ID: nht91-7.42

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Sandra Mesh-Witucki -- McGraw, Borchard & Martin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-1-91 from Sandra Mesh-Witucki to Mary Versailles (OCC 6641)

TEXT:

This responds to your November 1, 1991 letter in which you asked for "a certified copy of all rules/standards applicable to (a 1987 Chevrolet Cargo Van Conversion) both before and after conversion, and any other information you feel may be of assistance." Your letter mentioned that you are interested in this information for pending litigation concerning an accident in which this vehicle was involved in which, "(a)llegedly, a rear seat passenger suffered a spinal fracture from the lap belt." In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff on November 26, 1991, you verified that you are specifically interested in regulations concerning the type of safety belts this vehicle was required to have. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). S4.2.1 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 1, 1976 and before September 1, 1991. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and EITHER meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems OR have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts.

Standard No. 208 and all the rest of NHTSA's safety standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. This and all other volumes of the CFR may be purchased by contacting:

Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Phone: (202) 783-3238

Because the CFR is published by the Government Printing Office, that office is the only source for certified copies of the regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht80-1.32

DATE: 03/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: David Williams

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 12, 1980, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Federal safety standards to an imported motor vehicle. In general, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires all imported motor vehicles to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of their importation.

In response to your first question, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires each seating position in a passenger car to be equipped with a seat belt assembly as of January 1, 1968. Therefore, the rear bench seat of a 1972 passenger car was required by Federal regulations to have seat belts. If the vehicle to which you refer was imported without seat belts, the importer would have violated the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

In your second question, you ask what standards apply to a vehicle that was used by its manufacturer as a company vehicle and then sold as a used vehicle to an individual. The vehicle would be required to comply with the standards in effect on the date of its manufacture or, in the case of an import, on the date on which it was imported. In a related question, you ask whether some of the safety systems installed in a vehicle can be disconnected. An individual is permitted to disconnect safety systems on his or her own vehicle. However, no repair business, manufacturer, dealer, or distributor may render inoperative any safety device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with the safety standards.

Finally, you ask whether a manufacturer may import into the country a vehicle that does not comply with the safety standards. The answer to this question is no. An imported vehicle must comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of its importation into this country.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

FEBRUARY 12, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA - DOT Washington D.C.

Dear Sir -

I would appreciate your answering the following questions relating to a vehicle whose certification plate states that it meets all federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect May 1972 and which was imported into this country in June 1972.

1. If the rear bench seats do not have seat belt assemblies, would this be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

2. If a vehicle is sold after being used as a company vehicle by the manufacturer, but it is the first sale for purposes other than resale, which federal motor vehicle safety standards is the vehicle required to conform to? Can some of the safety systems installed to meet safety standards be disconnected?

3. Can a manufacturer import into this country a vehicle which does not conform to the applicable safety standards without informing the government?

It is very important that I receive this information as soon as possible.

Thank you.

All Best

DAVID WILLIAMS BOX 4091 WILMINGTON, DE 19807

ID: nht75-3.19

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Larry Winn Jr.; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of January 28 and May 14, 1975, inquiring about the effect of Federal motor vehicle safety standards on a constituent's problem in finding a mid-size American car with a sufficiently adjustable seat or a dealer willing to modify such a vehicle to accommodate your constituent's 6'8" frame.

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-492, amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 (et seq., to prohibit any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business" from "knowingly render (ing) inoperative . . . 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 . . ." Because seat position is a variable which may affect compliance with several safety standards, dealers are understandably wary about relocating a vehicle's seat.

The obvious solution for this problem is for the manufacturer to determine how far its seats can be moved outside their normal adjustment ranges and still comply with applicable standards, and then to make this information available. I hope that Mr. Morton has found a dealer or manufacturer who is willing to make an effort to do this instead of relying on the excuse that Federal law precludes any solution. Mr. Morton also has two other alternatives: to buy and have installed a custom seat from a company willing to certify the altered vehicle under 49 CFR 567.7, or to move the original seat himself or with the assistance of people who are not in the motor vehicle repair business.

SINCERELY,

Congress

House of Representatives

May 14 1975

Congressional Affairs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

LARRY WINN, JR. Third Congressional District of Kansas

January 28, 1975

Director Congressional Liaison DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

LARRY WINN, JR. Third Congressional District of Kansas

ID: nht93-5.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: R-BAR Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/15/93 from John Womack to Michael F. Hecker (A41; Std. 222; Part 571; VSA 108(A)(2)(a)

TEXT:

I have reviewed the letter sent to our Mr. Michael H. Dunn on January 29, 1993 and as a result, I am providing the following response.

We fully understand that NHTSA neither approves, or certifies, products such as the R-BAR Passenger Restraint System. We are very careful to explain this to customers when we are asked if the agency has approved the device.

In regards to Micho Industries certification of compliance to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, there appears to be some confusion as a result of past correspondence with your office. While we understand that there are no standards directly applicable to lap bar restraints, it was our understanding that once the R-BAR was mounted to the seat it was part of the seat and subject to the requirements of the seat. This was re-emphasized in a letter from your office (to Micho Industries) on May 14, 1992 when Mr. Paul Rice stated "once the restraining bar is attached to the seat back, it is part of the seat back. Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4 (c).".

In the same letter Mr. Rice further states that "Manufacturers are required to certify that vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure."

Previous correspondence from your office has stated that "the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard."

Based on our understanding of the regulations and past correspondence with your office, we have developed the R-BAR so that it was in compliance to regulations that apply to the seat as well as other regulations that apply to the general safety of the school bus. Further, it has been our understanding that, as the manufacturer, it was our responsibility to "certify" that compliance on installations in existing buses.

John, we do not want to mislead anyone or misrepresent the product, our company or your agency. After 8 years of development and testing we believe the R-BAR will stand on its own merits. If, after consideration of the above, it remains the position of your agency that Micho Industries stating "certification of the R-BAR to compliance to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" would be possibly misleading - then we

will of course refrain from making that statement. In the meantime Micho Industries, and it's representatives, will respond to customer inquiries, regarding compliance, with the following statements;

At this time there are no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are directly applicable to the R-BAR Passenger Restraint System.

Properly installed the R-BAR will not violate any regulation or standard, or make inoperative any existing safety device or feature of the bus in which it is installed.

I look forward to your comments and thank you for your consideration in this matter.

ID: 77-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pupil Transportation Service - Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 18, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, permits the use of a two-passenger front-row seat with a corresponding two-passenger front-row restraining barrier. Secondly, you ask whether the State of Virginia can require the use in joints of discrete fasteners and welding, and not adhesives, without conflicting with the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. Finally, you ask who must certify that a vehicle complies with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

The NHTSA has issued an interpretation allowing the use of a two-passenger front-row seat with a two-passenger restraining barrier. This can be accomplished by the use of a two-passenger seat cushion and a three-passenger seat back as you suggest. I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA interpretation for your information.

Regarding your second question concerning the use of adhesives in bus body joints, the Federal bus body joint standard requires only that joints meet a specified strength requirement. The NHTSA does not require any particular type of joint construction. Therefore, the purchaser and manufacturer can decide upon any method of joint construction as long as the joint meets Federal strength specifications.

Your final question asks who must certify that a small school bus (under 10,000 pounds) is in compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. To assign responsibility for the certification of multi-stage vehicles, NHTSA has issued Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (enclosed). The manufacturer of an "incomplete-vehicle" (such as a cab-chassis) must provide documentation to the intermediate- and final-stage manufacturer of the vehicle on how to complete it so that it complies with all applicable standards. It is the responsibility of the final-stage manufacturer to affix a certification label unless the incomplete- or intermediate-stage manufacturer assumes this responsibility.

On a related matter concerning small school buses, it is our understanding that school buses weighing under 10,000 pounds will be available after April 1, 1977.

SINCERELY,

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

February 18, 1977

Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration This is in further regard to my questions mentioned during our telephone conversation on February 17, 1977 and my conversation with Mr. Roger Tilton of your office on this date. As indicated to you and Mr. Tilton, written questions would be submitted. They are as follows:

1. FMVSS 222

1. Will standard allow for a two passenger right front barrier to allow wider entrance into aisle?

2. Can right front seat be a two passenger cushion with a three passenger back allowing all other seats to be a three passenger seat?

2. FMVSS 221

1. Will State of Virginia be able to require the use of discreet fasteners and welding only in the joining of panels without the use of adhesives? If not, why?

3. Question of certification and availability of completed van conversion type school bus under 10,000 lbs. GVWR.

Who will certify compliance with FMVSS 105?

Do you have information or position which indicate such small school buses can comply with April 1, 1977 requirements of federal standards?

Do you have information which indicate such small buses will be available after April 1?

Your response to these questions is needed at the earliest possible date because many local school districts are in the process of bidding for purchase of school buses which comply with both state and federal standards.

R. A. Bynum, Supervisor Pupil Transportation Service

ID: 1984-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: PACCAR, Inc. -- Kenneth R. Brownstein, Counsel, Law Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein, Esq. Counsel, Law Department PACCAR, Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue, Washington 98009

This is in response to your letter of October 16,, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it applies to the location of turn signal lamps on truck tractors.

The requirements imposed by Standard No. 108 (Table II, with the exception provided by S4.1.1.1 ) are truck tractors be provided with turn signal lamps mounted on the rear; they are excused from this requirement if the turn signal lamps at or near the front are so located and constructed (double faced) that they meet the requirements for double-spaced turn signals specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970.

The drawing which you have enclosed, for which confidential treatment is requested, shows a truck tractor with turn signals mounted at the front, and proposed optional locations for the others . The first proposed location does not meet the requirement that the lamp be located on the rear; the second location is not even on the truck tractor. Thus, neither location appears under Standard No. 108.

Nothing your references to SAE J588f, we would like to point out that the SAE standard incorporated in Standard No. 208 is J588e.

After carefully reviewing your letter and the attached during, I have detemined that they are not entitled to confidential treatment. While the Agency has designated blueprints and engineering drawings as a class of documents which are generally entitled to confidentiality (49 CFR S512.9), this is a rebuttable presumption. Your drawing does not contain the kind and amount of detail whose release would cause substantial competitive harm to Paccar. The Agency's regulation on confidential business information states that substantial competitive harm is likely to occur from the release of blueprints or engineering drawings where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints except after significant reverse engineering. No significant reverse engineering would be required in order to locate turn signals at the positions indicated on the attached drawing. Additionally, the letter does not provide any further detail as to the location or design of the proposed turn signals and should not be treated confidentially.

In view of the above, your request for confidentiality is denied. If you disagree with this determination you must submit, within 10 days of your receipt of this letter, additional information showing specifically how the release of the letter and drawing will substantially harm the competitive position of Paccar. If no information is received by the end of that period, I will place these documents in the public viewing file.

Sincerely.

Frank Berndt

Chief Counsel

October 16, 1984

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

PACCAR Inc, as a manufacturer of Class 8 motor vehicles under the Kenworth nameplate, respectfully requests an interpretation of FMVSS 108 as applied to proposed turn signal locations for application on Kenworth conventional truck tractors which have been optimized for low aerodynamic drag.

In FMVSS 108, section 4.1.1. 1, it states that truck tractors need not be equipped with turn signal lamps mounted on the rear if the turn signal lamps at or near the front are double-faced and meet the requirements for double-face turn signals in SAE Standard J588f, "Turn Signal Lamps." The rationale in permitting double-faced signals is acknowledgment that (1) turn signals on the rear of a truck tractor are not conspicuous when the tractor is hauling a trailer and (2) combining front and rear turn signals into one double-faced lamp provides acceptable signalling indication to the rear during bobtail operations while providing some signalling information to the side. Considering the truck tractor driver's restricted vision and reduced maneuverability when hauling one or more trailers, turn signal side conspicuity becomes an important element in accident avoidance during lane changes or turns to the right. Both double-faced turn signals and Kenworth's proposed rear turn signal locations (depicted as Option 1 and Option 2 in the enclosed drawing) provide signalling indication to the tractor's rear and sides. PACCAR believes that the proposed rear turn signal locations meet the intent of the present FMVSS 108 and therefore asks that the proposed locations be approved as being compliant with the standard.

October 16, 1984

Additionally, in SAE Standard J588f, referenced above, section 3.9.1 reduces the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal when it is included in a double-faced lamp. As with double-faced turn signals, illumination toward the rear and outboard of the proposed rear turn signal lamps provides adequate signalling indication; illumination inboard of the lamps is unnecessary. PACCAR believes that the proposed turn signal designs meet the intent of SAE Standard 588f.

In the two rear turn signal locations proposed in the enclosed drawing, Kenworth has maintained the side conspicuity of double-faced turn signals without sacrificing aerodynamic performance. Kenworth believes that both proposed designs are superior in safety to turn signals mounted on the front and rear.

PACCAR requests that the information contained in this letter and drawing remain confidential.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Very truly yours, Kenneth R. Brownstein Counsel KRB:MMS:rts INSERT CHART

ID: 1982-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 17 1982

NOA-30

Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 120 West Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46032

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the requirements of paragraph S7.1.1.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, apply to motor homes and school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. It is your assumption that only those vehicle applications which must have seat belt assemblies meeting S7.1 generally are required to have emergency locking retractors on lap belts.

Your interpretation is incorrect. It is true that belt assemblies installed pursuant to S4.2.1.2 are not required to comply with paragraph S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, since that paragraph states that it is applicable to lap belts installed pursuant to S4.1.1 and S4.1.2. However, paragraph S7.1.1.3 is not so limited. It states that:

A lap belt installed at any front outboard designated seating position in a vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1982, shall meet the requirements of this section by means of an emergency-locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209.

This means that S7.1.1.3 applies to all lap belts installed in any vehicle in compliance with the standard, including belts installed under S4.2.1.2. Therefore, both motor homes and school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less would have to comply with the requirement.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 25, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

The Federal Register dated January 8, 1981, carried a final rule amending Standard No. 208 (49-CFR 571.208) which becomes effective September 1, 1982. According to the final rule, the amendment applies to "seat belt assemblies installed in all vehicles with GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less." The amendment pertains to section 7.1 of the standard.

Most trucks and multi-purpose passenger vehicles covered by S4.2.2 must comply with one of the sections under S4.1.2, each of which refers to S7.1. However, there are several exceptions listed which may meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2.; the later contains no reference to S7.1.

It is our interpretation that it is only those vehicle applications which require seat belt assemblies meeting S7.1. that are required to have an emergency-locking retractor on a lap belt installed in the front outboard designated seating positions.

Please send us your written explanation of the intent of S7.1.1.3. of Standard No. 208, and specifically it's application to motor homes and school buses with a "GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less."

Thank you for your help.

Yours very truly,

William E. Lawler Specifications Manager

WEL:ld

ID: 06-003753as

ID: nht87-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your April 23. 1987 letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Nadra L. Angerman of Wrangell, who is concerned that there is no Federal requirement for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Ms. Angerman 's concerns. As explained below, NHTSA does not require large school buses to have safety belts for passengers because we require those buses to provide an alternate form of passenger crash protect ion. Our safety standards are directed at improving the interior of large school buses so that passengers will be provided adequate crash protection even if safety belts are not used.

I Would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety stan dards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization refers to designing the interior of large buses so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fasten ed a safety belt. The key features include higher hnd stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance.

Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus driver since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do lar ger buses.

However, because large school buses already offer substantial protection to passengers, we believe a Federal requirement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary. Large school buses are very safe vehicles not only because they meet Federal schoo l bus safety standards, but also because of their size and weight, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wi sh to order safety belts on their own large school buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own preferences regarding pupil transportation.

A June 1985 NHTSA publication entitled, Safety Belts in School Buses, discusses many of the issues relating to safety belts in large school buses. I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.

I hope you have found this information to be helpful. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Edward Babbitt, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Babbitt:

One of my constituents/ Ms. Nadra L. Angerman of Wrangell( Alaska, has recently informed me of her concern about the need for mandatory seat belt installation laws for school buses nation-wide. I've enclosed a copy of her letter on this subject for your reference.

I would greatly appreciate any information you could provide on recent proposals or assessments relating to possible national requirements to install seatbelts in school buses. Thank you for your assistance in addressing my constituent' s concerns. With best wishes,

TED STEVENS

Enclosure

April 13 1987

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Senator Stevens:

Automobile safety is becoming one of the most common concerns of Americans. Automobiles traveling at excessive speeds, unsafe road conditions, and the risks of drunk drivers almost makes me want to stay off the highways.

With recent bills pertaining to mandatory use of seat belts I can say that use of seat belts is a very good idea for everybody. Senior citizens, adults, teenagers, and small children should all be protected by such devices.

My main concern is that there are no seat belts school buses. School buses serve as a major source of transportation for children ranging from grades K through 12. In event of an accident there is nothing to keep a child in his/her seat. This fact should be looked at more seriously.

Thank you for your time, please keep my concerns with automobile safety and seat belts on school buses a priority in your busy schedule.

Sincerely,

Nadra L. Angerman

ID: 2856yy

State Representative Jim Holperin
34th Assembly District
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708

Dear Mr. Holperin:

This is in reply to your letter of January 3, l99l, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, on behalf of your constitutent LeRoy E. Mueller. Mr. Mueller is a manufacturer of trailers, and is concerned that if he builds certain tilt deck trailers to specifications they will fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. Specifically, a stationary ramp "might obscure a clear view of the trailer's tail lights from a 45 degree angle . . . ." You have asked whether his concern "regarding an obstructed view of the tail light" is a legitimate one.

As Mr. Mueller indicates, Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, incorporates by reference SAE Standard J585e, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), Sept. 1977, which applies to trailers. This standard requires that "Signal from lamps on both side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right." The SAE standard further specifies that "To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." We note that stop lamps and rear turn signal lamps must also meet this requirement.

You have enclosed a photocopy of a photograph of the rear of a trailer taken from what we assume represents a 45 degree angle to the left of the horizontal centerline of the trailer. Certain lamps, visible from another photocopy of a picture taken on the centerline, appear to be obscured at the 45 degree angle. Thus, it appears that Mr. Mueller's concern to be a legitimate one. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine whether his vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to ensure that it does before affixing a certification of compliance to it upon completion of its manufacture. If this agency has reason to believe that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment has been manufactured and/or certified in violation of the Vehicle Safety Act, this agency conducts an investigation and, if appropriate, an enforcement action.

However, we would like to point out that if trailer equipment prevents compliance of a required lamp, like a tail lamp, with any of Standard No. l08's requirements, paragraph S5.3.1.1 of the standard permits a manufacturer to install an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's requirements.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:2/26/9l