ID: nht79-4.51

DATE: 01/01/79 EST

FROM: NHTSA

TO: DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN -- ADMINISTRATOR, VEHICLE REGULATIONS VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: A78; STANDARD 115

TEXT: Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the term "restraint system type" as contained in Table I of S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. In addition, this is in confirmation of Volkswagen's statement of the conclusions reached in the meeting with Messrs. Carson, Parker and Schwartz of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The agency has carefully considered your request that "restraint system type" not be interpreted to require a distinction between active and passive belt systems. The agency must deny your request. As the introduction of mandatory passive restraints approaches, information concerning restraint system type is of exceptional importance to the agency. It is important not only to evaluate the overall effectiveness of passive restraints, but also to determine the effectiveness of the various types of passive restraint system types. Consequently, it is necessary that passive belt systems be differentiated from other restraint system types by decoding the vehicle identification number (VIN).

The agency has also considered the alternative Volkswagen suggested which is to submit this information separately to the agency on a magnetic tape. Motor vehicle safety research is carried out by many organizations aside from the NHTSA, however, and Standard No. 115 is intended to make information available to these other researchers as well. Consequently, the agency can not accept the alternative you suggest.

ID: nht90-3.5

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1990

FROM: Dean A. Palius--Program Manager, VIA Systems

TO: Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from P.J. Rice to D.A. Palius (A36; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter is written pursuant to our conversation this date regarding requirements for tow road length in the performance of occupant crash protection tests conducted in accordance with FMVSS No. 208.

As I stated to you on the phone, Via Systems is a manufacturer of automotive safety testing equipment. Via has supplied such products to the U.S. automotive industry for the past twenty (20) years. In reviewing a recent Via proposal for a crash test fa cility, a potential customer raised the issue of whether or not there was a specific legal requirement for a tow road to be 500 feet in length per the OVSC Laboratory test procedures, section 12.5. We indicated to the customer that FMVSS No. 208 only sp ecified the speed at which the test had to be performed. The length of the tow road was strictly a determination to be made by the manufacturer. We further stated that the OVSC procedures were utilized by that lab and others conducting tests specifical ly on behalf of the government. The procedures were not designed for manufacturer certifications and were developed for equipment specific to OVSC. After providing the above discussed information and a copy of FMVSS No. 208 to the client, the client co ntinues to show some discomfort regarding the legal mandate.

Pursuant to our conversation today, you have indicated that your office would issue a written opinion indicating that there is no legal requirement regarding tow road length. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-1.44

DATE: 12/04/92

FROM: RON MARION -- SALES ENGINEER, THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC

TO: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOC. ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-3-93 FROM BARRY FELRICE TO RON MARION (A40; STD. 131)

TEXT: This letter is being written regarding the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard - 131 school bus pedestrian safety devices.

As a manufacturer of school bus bodies, we are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service.

A number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. These athletic use buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload. They do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic.

The purchasers of this type of "school bus" have a problem with paying for stop arms and in some cases warning lamps which are never used.

My question is, has there been any consideration given to an exemption for this non-route type "school bus"?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht94-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Christopher A. Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Doug Bereuter -- U.S. House Of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/10/94 From Christopher A. Hart To Doug Bereuter (A42; Std. 303) And Letter Dated 4/20/94 From Doug Bereuter To Christopher Hart (OCC-9916)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bereuter:

Thank you for your letter concerning a rulemaking related to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle fuel systems and fuel containers. You express concern about the time it is taking to complete the rulemaking.

I fully understand your concern over this matter and want to assure you that the agency is working diligently to reach a final decision. The supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking we issued in December 1993 was an essential step toward permitting th e use of CNG containers that employ new technologies. We have now reviewed the comments received on this notice and are preparing the final rule. As agency representatives explained when they met with you in December 1993, the final rule will be reviewe d by the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget.

I hope this information is helpful and appreciate your patience in this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 13, 1995

FROM: B. Michael Korte, Esq. -- Law Firm of John B. Schwabe II

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Airbag Safety

ATTACHMT: 1/29/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to B. Michael Korte (A44; Std. 208)

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern:

I am a lawyer in St. Louis, Missouri who represents a client who injured in a rearend collision with another driver. The other driver's airbag deployed, but the other driver claims that she was travelling less than 15 miles per hour at impact.

I have, as best as I can, reviewed 49 CFR 571.208 and other sections of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding federal standards as to the deployment of airbags. After doing so, however, I am unable to determine whether or not any federal standard s exist as to the deployment of airbags. In other words, I am unable to determine whether or not federal regulations establish a minimum speed that vehicles must be travelling, below which an airbag will not deploy.

I would appreciate it if you would contact me and let me know whether or not any such regulations or guidelines exist. Thank you for your cooperation, courtesy and attention to this request.

ID: 11475DRN

Edwin J. Kirschner, Ph.D.
President
Space Coast Writers Guild, Inc.
P. O. Box 804
Melbourne, FL 32902-0804

Dear Dr. Kirschner:

This responds to your question whether school buses are authorized to load or unload school children on highways with posted speed limits in excess of 40 miles per hour. The conditions for loading and unloading zones for school children on school bus routes are not regulated by this agency. The are governed by State laws, so your question is one the State must answer.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration establishes minimum safety standards for the manufacture of new motor vehicles, including school buses. The agency has, however, issued guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs. Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" notes recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. We have enclosed a copy of Guideline 17 for your information. I direct your attention in particular to paragraphs C.2.a., C.2.b., and E.6., which relate to school buses stopping on public highways.

Nevertheless, each state determines how school buses will be operated in that state. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only to the extent it has been adopted by state officials. For information on Florida's procedures for safe conduct in school bus loading and unloading zones, you may contact:

Mr. Charles F. Hood Administrator, School Transportation Department of Education Florida Education Center, Suite 824 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

Mr. Hood's telephone number is: (904) 488-4405.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#571.3 D:4/5/96

ID: nht89-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1989

FROM: Kathleen DeMeter -- Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, NHTSA

TO: B.L. Swank -- Swank-Standley Motors, Inc. (Kansas)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/28/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Phyllis Armstrong (A43; Part 580); Also attached to 5/17/95 letter from Phyllis Armstrong to Phillip Reckt

TEXT: Dear Mr. Swank:

This is in response to your letter of May 31, 1989, requesting an interpretation of the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. You asked how someone who had disconnected the odometer of his or her vehicle in order to tow the vehicle would complete an odometer disclosure statement upon that vehicle's transfer.

As long as the drive wheels are removed from the pavement, the distance travelled by a vehicle in tow need not be counted, and the transferor of such a vehicle need not certify that the odometer reading does not reflect that vehicle's actual mileage. Ho wever, a vehicle towed with the drive wheels running on the pavement would be considered to have travelled the distance it had been towed. Thus, because of the increased wear to the vehicle in that situation, the transferor of such a vehicle would have to declare that the odometer reading did not reflect the vehicle's actual mileage.

It should, of course, be remembered that anyone who has towed a vehicle must reconnect the vehicle's odometer before next driving the vehicle, the operation of a vehicle whiel its odometer is disconnected is a violation of Federal law.

Thank you for your interest in the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mattie Cohan of my staff at (202) 366-1834.

Sincerely

ID: nht95-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/15/95 FAX FROM TILMAN SPINGLER TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: We have received your FAX of February 15, 1995, asking whether a proposed design "for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108."

The agency does not advise manufacturers whether particular designs are regarded as "conforming." That determination is to be made by the manufacturer in certifying that its product conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Howe ver, we can provide you with an interpretive guideline. Section S4 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" as a headlamp "comprising a bonded lens reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources." The intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp. This means that, if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced. If your design is such that the lens cannot be removed from the reflector assembl y for replacement, it would appear to meet the definition in S4.

As you are well aware, NHTSA granted your company's petition for rulemaking, and, in November 1994, proposed an amendment of the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that would allow a replaceable lens if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2. Comments were due on this proposal February 21, 1995. In due course, after review of the comments, NHTSA will decide whether it will pursue further rulemaking or terminate the rulemaking action.

ID: nht95-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terence J. Kann -- P.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/14/95 letter from Terence J. Kann to Ricardo Martinez (occ 11392)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 14, 1995, to Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You have asked whether "pole trailers such as those used in the logging industry, [are] required to have re tro-reflective sheeting, reflex reflectors, or a combination?" If not, you asked whether NHTSA issued "any explanation for failing to extend the requirements to pole trailers."

As you noted, Section S3(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 applies to "trailers (except pole trailers) . . ." This means that pole trailers, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) are exempted from all the requirements of Standard No. 108 including thos e of Section S5.7 which specifies conspicuity requirements for "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds".

Pole trailers have always been excluded from Standard No. 108 (see 23 CFR 255.51, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Section S2, effective January 1, 1968). Thus, the agency never proposed in the first instance that conspicuity requirements apply to pole trailers, and there was no discussion of pole trailers in the preambles to the proposal and final rule. Apparently, pole trailers were defined and excluded on the basis of comments to Standard No. 108 as originally proposed late in 1966 that a sta ndardized lighting scheme might be impracticable for this category of vehicle.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-7.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terence J. Kann -- P.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/14/95 letter from Terence J. Kann to Ricardo Martinez (occ 11392)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 14, 1995, to Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You have asked whether "pole trailers such as those used in the logging industry, [are] required to have retro-reflective sheeting, reflex reflectors, or a combination?" If not, you asked whether NHTSA issued "any explanation for failing to extend the requirements to pole trailers."

As you noted, Section S3(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 applies to "trailers (except pole trailers) . . ." This means that pole trailers, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) are exempted from all the requirements of Standard No. 108 including those of Section S5.7 which specifies conspicuity requirements for "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds".

Pole trailers have always been excluded from Standard No. 108 (see 23 CFR 255.51, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Section S2, effective January 1, 1968). Thus, the agency never proposed in the first instance that conspicuity requirements apply to pole trailers, and there was no discussion of pole trailers in the preambles to the proposal and final rule. Apparently, pole trailers were defined and excluded on the basis of comments to Standard No. 108 as originally proposed late in 1966 that a standardized lighting scheme might be impracticable for this category of vehicle.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).