the Federal safety standards, when the nature of the vehicle is such (e.g. passenger car, bus) that conformance with the standards is not inconsistent with th e configuration required to accomplish their mission. None of our safety standards for civilian vehicles cover driver field of view, basic visibility requirements, or

ingress/egress. Our glazing standard does specify minimum levels of light transmittance, and our rearview mirror standard covers rear view mirror placement and rearward field of view. I am enclosing copies of these standards for your information.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosures - Standards Nos. 111, 205

ID: nht88-2.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/88

FROM: WAYNE IVIE -- MANAGER, VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, NHTSA

TO: NHTSA, OFFICE OF SAFETY COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED DEC. 8, 1988 TO WAYNE IVIE, OREGON DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA

TEXT: On June 16th of this year, Oregon enacted a mandatory helmet law. Anyone riding on a motorcycle or moped on our highways must wear "approved" protective headgear.

Our agency adopted FMVSS 218, Motorcycle Helmets, as the minimum standard for helmets. Part S5.6.1 of the standard requires permanent and legible labeling of helmets, including the DOT symbol, to prove that a helmet meets that standard. Helmet manufactu rers apparently attach a sticker with the DOT symbol onto the back of the helmet.

Our office is receiving inquiries from individuals and police officers, who advise that on many helmets, this DOT sticker has fallen off or been removed by someone in order to paint the helmet, etc. They add that often there is no other labeling in or o n the helmet, so they can not determine that it meets any standard. (Is considered "approved" for use in Oregon.) To complicate this further, there is no manufacturer or brand name anywhere on the helmet, so contacting a dealer or manufacturer for infor mation is not possible. Advising someone to dispose of such a helmet and get another with proper labeling doesn't seem an appropriate answer, and may be just an undue expense for the motorcycle rider.

Are manufacturers allowed to use the DOT sticker only, with no other labeling, or is this being done in violation of FMVSS 218? (If the DOT sticker is now the only label used, we would definitely like to recommend that a permanently embossed DOT symbol somewhere in or on the helmet be also required.) Have you been advised of similar problems by other jurisdictions? Do you have suggestions on how we can resolve the situation of a helmet that appears to have been made in compliance with standard require ments, is in a good, undamaged condition, yet does not have any labeling?

Thank you for your help in this matter.