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: 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: 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: 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: nht91-1.43

DATE: February 15, 1991

FROM: Sidney A. Garrett -- President, Brown Cargo Van Inc.

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Sidney A. Garrett (A37; Std. 108)); Also attached to letter dated 4-25-90 rom Stephen P. Wood to J. Douglas Smith (Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are manufacturers of truck van bodies and need an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically we need an interpretation of the location of the front identification and clearance lamps.

The three amber identification lamps are to be attached at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline, and as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. The two amber clearance lamps, indicating overall width, are to be attached at the same height, one on each side of the vertical centerline, and as near the top as practicable.

Our question is if the truck cab comes with all five amber lamps mounted on its top as in Exhibit 1, does this meet the standard and therefore we do not need to install additional lamps? If this does not meet the standard, then we need to know if either Exhibit 2, with only the clearance lamps attached to the van body, or Exhibit 3, with both clearance lamps and identification lamps attached to the van body, meets the standard.

We are trying to minimize our costs and do not want to install unnecessary lamps as long as we are meeting all safety standards. Also, we are in the process of redesigning the front of our van bodies and would like to have the answer to our question as soon as possible so that our engineers can proceed.

If you need any additional information, please contact me at 800-255-6827.

Attachment

Photos of a cargo van (Graphics omitted)

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: nht88-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PAUL SCULLY -- VICE PRESIDENT PETERSON MANUFACTURING CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/22/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM PAUL SCULLY RE INTERPRETATION OF EFFECTIVE PROJECTED LUMINOUS AREA, OCC - 1946

TEXT: Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 1988, 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 12 square inch minimum effective projected luminous area required by S4.1 .17 of Safety Standard No. 108. 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 fro m 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 definit ion (paragraph 2, SAE J594f,

January 1977) is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, 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,

ID: nht93-5.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Durin B. Rogers -- Legal Assistant, Saperston & Day

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/93 from John Womack to Durin B. Rogers (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d); Redbook 4); Also attached to letter dated 7/1/91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard E. Wright (Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 11/29/84 from Frank Berndt to Wayne Ivie (Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance with regard to a legal matter within our office at this time.

According to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations S571.205 (otherwise known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205, Glazing Materials), certain motor vehicles operating on land highways are required to use windows made of treated "safety glass" or tempered glass to reduce the likelihood of shattering, as well as to minimize the possibility of vehicle occupants being thrown through a window during a collision. More specifically, I am interested in the glazing material requirements for side windows in what are known as "fifth wheel campers/trailers." Although Section 5.1.1 of Standard #205 designates that such requirements should conform to the American National Standard Safety Code for safety glazing materials for motor vehicles operating on land highways (Z-26.1, 1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1(a), July 3, 1980), it fails to specify what grade or specification of glass is required for each window's location. For your information, the replacement side window was allegedly purchased from a manufacturer in Indiana in June 1987, and installed within a fifth wheel camper registered in the State of New York. Enclosed, for your reference, are copies of photographs of the subject camper.

Would you please research this issue and confirm what specific glazing requirements, if any, are applicable to side windows within fifth wheel vehicles, and whether any federal or industrial regulations exist which would require future window replacements and/or repairs to be made of such glass?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Attachment

(Photos omitted)

ID: nht93-8.30

DATE: November 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack McIntyre -- Vice President, Tie Tech Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/15/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack and (OCC-9123) and letter dated 8/18/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you withdrew your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead.

You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair.

Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position...." That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards.

I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.