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: 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: nht68-4.7

DATE: 09/02/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: General Supply and Equipment Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 7, 1969, to the Federal Highway Administration, concerning head restraints on your 1969 Lincoln Continental Sedan.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202: Head Restraints Passenger Cars, specifies that a head restraint must be provided at each outboard front seating position on cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1969. This standard does not prohibit an individual from modifying or removing the head restraints once he purchases the car. However, a particular state may have inspection laws which prohibit such actions. I suggest you check the matter with your state inspection authorities.

Our Highway Safety Program Standards, copy enclosed, set minimum performance requirements for state inspection programs. Each state is free to establish its own program which meets or exceeds the Federal guidelines. The fact that our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requires head restraints to be installed on all new passenger cars is evidence of our belief in the level of safety provided by these devices in rear collisions. We would strongly endorse a state inspection program which supported this and our other standards. I am enclosing a booklet which describes all of our motor vehicle standards.

Regarding your particular case, we agree that good visibility is necessary for the safe operation of an automobile. However, properly designed head restraints should not significantly restrict visibility. The injury-reducing benefit far outweights the slight loss of visibility which may occur in certain passenger cars. See(Illegible Word) to the head restraint standard enclosed.

As a practical matter, I would not recommend removal of your head restricts. Aside from the level of rear collision protestion which they provide, their removal may mean that their support structure within the seat back is exposed and this may present a hazard to any rear seat occupants who may hit their heads on the front seat back in a forward collision.

I would suggests the alternative of an additional rear view mirror on the right side of your vehicle to provide increased rear visibility.

Your interest in our progress is appreciated.

ID: nht69-1.18

DATE: 02/11/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Payne, Barlow and Green, Attorneys at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 23, 1969, to William Haddon, Jr., M.D., requesting information on Federal standards for child restraint devices.

I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Scat Belt Assemblies - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses" which includes requirements for a Type 3 seat belt assembly for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds and capable of sitting upright by themselves.

The technical requirements of the present standard No. 209 were previously included in "Standard for Seat Belts for Use in Motor Vehicles (15 CFR Part 9; 31 F.R. 11528)" which was incorporated by reference in the initial Standard No. 209. I am also enclosing copies of these previous documents.

We are in the process of developing a standard for child car seats and I am enclosing a copy of a recently issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making on this subject. It is important to note that this is only a proposed regulation and the requirements may be modified somewhat when the final rule is published. However, this proposed rule indicates those safety features which are considered to be important for a child car seat.

There are no other existing Federal standards on child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

January 23, 1969

William Haddon, Director National Highway Safety Bureau Department of Transportation

Dear Dr. Haddon:

I am seeking information regarding Federal Standards for Child Restraint Devices and will appreciate your furnishing same to me as soon as it is convenient for you.

I am attempting to measure the adequacy of a particular device that apparently contributed to a child's injury that occurred on May 15, 1968. I do not know the date of manufacture of this device but it is important that I obtain an itemization of minimum standards that have applied for several years.

Sincerely,@@53:426

ID: nht73-4.5

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask two questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacement parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

There are no requirements for the certification or replacement vehicle parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present, Standards Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements that manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that "due care" was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.

It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or not subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the

manufacturer or the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which the defect may exist. A manufacturer who has such records will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.

ID: nht73-5.44

DATE: 11/05/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Roy Stolpestad

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, concerning the 1966 Chrysler you recently purchased from Central Motors in Minneapolis. As Miss Porter correctly pointed out in her column, the Federal law on odometer fraud enables you to bring a civil action against Central. The amount of recovery in such an action can be substantial. If the court were to accept your estimate of damages of $ 1490.24, the damages assessable under Federal law would be three times that amount $ 4470.72. In no case would damages be less than $ 1500, a minimum value established by law. In addition, if you are successful, Central must pay your attorney fees as well as all court costs.

I appreciate your concern for the costs of litigation. However, by providing for the payment of attorney fees the odometer law places you in a better position than a personal injury litigant whose recovery is usually diminished by his attorney's contingency fee. Your best course at this point is therefore to retain counsel if Central persists in its refusal to reimburse you.

By way of advice to your attorney, I would point out that the "out" that Central claims to have taken -- checking the box on the disclosure form that indicates the true mileage is unknown -- was taken too late to be of benefit to them. The Federal regulation governing disclosure requires the disclosure statement to be made "before executing any transfer of ownership form." If they mailed the statement the next day, their disclosure was untimely. Moreover, the representations made in the newspaper advertisment are evidentiary of their representation of 33,000 miles as being the true mileage on the vehicle. Your success in finding the previous

owner is also useful in establishing that the actual mileage was greater than shown.

We will be willing to give you or your attorney further advice if questions arise concerning the intent and effect of the Federal odometer law. The enclosed copies of the law and regulations are provided to assist him in representing you.

ENC.

ID: nht73-2.46

DATE: 12/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hyattsvile Auto Glass

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 29, 1973, request to know if urethane bonding material must be used in the installation of windshields in new motor vehicles not yet sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

Standard 212, Windshield mounting, is a performance standard for new motor vehicles. We do not require the use of specific bonding materials such as urethane, but only that the vehicle conform to Standard 212, whatever material is used. The New York suit you mentioned may involve a question of due care in the installation of the windshield, separate from the question of meeting a Federal minimum performance standard.

YOURS TRULY,

IHyattsville Auto Glass

NOVEMBER 29, 1973

ROBERT DYSON ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HWY. SAFETY STANDARDS

DEAR MR. DYSON:

AFTER TALKING WITH YOU BY TELEPHONE ABOUT A STATEMENT MADE BY GENERAL MOTORS IN ONE OF THEIR BULLETINS ON THE USING OF URETHANE TO INSTALL WINDSHEILDS, I WAS TOLD OF A GLASS SHOP IN NEW YORK THAT IS BEING SUED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T USE URETHANE IN THE INSTALLATION OF A WINDSHEILD OF A 1974 MODEL VEHICLE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT SAFETY STANDARD 212 ONLY PERTAINS TO NEW VEHICLES NOT HAVING BEEN SOLD, AS WAS EXPLAINED IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 20, 1972. IS THERE ANY REGULATION THAT SAYS THAT A WINDSHEILD BEING INSTALLED IN A NEW 1974 MODEL VEHICLE (ONE NOT SOLD TO A FIRST PURCHASER) HAS TO BE INSTALLED WITH URETHANE BONDING MATERIAL? OR ARE WE STILL ALLOWED TO USE THE BONDING MATERIAL OF OUR CHOICE AS LONG AS IT CONFORMS TO STANDARD 212?

I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE YOU CAN GIVE US BECAUSE OF THE APPARENT HAZARDS AND LENGTH OF CURING TIME WE DON'T WANT TO USE URETHANE UNLESS WE ARE REQUIRED TO BY YOUR DEPARTMENT.

AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE ASSISTANCE YOU HAVE GIVEN US IN THIS AS IN PREVIOUS MATTERS.

SINCERLY YOURS

ROBERT WOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS

ID: nht87-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Ernst; Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ernst Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt GERMANY

Dear Dr. Ernst:

This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1987, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new headlamp manufactured by Hella that BMW has installed on a new car which it introduced in the United States around April 1, 1987.

The headlamp is of the replaceable bulb type, and as you describe it consists of two additional parts: "the housing, to which the cover lens is bonded by means of a two "component adhesive", and 'the optical module, consisting of the reflector and the convex lens, joined by the lens carrier...." In your words, "The two parts are held together by three screws", and you believe that "the two parts, firmly screwed together, are as effectively joined as would be the case if bonded".

Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 108 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" in pertinent part as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly. . . ." In the Hella design, the lens and reflector assembly are not bonded, and thus the headlamp is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp" that is permissible for use on motor vehicles sold and used in the Unite States. The intent of the definition is to ensure that the headlamp lens and reflector are an integral replaceable unit, since that is the only means to assure a mechanically aimable replaceable bulb headlamp which is capable of using any replacement standardized replaceable light source and meets the necessary photometric performance. The foundation of mechanical aimability is that the beam and aiming pads are manufactured to have a specific relationship. If this relationship is altered by replacement of the lens only, or of the reflector only, there is a high likelihood that the lamp may not meet minimum performance requirements when aimed mechanically.

ID: nht87-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allen R. Tank

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Allen R. Tank President Minikin 606 NE Lincoln Avenue St. Cloud, MN 56301

Dear Mr. Tank:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1986, with respect to the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether a vehicle with two wheels at the front, and one at the rear with two tires mounted on it, would still be regarded as a motorcycle.

The definition of a motorcycle is "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." This is technically inaccurate in part because wheels do not contact the ground. I believe that the drafter of the definition meant to say "tires" rather than "wheels." Thus the configuration about which you have asked is one in which four tires contact the ground, and we therefore conclude that such a vehi cle would not be regarded as a motorcycle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I have communicated with George Shifflett in the Department regarding our three wheel vehicle. According to your standards, we are governed by the laws specifically addressed to motorcycles. The question was raised, if the three wheel vehicle had two whe els in the front with one in the rear, the rear rim having two tires mounted on it, would it still be regarded as a motorcycle.. I have enclosed three photos that will visually explain our proposed application.

I would appreciate your opinion on the additional tire effect on our motorcycle classification.

Sincerely,

Allen R. Tank President

cc: George Shifflett

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.