ID: nht89-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/89

FROM: TAKAYOSHI CHIKADA -- MANAGER OF AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC

TO: RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE -- SAFETY STANDARDS ENGINEER

TITLE: REVISION OF FMVSS NO.108 (DOCKET NO.85-15 NOTICE 8)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER 08/23/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO TAKAYOSHI CHIKADA; REDBOOK A34[3]; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Iderstine,

We thank you very much for your kind cooperation during our stay in the U.S. for SAE Lighting Committee Meeting.

We would like have your advice concerning interpretation of new FMVSS No. 108 (Docket No.85-15 Notice 8).

1. The requirement of S7.7.5.1.a) was not applied to replaceable type headlamp by previous FMVSS No.108. Please give us your advice whether this requirement will also be applied to the replaceable bulb type headlamps which are already manufactured accor ding to the previous FMVSS No.108.

2. The requirement of S7.7.5.1.b) need to quote SAE J580 b "Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly" by previous FMVSS No. 108 and the expression seem to be slightly different from new S7.7.5.1.b). Please advice us whether the requirement of "0.1 in. max." is cond itioned when headlamp is being pushed or after said force is removed.

3. How should we prove the confirmation to the requirement of S7.7.2.2? We think the combinations of Horizontal and Vertical angle within the aim range will be so huge and it is not practicable to test for all combinations.

4. It is acceptable to set up initial "0" point of S7.7.5.2.a).2) not mechanically but photometrically?

Please give us your advice by return facsimile.

We thank you very much in advance.

Yours faithfully,

ID: aiam3932

Dear Mr. Hayashibara: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 101, *Controls and Displays*. According to your letter, you are considering a bulb check system for telltales that operates while the ignition switch is turned to the 'on' position and the engine is not running. You stated that the proposed design of this system is such that all telltales subjected to the bulb check may emit light simultaneously when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system. You asked whether the proposed system would comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states: >>>A telltale shall not emit light except when identifying th malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed or during a bulb check upon vehicles starting.<<<; There are thus only two situations in which it is permissible for telltale to emit light: (1) when the telltale is actually identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for which it is designed, and (2) during a bulb check upon vehicle starting. The emitting of light by all telltales whenever a malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system does not fall within either of these catagories and is therefore not permitted by the standard.; This interpretation is limited to the specific factual situatio described above, i.e., where light would be emitted by all telltales whenever a malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system. In essence, your proposed design would replace the telltale for electrical charge, which is provided by most manufacturers to warn of such things as low voltage, with a warning message in the form of all telltales simultaneously emitting a light. This is not permitted by Standard No. 101, for the reasons stated above.; Your letter suggests an interpretation that the simultaneous lightin of all telltales subjected to the bulb check when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system could not be any violation of the requirements of S5.3.1, because it is the vehicle condition which 'is designed' by a manufacturer for all telltales to emit light. We do not agree with that suggested interpretation. Section S5.3.1's use of the words 'malfunction of vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed' refers back to the term '(a) telltale.' It is our opinion that the phrase is applicable only to the specific malfunction or vehicle condition for which a particular telltale is designed to warn the driver and not to a situation where all telltales are designed to collectively warn of a malfunction or vehicle condition.; Our interpretation is not dependent on whether a vehicle is equippe with a telltale for electrical charge or not.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-4.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Horton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Horton Imperial Comfort Corporation P.O. Box 28367 Detroit, MI 48228

Dear Mr. Horton:

This is in response to your letter asking for our agency to approve a safety belt comfort adjuster you wish to sell. The literature you enclosed with your letter shows that the device is a strap with a clamp on each end. One end of the device can be clamped on the lap portion of a lap/shoulder belt and the other end clamped on the shoulder portion of the belt. By adjusting the strap, a person can reposition the shoulder belt away from his or her neck and apparently can introduce slack into the belt as well. I hope the following information will explain how our regulations affect your device.

As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards.

Your particular aftermarket product is not directly covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your product. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I have enclosed an information sheet on our defect and other regulations for your review.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have issued Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that a safety belt no longer met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

The agency is also concerned that a belted occupant could inadvertently use your product to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt or reposition the shoulder belt too close to the edge of a person's shoulder and thereby reduce the effectiveness of the belt. The instructions you provide with your device do not warn users about the risks associated with introducing excessive slack or incorrectly repositioning the safety belt. We encourage you to provide more detailed guidance about the proper use of your device.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely:

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

To whom it may concern:

Imperial Comfort Corp. are asking if you would provide the necessary D.O.T. approval for this device which we have enclosed for you;

Please find in this package the information which we have provided for this devices approval.

P. Please reply to our application as soon as you possibly can.

Thank you,

Imperial Comfort Corp.

Enclosed

gdh

PACKAGE The seat belt comfort adjuster is made as following: It is a small elastic belt which has a clasp on each end and a slip lock adjustable buckle, which adjust the length.

The seat belt comfort adjuster operate as such: One end of the seat belt comfort adjuster is clapped to the cross waist belt of the seat belt. Then clasp the remaining loose end to the chest cross belt. Now you can adjust the cross harness chest belt from the neck and also relieve some of the pressure off the chest which the harness apply, to suit your comfort.

Imperial Comfort Corp.

gdh

If further information needed please contact us at (313) 273-2793.

ID: aiam4813

"Dear Mr. Shaw: This responds to your letter of October 15, 1990. I your letter you correctly state that a van designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events is considered a school bus under federal law. You then asked, '(d)oes federal law prohibit a school district from using a fifteen-passenger van that does not meet federal safety standards for school buses to transport students to athletic events, extra-curricular activities, and field trips?' The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. These standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a user of a school bus. Therefore, to determine whether your school district may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage your school district to give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations. Your letter also indicates that your school district purchased a 'standard, fifteen-passenger 1990 Dodge van to transport students to various school-related events.' I assume that by the term standard you are indicating that the van has not been certified as complying with all regulations applicable to school buses. If this van was purchased new, and if the dealer knew of your intended use, the dealer may have violated federal law. If you believe that you were sold a noncomplying vehicle, please contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht71-1.49

DATE: 01/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters, both dated December 16, 1970, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." One of these letters enclosed a request for clarification of two provisions of Standard No. 213. This request is presently under review and you should be hearing from the agency concerning it in the near future. You also enclosed in this letter a copy of a page from the 1970 Sears, Roebuck & Co. catalogue showing a child harness that is advertised as "not a safety harness," and ask whether this type of harness is exempt from the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. The agency considers these types of harnesses to fall within the purview of Standard No. 209 and they are required to comply with the requirements for Type 3 seat belt assemblies as specified in S4. of that standard. Enforcement procedures are currently in progress in this area to eliminate those child harnesses that do not comply with the standard.

Your second letter requests that a study conducted by the University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute (Contract No. FR-11-6962), entitled "Integrated Seat - Restraint and Child Systems," be placed in the public docket, and further request that the "data films of the dynamic sled test be made available through the Docket." The report to which you apparently refer has been placed in the general reference section of Docket 2-15. It is entitled "Child Seat and Restraint Systems Test Program" but bears the same contract number as the one you request. With reference to your request for data films, these films are presently available for examination by the public through the agency's Research Institute, and information to this effect has been placed in the Docket.

ID: aiam4871

"Dear Mr. Hoffman: This responds to your letter of March 26, 1991 addressed to Mr. Harry Thompson, asking about a private school's use of 'mini-vans which are designed to carry more than 10 passengers.' Your letter was referred to our office for reply. You stated that the school has become aware of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and is concerned whether the operation of the vans is in compliance with applicable regulations under the Act. You asked a number of questions related to that concern. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Therefore, the vehicles refered to in your letter would be considered school buses under federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. These standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. If your client believes that they have been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of their intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law. Without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a user of a school bus. Since the various questions you ask assume that the Safety Act regulates users of school buses, we are unable to provide specific answers to those questions. To determine whether the private school your firm represents may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage the school your firm represents to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4621

"Dear Mr. Krause: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, l989 asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. You have enclosed drawings of a rear lighting configuration (tail, stop, and turn signal lamps) intended for installation of your 'RGL-Series tail gate lift with the platform stored below floor level of a truck or trailer for transit'. You state that the platform in this position would block from view any normal taillamp arrangement, and that in order to comply with the 45 degree visibility requirement of Standard No. l08, you propose to use two sets of lamps. 'Light Set l is installed above floor level (not to exceed 72' for ground) and inside of tail gate rails.' The other, 'Light Set 2 will be installed under the vehicle body....' Light Set l would be visible 'from the rear of the vehicle and would act as the primary tail lights.' The other arrangement, Light Set 2, 'would act as auxiliary tail lights that would be visible from the side of the vehicle....' You believe that such a configuration is acceptable under paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 (now S5.3.1.1.1) of Standard No. l08, and ask for our comments. Paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 states in pertinent part: E ach lamp shall ... shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice..... However, if motor vehicle equipment ... prevents compliance with this paragraph by any required lamp...an auxiliary lamp...meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be provided. While you have developed a novel concept to address the lighting problem posed by the RGL Series, it is not one that is permitted by paragraph S5.3.1.1.1, or by the SAE Standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08. The paragraph clearly states that 'each' lamp shall meet the visibility requirements, and if the vehicle configuration prohibits that, then an auxiliary lamp 'meeting the requirements of this paragraph' shall be provided. The basic SAE visibility requirement applicable to lamps in the array is that they be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right. This means that if the primary lamp does not meet the visibility requirements, the auxiliary lamp must, and the requirements cannot be met through partial compliance of each lamp. Neither appears to meet the total visibility requirements of Standard No. l08 applicable to each lamp, and thus such a configuration would not meet Federal lighting requirements. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4381

Dear Mr. Nelson: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Glen Gourley, who questions the effectiveness of safety belts and opposes the safety belt use law enacted by the State of Florida.; During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways Each year, an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic deaths and injuries have resulted in an annual cost to society of approximately 57 billion dollars resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenue.; Numerous analyses have shown that safety belts reduce fatalities b 40-50 percent and reduce serious injuries by 45-55 percent. I have enclosed copies of a safety belt fact sheet and several pamphlets we have published explaining how and why safety belts are so effective. Because of the extensive body of evidence about the effectiveness of safety belts, the United States Supreme Court has said, 'We start with the accepted ground that, if used, seatbelts unquestionably would save many thousands of lives and would prevent tens of thousands of crippling injuries.'; In an effort to protect their citizens by substantially reducin vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and to reduce the financial burden on their taxpayers, 29 States and the District of Columbia have enacted safety belt use laws. I have also enclosed an occupant protection fact sheet. This sheet reports that among front seat occupants, safety belts saved about 2,200 lives in 1986, and 1750 of those lives were saved in States that have safety belt use laws.; I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3390

Dear Mr. Rechlicz: This responds to your December 18, 1980, letter asking severa questions about the application of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, to school buses.; First, you refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.1 and questio which paragraph establishes the minimum safety level. Since paragraph (a) was first proposed and subsequently modified by the addition of paragraph (b), you believe that paragraph (a) defines the minimum level of safety while paragraph (b) meets or exceeds that level of safety. This reading of the standard is not completely accurate. Paragraph (a) of that section was the first part of the section to be proposed. Before the rule became effective, however, the proposal was amended to include paragraph (b). Accordingly, both paragraphs must be read together as defining the minimum mandatory safety performance requirement.; Second, you ask for our opinion of the preemption clause in th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). You state that your interpretation is that no State or local government may adopt a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. An exception exists for standards applicable to vehicles purchased for the State's or the local government's own use. This is an accurate reading of the preemption clause, however, a major area of contention frequently arises around what constitutes the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard.; Third, you ask whether the Federal government, through Standard No 217, has preempted States from regulating unobstructed openings for purposes of emergency exits. As you are aware, the standard states that the emergency exit opening must be of a certain size. Further, the standard specifies the location of one of the seats at the forwardmost side of the emergency exit. These are the agency's only requirements relating to the unobstructed emergency exit opening. With respect to whether a State could regulate further in this area, it would depend upon the type of regulation the State adopted. For example, a regulation that governed the size of the opening or the location of the forwardmost seat would probably be preempted. However, a regulation that required an aisle leading to the side emergency door would not likely be preempted, since the Federal government does not regulate aisles in buses.; Your fourth question asks us to comment on whether a Wisconsin statut requires aisles in school buses. The agency does not issue interpretations of State statutes. You should contact appropriate State officials for this information.; Finally, you recite a Wisconsin definition of emergency door zone whic states that it is 'the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit...' You then ask whether there are any such zones on buses constructed with side emergency exits. The agency, as stated above, requires an unobstructed opening at each exit (S5.2.3.1). If Wisconsin defines this as a zone, then such a zone exists in buses for purposes of the Wisconsin statute.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht91-3.15

DATE: April 9, 1991

FROM: Vicki Haudler

TO: Mr. Kratzke

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Vicki Haudler (A37; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am currently a second year law student from Mpls., MN. As part of my law school education requirements, I am writing a paper for an evidence Seminar class. My topic is the treatment of seat belt non use evidence in civil litigation. In support of my argument that seat belt evidence is relevant to questions of proximate cause, comparative fault and damages, and therefore should be admissible; I've obtained a copy of the rule promulgated by NHTSA, regarding Fed. Motor Vehicle Standards (49 CFR 57 Subordinate section S4.1.5 of 571.208 entitled "Mandatory seat belt use laws". It states that IF the Sec. of Transp. determines no later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory seat belt laws have been enacted by two-thirds of the 50 states, then each passenger car manufactured after the date of the Secretary's determination must comply with certain federal requirements.

My question is, has the Secretary made that determination and if so, where can I find a copy of this determination? The only amendment to 571.208 occurred in Feb. of 1991 and concerns only "Hybrid II testing" on test dummies. (Fed. Register Vol. 56, No. 40, 8282).

I know this would be a perfect research assignment but I'm running out of time and our law librarians have been of little help. So that's why I've decided to write directly.

I'm giving an oral presentation on my paper on May 2nd and I'm sure I'll be asked about this so I'd like to be prepared.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation - it will be much appreciated!

P.S. I've enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope for your convenience.