ID: nht91-6.30

DATE: October 21, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Adams -- Vice President, Solar Car Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-12-91 from Robert A. Adams to NHTSA Administrator

TEXT:

This responds to the petition by Solar Car Corporation dated September 12, 1991, for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The basis of the petition is "low-emission engine features."

According to the petition, Solar Car "retrofits" Ford Festivas, Dodge Colts, and Chevrolet S 10 pickup trucks to electric and solar electric configuration. We understand this to mean that Solar Car converts new, previously untitled vehicles, rather than that it converts vehicles that are brought to it by their owners. If the latter is the situation, a temporary exemption is unavailable for these vehicles, as our authority to provide exemptions does not cover vehicles that have been in use.

The petition requests a blanket exemption from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If such a petition is to be submitted, it must follow the format specified by the exemption regulation, 49 CFR 555.6(c), providing information with respect to each standard as to how an exempted vehicle would differ from a conforming one, and why an exemption from that standard would not unduly degrade motor vehicle safety. This information is completely lacking from the Solar Car petition. As you might imagine, NHTSA does not encourage petitions that request exemption from all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and, in point of fact, has never considered such a petition. Furthermore, in the case of Solar Car, such a comprehensive petition does not appear necessary for it to pursue its business plan.

The base car or truck converted by Solar Car will already have been certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (which are found at 49 CFR Part 571).

What Solar Car must do is to determine which of those standards may be affected by its conversion operations, and then determine the extent of any noncompliance that may be created. With the thought that it may assist you, I enclose a copy of a Federal Register notice that discusses the petition of another vehicle converter, and the standards which appeared to be affected by its conversion operations. Although the notice was published in 1975, our requirements have not changed since that time.

We shall be pleased to consider this matter further when we have received a petition that meets the procedural requirements of Part 555. If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of my staff is available to answer them (202-366-5263).

Enclosure

Copy of the Federal Register, Volume 40, No. 120 (6/20/75) titled Electric Fuel Propulsion Corporation; Petition for Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (Text omitted)

ID: 1985-03.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lee Comeau, Associate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Lee Comeau, Associate Bureau of Educational Management Services New York State Education Department Cultural Education Center Room 3059 Albany, New York 12230

Dear Mr. Comeau:

This responds to your April 12, 1985 letter concerning the January 1985 school bus safety study prepared for the Canadian government (Transport Canada). You were particularly interested in the results of the study relating to safety belts in school buses.

The Transport Canada study found that "The use of a type I seat belt system in any current design of school bus may result in more severe head and neck injuries for a belted occupant than an unbelted one, in a severe frontal collision." You asked for our opinion as to the reliability of the findings, and whether they would be admissible in a court of law. You also asked whether a school district or bus manufacturer can be liable for negligence if a seat belt causes injury to a belted occupant.

I must explain that we are unable to issue an opinion regarding either the admissibility or effect of the Canadian study's findings in a court of law. This agency is responsible for establishing Federal motor vehicle safety standards and investigating alleged safety-related defects. We are not authorized to participate in or render advisory opinions on private litigation. The issues you raised would depend on the type of legal proceeding and the evidentiary rules of the particular court system, as well as other evidence that might be introduced in a lawsuit. questions concerning negligence and private liability would also have to be answered according to the law of the particular jurisdiction. Since these matters are usually governed by state law, I suggest that you consult with your attorney to discuss how New York law would apply.

As to whether the Canadian study is reliable, this agency is in the process of reviewing the study's findings. Thus far, we have no reason to dispute its conclusions, given the nature of the test conducted. The results of the study appear to be in agreement with some laboratory tests conducted within the United States, including sled tests conducted by the agency in 1978. Although the Canadian test results appear to be accurate, we would like to emphasize that the study involved only a severe (48 km/h) frontal barrier crash test. Questions concerning how safety belts would provide benefits in other types of crashes, such as side impacts or rollovers, were not addressed. In addition, it must be noted that the study was based on a test, not on real-world statistics. We believe that these factors should be taken into consideration when evaluating the results of the Canadian study and its implications for safety belts on school buses.

As you may know, our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) do not require the installation of safety belts on new large school buses, but any school district that wishes to have such belts installed is free to do so. We do require safety belts on smaller school buses, because we believe belts are particularly effective in protecting occupants in such vehicles. For larger school buses (those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds), we require "compartmentalization" -- i.e., high seat backs with extra padding -- to provide occupant protection, and we believe the concept works well.

In that regard, I note the Canadian study found that the requirements for compartmentalization required by Canadian safety standard 222 (CMVSS No. 222) "functions as intended during frontal impacts and provides excellent protection for occupants." FMVSS No. 222, our safety standard mandating compartmentalization in school buses, has requirements similar to CMVSS 222. We believe that the Canadian study further supports the effectiveness of the compartmentalization concept required by FMVSS No. 222.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 12, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Canadian government has recently released findings from crash tests that were conducted to test, among other things, the worthiness of seat belts on school buses. The results have been published and are enclosed for your review.

My purpose for writing is twofold:

1. Will you review the Canadian test crash data and determine if the findings are reliable and admissible in a court of law?

2. If the findings are reliable, can a school district, bus manufacturer or seat belt company be held liable for negligence in the event a belted occupant suffers injuries in a school bus accident which are directly related to the wearing of the seat belt?

Since New York has some districts who currently use seat belts and others who are considering the possibility, your timely reply to the inquiry will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lee Comeau, Associate Bureau of Educational Management Services Room 3059 Cultural Education Center Albany, Hew York 12230 (518) 474-4738

ss

ID: nht95-1.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 6, 1995

FROM: Truman J. Lothen

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/31/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO TRUMAN J. LOTHEN (A43; STD. 207)

TEXT: I am designing a van seat/bed for aftermarket installation. This seat would be fastened to the van floor in the cargo area. I gave the following questions:

1. Does your department have safety standards that must (should) be designed into aftermarket vehicle seats?

2. This seat would be provided with a lap seat belt and shoulder belt with one end attached to the seat frame and the other to the vehicle structure similar to whats currently used in automobiles. What safety design standards must be incorporated into this restraing system?

3. Would this seat require compliance testing to meet safety requirements?

Would [Illegible Words] information of publications on the above.

ID: nht68-2.15

DATE: 06/07/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph R. O'Gorman; NHTSA

TO: Ideal Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your trailer lighting questions during your visit with Mr. W. R. Eason and the questions in your letter of March 26, 1968, the following information is provided.

1. Your letter of March 26, 1968, indicates provision of two red tail lamps, two red or amber stop lamps, one white license plate lamp and two red or amber turn signal lamps for compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 103 after January 1, 1969. In addition to the afore specified lamps the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 requires side reflex reflectors and side marker lamps as specified in the standard. Location of all lamps and reflectors shall be in accordance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 10 requirements. Additional requirements are specified for trailers that are 80 inches or more overall width.

2. Your statement (March 26 letter) that, "The above may be combined and may be Class A in photometric value but Class B in size," is essentially correct except that turn signal lamps "shall" be of Class A photometric value rather than "may."

3. The provision of two Class A red reflectors and two Class A amber reflectors does not completely conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 requirements, because four Class A red reflectors and two Class A amber reflectors are required. Two of the red reflectors are for rear mounting and two are for aft side mounting, while the two amber reflectors are forward side mounting. Your interpretation that either reflective material conforming to specification L-S-300 or reflectors conforming to SAE Standard J594C may be utilized for the side reflex reflector requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 is correct.

4. With regard to the question of applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 103 to chassis trailers, enclosed is a copy of Federal Register Volume 33, Number 1, dated January 3, 1968. If the chassis trailer meets the requirements of this document, primarily that it is an incomplete vehicle and is properly labeled in accordance with paragraph 255.13, then the original manufacturer need not install all of the required lighting of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

The nomenclature as used on your proposed label drawing would be considered acceptable for certification requirements and we would appreciate your sending of an actual label sample when they are available. In addition, we would like to have for our records, the actual starting serial number that will identify your vehicles as being built on or after January 1, 1969.

Thank you for your interest in the safety program and we trust this information will be of assistance to you in regard to your inquiries.

ID: nht81-3.45

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 24, 1981, letter directed to our Office of Enforcement in which you ask whether it would be permissible to test for compliance with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, in a manner different than that prescribed in the standard. The standard states that a 14-inch long section of material shall be burned in a test oven until the flame reaches within 1 1/2 inches from the end of the material. You state that for some fabrics this requires a test that can extend to 10 minutes. In a test of this length, the heat buildup in the test oven can cause the glass front of the oven to break. You suggest that the test be discontinued after five minutes, and the burn rate calculated.

The test requirements of the standard are provided to show how the agency will test for compliance. However, it is not compulsory that a manufacturer adhere to every facet of the test procedures if it can satisfy itself that its product will comply with the standard by testing in another manner.

As you know, the standard requires only that the burn rate of a material not exceed four inches per minute. A 14-inch long section of material that has not burned completely to its end in five minutes obviously would not exceed the 4-inch per minute burn rate. Accordingly, we do not see any reason that you could not terminate the test five minutes after the starting point specified in paragraph S5.3(e) of the standard.

SINCERELY,

United States Testing Company, Inc.

July 24, 1981

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Standards Enforcement

Enforcement Director:

Our laboratory has been conducting tests for conformance to FMVSS 302 for many years. In the last couple of years we have noticed that certain materials although very slow burning create so much heat within the chamber that the heat resistant glass on the front of the cabinet shattered.

If one stays in strict compliance with the test procedure, the material being tested must be allowed to burn for a distance of 10 inches in the timing zone. In order to prevent excessive heat build up with possible harmful side effects, it might be suggested to abort the testing after 5 minutes of timing and calculate the burn rate on the length burned in 5 minutes.

Since this is not incorporated in any part of the test procedure, may we ask for your opinion in this regard.

Although we are highly concerned for the safety of our technical help and take all necessary precautions, we feel that the suggested approach should be either spelled out in future revisions or that a statement be issued by the Department of Transportation with regard to this problem.

G. R. Dufresne Assistant Vice President

ID: nht78-2.22

DATE: 04/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1977, to the Administrator asking whether an Illinois standard applicable to school bus lighting is neither preempted by nor violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S4.1.4(b) (ii) of Standard No. 108 requires that:

"The [school bus signal lamp] system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation and, if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened."

Under the Illinois requirement (4.2.18.2) the amber signal lamps appear to be activated only by manual or foot control (4.2.18.2 (d)), and are automatically deactivated when the bus entrance door is opened (4.2.18.2 (e) and (f)). The red signal lamps are activated before the bus entrance door is opened (4.2.18.2 (e)) and remain activated when the door is opened (4.2.18.2 (f)). Thus, these portions of the Illinois requirement comply with Standard No. 108.

As for the remaining portions of 4.2.18.2, they dictate sequential operational requirements of the 8-lamp system and stop arm (an item of equipment not required by Standard No. 108). To accomplish this operation, 4.2.18.2 requires that "A separate circuit breaker and a master switch shall be provided for this signal system." You have asked whether this is preempted by Standard No. 108.

The aspect of performance involved here is that of wiring requirements for school bus warning lamps. Standard No. 108 specifies the manner in which these lamps shall operate but it is silent as to the ways this performance shall be achieved. Therefore Illinois is not preempted from requiring a separate circuit breaker and master cylinder in school bus lighting systems, a specification which is one of good engineering practice and probably used as a matter of course by most school bus manufacturers.

SINCERELY,

Illinois Department of Transportation

September 22, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

In this letter, I ask you to advise that the Illinois safety standard for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps does not violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. I also ask that you advise this Illinois standard is not preempted under provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (PL 89-563). We are asking for these statements because a representative of one school bus manufacturer has stated the Illinois standard violates a portion of FMVSS 108, as interpreted by his company.

Before going into details, I will present some background information.

School buses are defacto mobile traffic control devices. To lessen confusion and earn public respect and compliance, their signals must be displayed in a consistent and reasonable manner.

When a conventional traffic signal at an intersection changes to yellow (amber) some drivers will decelerate and stop; others will continue or will accelerate (if traffic permits), attempting to enter the intersection before the signal changes to red. Drivers usually react the same way to yellow alternately flashing school bus signal lamps -- some slow down; some continue or speed up. In addition, some drivers tend to disobey the red school bus signals even though they might tend to obey red traffic signals at intersections.

Exuberant and impulsive pupils rushing out of a school bus are likely to dash into a roadway -- without checking whether all vehicles have stopped.

Under very cold, inclement, or severe weather conditions, many pupils tend to remain in their homes or other shelter until the school bus arrives.

Police have reported that school bus drivers tend to keep the service door closed while waiting in cold, inclement, or severe weather, opening the door as each pupil arrives. This is done to prevent loss of heat and/or entrance of snow, sleet, or rain. (This tendency was mentioned in the 2nd paragraph on page 4 of "ILLINOIS COMMENT ON PROPOSED TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM STANDARD 17, PUPIL AND YOUTH TRANSPORTATION SAFETY -- DRAFT OF JUNE 30, 1970, VERSION A" which was submitted 9-30-70 in response to Traffic Safety Program Letter 42-11, dated 6-30-70.)

Studies show a significant portion of school bus related pupil fatalities and injuries in Illinois occur while the pupil is a pedestrian.

A copy of "ILLINOIS MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR TYPE 1 SCHOOL BUSES", effective July 1, 1977, a copy of Section 12-812 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (referred to therein), and a transmitting memorandum are enclosed. Please note that these Standards apply to every Type 1 school bus procured for use in Illinois. Also, the FMVSS applicable to buses are included by reference (1.2, 4.1, & 5.1). This inclusion eliminates doubts about state and local agencies with enforcement powers having authority to enforce those FMVSS.

The Illinois standard for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps is set forth at 4.2.18.2 on pages 15 and 16 of the enclosed Standards. The prescribed sequence of operations, (a) through (j), describes operations on a typical Type 1 school bus equipped with a manual service door operating mechanism, in which a signal control switch (or switches) is operated by movement of the door control handle. Of course, each of the described operations is not used deliberately by the school bus driver at every stop.

The "master switch" is moved to "off" only when complying with statutory and administrative requirements (upper portion of page 15).

After stopping on a clear roadway to load or unload pupils, the school bus driver might move the door control handle from its "secured" or "travel" position to its "door-fully-open" position in one rapid and continuous movement. In this case Operation (e) is of very short duration but, still, the signal switch(es) acts to deactivate and activate the yellow and red signals before the service door is opened.

After discharging or loading pupils, the driver might move the door control handle from its "door-fully-open" position to its "secured" or "travel" position in one rapid, continuous movement. In this case Operation (g) is of very short duration, Operation (i) is bypassed, and Operation (j) is completed. But, still, the door is closed before the signal switch(es) acts to extinguish the red signals.

There are many stops, however, where Operations (e) and (f) and/or Operations (g) and (h) are important to pupil safety, orderly traffic movement, and traffic safety.

When a school bus driver reaches a stop where other vehicles are moving on the roadway, Operation (e) allows him to hold exuberant and impulsive pupils in the bus by keeping the service door closed until all other vehicles have stopped in response to display of the red alternately flashing signal lamps. With the manual service door control, he does this by moving the door control handle, or lever, only a short distance from its "secured" or "travel" position, but not far enough to open the service door. After all other vehicles have stopped, the bus driver can use Operation (f) and allow pupils to leave the bus. Without either Operation (e) or its equivalent, which usually has not been provided with power operated doors, the school bus driver must open the service door to activate the red signals, and thereby, discharge exuberant and impulsive pupils onto the roadway before all drivers of moving vehicles react to the signal change from yellow to red.

Operation (e) also allows a school bus driver to prevent loss of heat and/or the entrance of snow, sleet, or rain during very cold or severe weather conditions by keeping the service door closed while pupils dash from their home or other shelter to the stopped, red-signalling bus.

When a school bus driver has stopped and admitted a pupil, Operation (g) allows him to maintain display of red signals without losing heat or allowing entrance of snow, sleet, or rain while waiting for the arrival of other pupil(s) during cold or severe weather. With a manual service door, he does this by moving the door control handle, or lever, far enough to close the door but not far enough to extinguish the red signals (which happens when the control is moved to its "secured" or "travel" position). With signal controls arranged as they often are on power operated service doors, closing of the door prevents display of the red signals and other vehicles move. This endangers pupils as they arrive at the school bus. When alternate opening and closing of such a door causes intermittent operation of the red signals, drivers of other vehicles become confused or frustrated and tend to lose respect for the special school bus signals.

The sequence of operations prescribed in 4.1.18.2(a) through-(j) (including ability to "skip through" Operations (e) and (g) and to "bypass" Operations (f) and (h), as desired) is either inherent in or easily provided with nearly every manually operated service door control device on Type 1 school buses. However, many power operated service door control devices in use and being manufactured do not provide for such a sequence of operations -- particularly Operations (e) and (f) and Operations (g) and (h). In the past, a typical power door has been either fully-closed-and-secured or fully-opened, with the signals controlled by those conditions and with no provision for intermediate conditions and/or Operations (e) and (g).

We have been requested to change the Illinois Standard (4.2.18.2) so as to accommodate typical power operated door mechanisms and controls as they have been designed and manufactured in the past. We have responded by stating the required sequence of signal operations must be provided whether the service door is manual or power operated and have interpreted the standard so as to ease certain apparent requirements in 4.2.18.2(e) and 4.2.18.2(g). The enclosed letter dated September 15, 1977, was sent to each school bus manufacturer.

Conditions causing traffic hazards or confusion should not be perpetuated merely to accommodate the traditional designs of a convenience such as a power operated service entrance door -- whether the bus is procured by the State, a local government, a public school district, or a religious or private organization or person. School buses that conform to the Illinois standard for alternately flashing school bus signal lamps (4.2.18.2) will provide for lessening or preventing dangers to pupils in roadways near stopped buses.

It seems clear that such buses conform to S4.1.4(b)(ii) in FMVSS 108. On such buses the yellow (amber) signals are activated only by manual or foot operation and, if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signals automatically activated when the bus service entrance door is opened.

It seems clear that the Illinois Standard (4.2.18.2) is not preempted by FMVSS 108 under provisions of Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (PL 89-563). The Illinois requirements for a separate circuit breaker and a "master switch" and for controls that provide Operations (e) and (f) and Operations (g) and (h) apply to each Type 1 school bus procured by a person, organization, or government in Illinois. They are prescribed to govern aspects and provide safety not governed or provided by FMVSS 108.

Will you please affirm that:

The Illinois standard (4.2.18.2) for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps does not violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108; and The Illinois standard (4.2.18.2) for school bus alternately flashing signal lamps is not preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

Karsten J. Vieg Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ID: nht75-4.38

DATE: 03/31/75

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1975, asking whether paragraph S5.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) permits the words "Emergency Exit" to be placed above the emergency door in a school bus, or whether they must be within six inches of the emergency door release mechanism. You argue that placing the nomenclature above the door provides a more prominent identification of the exit than does placing it within 6 inches of the release mechanism.

We believe the interpretation of S5.5.1 which you suggest is appropriate when applied to rear door emergency exists in school buses. We have not previously considered school buses containing this type of emergency exit labeling to fail to conform to the standard. In addition, our recent proposal regarding school bus emergency exits (39 FR 8569, copy enclosed) would specifically require emergency exit labeling of this type.

YOURS TRULY,

February 6, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Council U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

A question of interpretation has risen with regard to FMVSS 217. Paragraph S5.5.1 of that standard reads in pertinent part: "Each pushout window or other emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit", followed by concise operating instructions, located within six inches of the release mechanism. . .". The question is, must the words "Emergency Exit" be within six inches of the operating mechanism or is it sufficient to provide operating instructions within six inches of the release mechanism with the "Emergency Exit" marking shown in another and more prominent location?

We would point out that if the "Emergency Exit" designation must be within six inches of the operating mechanism, it is often not visible to occupants not in the immediate vacinity of the exit. This is because of the lettering size limit imposed by the spacial requirements of being within six inches of the operating mechanism.

Apparently there is some confusion regarding this matter since several states have asked our interpretation concerning it. Before FMVSS 217 became effective, most states required "Emergency Exit" or "Emergency Door" in letters at least two inches high immediately above each emergency exit. This system is well liked by those in the industry and, as shown in the attached photo, provides prominent identification of the exit for most occupants in the bus. We feel this method of providing emergency exit identification and operating instructions meets the requirements of S5.5.1 and would like to continue using this system.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

W. G. Milby

Staff Engineer

ID: nht93-8.33

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. Z. Peepas -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 11/12/93 from J. Z. Peepas to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of November 12, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, the latest in a series of communications about how the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 are to be applied to gooseneck trailers.

On October 20, we sent you a correction of our earlier interpretation of S5.7.1.4.2(a). Our correction stated that the requirement is that conspicuity treatment not be obscured by trailer cargo. If conspicuity treatment is applied to the gooseneck of a container trailer, we understand that it will be obscured by the container (cargo) when it is in place.

S5.7.1.4.2(a) also specifies that conspicuity treatment "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." The length of the gooseneck is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of calculating the half length that must be covered by the conspicuity treatment (which, of course, would be greater than half the length behind the gooseneck).

You have suggested that we reevaluate the effect of excluding the gooseneck from compliance with the conspicuity requirements. There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that prohibits a manufacturer from applying retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the entire trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered. An example may clarify this for you. Let us say that the overall length of the trailer is 40 feet, including an 8-foot gooseneck. The amount of the side to be covered is not less than 20 feet. The area to be covered is the 32 feet between the rear bolster to the point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus. Thus, regardless of whether conspicuity treatment is applied to the gooseneck, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108, and the spaces must be distributed as evenly as Practicable. Standard No. 108 does not address the issue of the length of the spaces between strips, and a manufacturer may choose 4 feet or whatever is feasible for the trailer at hand.

On the basis of this interpretation letter, we believe that Selecto-Flash ought to be able to judge whether the conspicuity treatments on Prints A-1, A-2, B-1 and B-2 accord with Standard No. 108.

ID: 86-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent Mrs. Teresa Kalfsbeek of Kasilof, Alaska, regarding our regulations 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.

Mrs. Ralfsbeek asks whether we have proposed to make safety belts mandatory on school buses. As explained below, our regulations already require safety belts on smaller school buses. i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR's) of 10,000 pounds or less. While we have not proposed to require safety belts on large school buses over 10,000 pounds, we issued a proposal in October 1985 to ensure that if safety belts are voluntarily installed on a large new school bus, they meet appropriate performance requirements.

I appreciate this opportunity to explain our requirements for safety belts on school buses. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. We do not require safety belts in large school buses because those buses have been required since 1977 to provide improved crash protection to passengers through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs. additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.

Although this agency has determined that a safety standard requiring safety belts in those buses is not warranted at this time. State and local governments are nevertheless free to order safety belts on their new school buses if they wish to do so. Most school bus manufacturers are capable of installing them in those vehicles.

As mentioned earlier, we have proposed to set performance standards for safety belts voluntarily installed on large new school buses. If the proposal is adopted, we would require manufacturers to ensure that the voluntarily-installed safety belts meet performance criteria established by our safety standards. A copy of our rulemaking notice is enclosed for your information.

In addition, we are providing you with a copy of a report issued by NHTSA entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses" (June 1985), which might be of interest to your constituents.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 21, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

I've been contacted by Mrs. Teresa Kalfsbeek of Kasilof, Alaska regarding requirements for seat belts on school buses. Mrs. Kalfsbeek would like to know if there are any proposals to make seat belts mandatory on these buses.

I'd appreciate your responding to Mrs. Kalfsbeek's inquiry and filling me in on existing federal regulations on seat belt use on school buses.

Thanks for your help.

With best wishes,

Cordially, TED STEVENS

ID: aiam5451

Dear Mr. Kover: This responds to your letter of July 25, 1994, to Jer Medlin of this agency. You have presented several questions regarding an electric circuit that you have designed for use in motor vehicles, and which you call a Light Control Unit (LCU). The LCU automatically turns off the headlamps and tail and parking lamps when the ignition is turned off if the lamps have been activated. The LCU also automatically turns on the headlamps and the tail and parking lamps whenever the windshield wipers are turned on. If the LCU fails when the lights are on, a Light Bus Monitor will automatically restore them. You have the following questions: 'Would a motor vehicle operator be in violation of the federal motor vehicle safety standards by maintaining both the head and tail/park lights on during the hours of daylight?' No. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not tell an owner when it is or is not permissible to use safety equipment. 'Does the LCU meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards? Could the LCU be integrated into the light system of new production vehicles or currently registered vehicles,' The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, Standard No. 108, does not apply to supplementary lighting devices such as the LCU. The LCU is permissible on new vehicles provided it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We do not see that it has this effect. It is permissible to be installed on currently registered vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses provided that it does not make inoperable any part installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We do not see that the LCU has this effect either. You have also told us that the LCU may be used to operate lamps as Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) by maintaining the light switch in the on position when the wiper switch has been turned off. One feature of this function is that the LCU 'allows the operator to turn off either the head lights only or both the head lights and tail/park lights via the light switch.' Your question is 'If the operator should elect to employ the LCU as a DRL unit does it meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards?' Under Standard No. 108, a DRL system is a system of any pair of lamps on the front of a vehicle (other than parking lamps or fog lamps) that is automatically activated and that is automatically deactivated when the operator places the headlamp control in the on position. Further, DRLs can be lower beam headlamps operated at full voltage. Assuming that the LCU turns the lower beam headlamps on rather than the upper beam ones, your system would function as a DRL meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lower beam headlamps are automatically activated by the windshield wipers and deactivated by turning off the ignition. However, the feature that allows the headlamps to be turned off manually (whether or not simultaneously turning off the parking lamps and taillamps) is not part of a DRL system as specified by Standard No. 108. Your final request is that we 'include the federal specifications for electronic devices.' We are unsure what you mean by this as we have no 'specifications for electronic devices.' I enclose a copy of S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108, the DRL specifications. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure;