ID: nht79-4.39

DATE: 08/03/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1979, letter asking two questions about the test procedures of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention, as they apply to buses you manufacture.

First, you ask whether side service doors can be counted in determining the proper amount of bus emergency exits as required by the standard. As long as side service doors comply with all requirements applicable to emergency doors, they can be considered emergency exits for purposes of compliance with the standard.

Your second question asks whether glazing in a door is tested for window retention, and if so, whether it is tested while the door is installed in a bus. The answer to both parts of this question is yes. All bus glazing, that is of the minimum size specified in the standard, must comply with the window retention requirement. The intent of the window retention requirement is to prevent openings in buses that might result in the ejection of occupants from the vehicle during an accident. In order for this requirement to have meaning, the glazing must be tested as it is installed in the vehicle to ensure the integrity of both the glazing and its surrounding structure. This means that glazing in vehicle doors is tested while the door is in the normal closed condition. If the door opens during the test, the vehicle would not be in compliance with the requirements.

SINCERELY,

Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

JULY 16, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Sir,

This company was the designer and manufacturer of the Orion Mid size Transit bus.

More recently the deliveries to the U.S. market have been taken over by Transportation Manufacturing Corporation of Roswell, New Mexico, who manufacture and market the buses in the U.S.A. under the "Citycruiser" trade name.

A query has arisen concerning the application of MVSS 217 to this model bus on a point that was raised before the introduction of the model and for which a verbal answer was given when the prototype was presented in Washington on October 5th 1977.

The point at issue was to what extent and under what Criteria the service doors can be considered as "unobstructed openings for emergency exit" as required in S 5.2 (provision of emergency exits) and more particularly the "side exits" as required in S 5.2.1 (Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds).

It was verbally confirmed at the time that service doors could be regarded as side exits for emergency exit, provided they met the requirements of S 5.3 (Emergency exit release), S 5.4 (Emergency exit extension) and S 5.5 (Emergency exit identification). Official confirmation of the above is hereby requested.

Finally, a clear ruling was not given on the application of S 5.1 Window retention when applied to the glazing in service doors. It is reasonably clear that the glass in the door frame should meet the requirements. It is less obvious that the door in its frame, when used as a service door, must meet this requirement, ie. the glass be tested in the door, the door being in the bus.

If not, does this requirement become mandatory, when the service door is designated as a side exit?

The doors are presently being constructed so as to meet this requirement, but a ruling on this point is hereby requested.

CC: E. CUMMINGS -- TRANSPORTATION MFG. CO.

ID: nht80-1.13

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 11, 1979, letter asking whether you would be permitted to install a valve in your braking system that would prevent air from reaching the front axle brakes when your vehicle is in reverse. You want to make such a modification to prevent brake chatter when your vehicle is in reverse and question whether such a modification would comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Sections S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of the standard establish brake actuation and release times. In an interpretation of those sections (July 23, 1976), the agency stated that the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi were only benchmarks, and that the agency would use either of those values or 70 percent of the maximum pressure in the brake chamber, whichever is lower. You state that this interpretation allows you to install a valve, because the maximum air pressure reaching the front brake chamber when the vehicle is in the reverse gear would be 0 and 70 percent of 0 is 0. Therefore, you suggest that your vehicle would pass the tests in these two sections if tested at 0 psi.

The intent of the July 23 interpretation of the sections was to provide flexibility of designs that incorporate lower air pressures than originally contemplated by the air brake standard. The interpretation was not intended as a device to escape from compliance with the air brake standard by creating a situation where front brakes would be rendered inoperative. Accordingly, the agency limits its July 23, 1976, interpretation to those instances where air brakes are receiving air pressure and are performing as designed to stop the vehicle. Using this limitation on our July 23 interpretation, the NHTSA concludes that your new brake design would violate the standard and, therefore, will not permit the use of the valve that you recommend.

The brake chatter that you refer to in your letter appears to be a problem that occurs only in your vehicles. We have not been made aware of similar problems affecting other manufacturer's vehicles. Accordingly, we must assume that something in your design is creating the chatter problem. We suggest that you alter your brake design in a way that eliminates the chatter problem while maintaining the vehicle's compliance with the air brake standard.

SINCERELY,

December 11, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Agency Chief Consul

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION -- STANDARD #121

Gentlemen: We are manufacturers of the MC-9 Crusader Intercity bus. Some of our operators, have experienced a brake chatter, from the front axle, when the coach is in reverse. This does not affect brake performance, but can be annoying to the passengers. As this situation only occurs when the coach is backing up, we question if a value can be inserted into the braking system, to stop the air from the front axle, only when the transmission is in reverse. This control would be automatic, and could not be controlled by the driver (except by shifting into "reverse").

We question if this modification will affect the compliance to Standard #121. Specifically, we are looking at Section S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 which covers apply and Release times. Also, we refer to Mr. Frank Berndt's letter to White Motor Corporation (copy enclosed), which refers to 70% of the maximum air pressure at the brake chamber. In our proposal, this could mean 70% of zero.

We would appreciate your comments on this proposal.

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES

Ted J. Szkolinicki, Supervisor Mechanical Engineering

ID: nht80-1.34

DATE: 03/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: G. Mack Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1980, asking about the legality in the United States of a lamp with the words "DON'T PASS" which you are presently manufacturing for school buses in Canada. The lamp is intended for mounting on both the front and rear of the bus.

Such a lamp is not required in this country under Federal law. Its use as original equipment on U.S. school buses would not be prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, since its installation would not appear to impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Its legality would be determined by that of the State in which the bus is registered and operated, and therefore, you should contact the individual State for their opinion in this matter.

SINCERELY,

G. MACK INDUSTRIES LTD.

February 18, 1980

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Dear Sir:

In a letter I received from Mr. David Soule he suggested that I write you directly as to finding out the legality of our "DON'T PASS" light, we are presently manufacturing for the school buses in Canada.

The "DON'T PASS" light features consist of one or two flashing thirty-five candlepower seal beam units or six thirty two candlepower bulbs. The base is made out of A.B.S. a hard tough space age material that is weather resistant, and is suited for outdoor applications. The lens is made out of san and is a chemical scratch resistant plastic. Dimensions are 10" x5" x2" with a simple six screw molding which will adapt to any school bus. As to the electrical hook up we are presently using the four way flashing switch.

Enclosed is a picture and a newspaper clipping as to our headway we have made in Canada.

Appreciating your valued opinion in your early reply as to our position in the United States. I remain,

J. Leftrook Jr. President

ENC.

The Big Safety Lamp has been included in the Manitoba school bus specifications and the Manitoba Highway Traffic Act has been amended to give approval of the light. It is now in use in all of the 52 Manitoba school divisions. Application to have the lamp made standard equipment will go before the next meeting of the Canadian Standards Association.

The lamp which is produced for the company by Melet Plastic Ltd., 670 Golspie Street, Winnipeg, is injection moulded on custom made steel dies. The lens is made of SAN, a scratch and chemical resistant plastic, and the back of the unit is made of ABS, a hard, tough, space age material that is weather resistant and specially suited to outdoor applications.

Gerry Leftrook is optimistic about the future. Negotiations are underway to have the light standardized in the United States as well as Canada. It is estimated that there are some 25,000 school buses operating in Canada and 348,000 in the United States. Production of new buses has been projected at about 7,000 per year in Canada and 35,000 per year in the United States over the next five years.

The light can be adapted to transport trailers and trucks, house trailers and campers, all of which provide a wide market potential.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-1.6

DATE: 12/15/78

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

TO: Bud Shuster - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Honorable Bud Shuster House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Shuster:

This responds to your inquiry dated November 29, 1978, on behalf of one of your constituents, Mr. C. Stake, requesting information about Federal safety standards concerning door locks on automobiles. Specifically, Mr. Stake is concerned that the doors on his 1977 Mercury Monarch can be unlocked by a child from the inside by lifting the door handle.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 572.206), which specifies performance requirements for side door locks and side door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact. That standard specifies that each door on a passenger car shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Paragraph S4.1.3.1 of the standard specifies that when the locking mechanism on a side front door is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. For side rear doors, however, paragraph S4.1.3.2 requires both the outside and inside door handles to be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

This latter requirement was specifically included in the standard to address Mr. Stake's concern, that is, to prevent children from unlocking rear doors by means of the door handle. The design restriction was limited to rear doors on the basis that the danger arises primarily with unattended children sitting in the rear seat. A child sitting in the front seat is likely under the watchful eye of the driver. Further, there is the consideration that in emergency situations the driver may need to unlock his front door as easily and quickly as possible.

Since the Standard No. 206 requirements have been in effect for some time, we assume that the situation Mr. Stake describes is true only of the front doors of his Mercury Monarch. As noted above, however, there are competing safety considerations involved with door locks on front side doors.

Please contact our office if your constituent has any further questions concerning this matter, or have him contact us directly.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosure

DATE November 29, 1978

FROM: BUD SHUSTER, M. C.

Room 1112 Longworth Building Washington, D. C. 20515

TO: Department of Transportation Congressional Laison Office 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

NAME OF SUBJECT Mr. Clair Stake

SS OR OTHER CLAIM #

ADDRESS Box 115

Spring Run, Pennsylvania 17262

PROBLEM:

Mr. Stake has contacted me concerning car door lock safety standards. He owns a 1977 Mercury Monarch. When the door is locked (by pushing the button on the inside of the door) he finds that his young child can still open the door by pulling on the door handle.

This concernins him because be beleives that there should be safety standards which should require the door handle to be immobile until the lock button is pulled up.

Will you please send me any information on door lock standards? Thank you for your time and cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht78-2.20

DATE: 05/18/78

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

TO: Mohs Seaplane Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 5, 1978, asking "what is necessary for the rewriting of [Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.] 108 to include my . . . system for vehicle identification." As you have described this reflective device, it is a polyvinyl extrusion in which is placed polyester tape which "becomes a continuous reflector down the side of a vehicle - amber toward the front, red on the rear half of the vehicle and red across the back." You state that in your experimental installation you are "retaining the 3" spot reflectors as required in Standard 108."

If your material conforms to Federal Specification L-S-300 and, as used on the vehicle, meets the performance standards in Table 1 of SAE Standard J594d, "Reflex Reflectors," March 1967, it could be used as the front and rear reflex reflectors required by Standard No. 108. However, if it does not meet this specification, Standard No. 108 would not prohibit the sale and installation of your system as original equipment, or as an aftermarket accessory, provided it is supplementary to the side and rear reflectors required by Standard No. 108. Thus, no Federal "approval" of your system is required. A change in Standard No. 108 is required only if you believe your system should be mandatory on all motor vehicles. In the event you wish to petition for such an amendment of Standard No. 108, I enclose a copy of our rulemaking procedures.

YOURS TRULY,

Mohs Seaplane Corporation

May 5, 1978

Chief Consul, NHTSA

Dear Sir,

I was advised by Mr. Carderelli of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators that I should request approval of a new reflective device I have for motor vehicles which consists of a poly-vinyl extrusion in which is placed polyester metallic tape and into which is slid computer designed and computer milled reflectors so the final result becomes a continuous reflector down the side of a vehicle -- amber toward the front, red on the rear half of the vehicle and red across the back.

This invention is an adaptation of the very advanced reflectors used in the space age to assist solar cells in their recharging efforts on satelites, and adaptation to motor vehicle use from the railroad crossing buck use portrayed in Governor Martin Schreiber's Safety Reporter enclosed (please note page 2). We are just beginning the installation on 50 semi-trailers here in Madison as an accessory item and retaining the 3" spot reflectors as required in standard 108. Our photometric result is superior to acrylic reflectors used in the past and reflective sheeting, etc.

Please let me know what is necessary for the rewriting of 108 to include my (I believe) superior system and safer system for vehicle identification. Of course we have many other uses for something that performs as to other reflectors as the super ball does to a conventional ball. We have a patent pending number. Piers, gunnels of boats, mail box posts, railway crossing gates, loading docks, etc. have been experimented with.

Last September I saw Mr. Marx Elliott in your building on this same matter and also have talked with Mr. Bill Eason. Since sales are just now really taking off government approval is essential and certainly desired. In the interests of safety -- all selfish profit motives aside -- I think we have something of interest here. I will gladly send samples if you so request to above address.

Please also send proceedures to follow to above address.

Bruce Baldwin Mohs, Pres. MOHS SEAPLANE CORPORATION

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: nht78-3.31

DATE: 06/14/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 4, 1978, letter asking several questions concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus safety standards to your vehicles.

First you ask whether a driver is considered a passenger for computation of designated seating positions and whether he is included in the computation of vehicle capacity. The term "passenger" is not used in the definition of designated seating position in Part 571.3 of our regulations. Designated seating position uses the term "person" in its definition, and a driver is considered a person for both the computation of designated seating positions and vehicle capacity.

On a related point concerning designated seating positions, you ask whether wheelchairs are considered designated seating positions or auxiliary seats. Wheelchair seating positions are not designated seating positions and, therefore, are not required to comply with standards that apply to designated seating positions. However, wheelchair positions are counted in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of the type classification of a vehicle.

In your second question, you ask what is the proper vehicle classification for a standard design school bus that carries fewer than 10 persons. This type of vehicle would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle, all fixed seating positions would be required to have seat belts. Wheelchair positions, since they are not designated seating positions, are not required to have seat belts.

In a question pertaining to the above-mentioned vehicle type, you ask whether it can be classified as a school bus if it complies with all of the school bus safety standards. The answer to your question is no. This vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle it must be certified in compliance with all of the standards applicable to that vehicle type. You are not prohibited from marking the vehicle as a school bus, however, with school bus paint, lighting, and lettering. Such markings do not change the vehicle type from multipurpose passenger vehicle to school bus.

SINCERELY,

April 4, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

As a followup to a conversation by Bill Milby and Roger Tilton on March 29, 1978, I am writing to seek clarification of several terms and their application. The terms are as defined in Part 571-1 under Definitions.

1. With respect to "designated seating capacity" and "designated seating position":

a. Is the driver included as a passenger? Must he be counted for vehicle capacity?

b. Are wheelchairs considered auxiliary seats or must they be included as designated seating positions for certification?

2. What is the proper vehicle classification for a vehicle of "traditional" school bus styling with seating capacity for less than ten persons?

3. If proper classification for item 2 is "multipurpose passenger vehicle", must fixed seating positions and wheel chair positions have seat belts?

4. If the vehicle has seating capacity for less than 10 persons, may it be classified as a "school bus" provided it meets all FMVSS applicable to schoolbuses?

5. If the vehicle has seating capacity for less than 10 persons and is classified as a MPV, can it be painted yellow and black and carry children to and from school and be identified with the letters "SCHOOL BUS"?

I am looking forward to your interpretation.

Thank you.

R. L. DuMond Staff Engineer

ID: nht78-4.16

DATE: 02/24/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Emil M. Mrak

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1978, to Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the seat belts in your Cougar automobile.

Your original letter of December 12, 1977, to Secretary Brock Adams, complaining about the seat belts in your automobile has been answered. A copy of our reply is enclosed to this letter and is still relevant to your problem.

As long as the lap-shoulder belt intersection is not less than 6 inches from the vertical centerline of the driver, any other location that is confortable and easy to use is allowable. We suggest that you again contact your dealer to determine if the belt arrangement can be modified to be better suited to your condition and yet have the belt configuration remain within the NHTSA requirements.

SINCERELY,

January 30, 1978

Honorable Joan Claybrook Department of Transportation

Dear Miss Claybrook:

I have been in correspondence with the Ford Motor Company concerning the inadequacies of the seat belts in their new cars, and especially the Cougar.

I am enclosing copies of correspondence that I have had with the Ford Motor Company and the Department of Transportation, and this latter has not been answered.

The present seat belt arrangement is almost impossible for a person of my age to use. If the attachment on the right side of the driver were six inches longer it would be easy to use. As it is, when I drive around town I am not using a seat belt, although I would prefer to use one. When I take longer trips, I use it and, if my wife is along, I have her assistance in attaching it. If she is not along, I struggle and struggle until finally I get it attached.

It is of interest to me that the Ford Motor Company blames the Department of Transportation for this inadequacy. I just can't believe it. If it is the fault of the Department of Transportation I hope the Department will correct it.

If the Department of Transportation can't help in this matter, then I plan to take it up with some member of Congress.

As you well know, we got rid of the interlock system. I think this can be corrected too.

VERY TRULY YOURS, Emil M. Mrak

602 CORDOVA PLACE DAVIS, CA 95616

December 12, 1977

The Honorable Brockman Adam The Secretary of Transportation

Dear Mr. Adams:

Sometime ago I wrote the Ford Company complaining about the inaccessibility of the short portion of the seat belt to a person who is up in years. I pointed out that because of the extreme difficulty of hitching these up, more and more people are failing to use seat belts. Furthermore, the twisting and squirning required could very well result in backbone injuries to elderly people.

I was astounded to receive a letter from the Ford Company indicating that the Federal Standards required such a belt. This is hard for me to believe. In any event, I would appreciate knowing if what they told me is the truth, and if it is, then, the truth, I would strongly recommend that this requirement be revised. If it is not a requirement, then I think the Ford Company should be told to take the blame off the Department of Transportation.

If Congressional help is needed to make such a change, I would be glad to pursue it.

I am enclosing copies of my letter to Mr. Wilson of the Ford Company and also his reply, which as (Illegible Words) astonished me.

VERY TRULY YOURS, Emil M. Mrak

ID: nht88-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1987, asking for an interpretation of paragraph 54.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That paragraph specifies in pertinent part that a replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1-Aiming Adjustment Test, of SAE Standard J580 AUG79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. Section 6.1.1 states that "when the headlamp assembl y is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of +/-4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes." You have asked whether the aiming adjustment is to be achieved by the headlamp assembly, or by both the headlamp assemb ly "and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the vehicle."

SAE J580 applies to the design of headlamp assemblies, including the functional parts other than the headlamps, such as aiming and mounting mechanisms and hardware. The assembly may include one or more headlamps. Although the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, its design must be identical to the headlamp assembly used on the vehicle. Thus, if the aiming adjustment requirement is met by the headlamp assembly in the laboratory, it should also be met when the assembly is installed on the vehicl e. An individual headlamp installed on the vehicle need not meet the aiming adjustment test unless that headlamp is part of a headlamp assembly comprising only one headlamp.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 30, 1987 Ref: W-253-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Nissan Research & Development, Inc., on behalf of Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, hereby submits this request for an interpretation relating to the replaceable bulb headlamp aiming provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, "Lam ps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Among its requirements, S4.1.1.36(b) (3) of Standard 108 stipulates that the replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1 - "Aiming Adjustment Test" of SAE J580 AUG79, "Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly.

Item 6.1.1 of the above-referenced "Aiming Adjustment Test" states that, "when the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of + 4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes."

Nissan's question is whether this minimum aiming adjustment requirement is to be achieved:

1. by the headlamp assembly (by the component unit) itself, or

2. by both the headlamp assembly (as a component unit)

and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the

vehicle?

Erika Jones June 30, 1987 Page Two

Thank you very much for your assistance. Please contact Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi of my Washington staff at (202) 466-5284, if you have any questions or require further details. I would appreciate it if you would please also notify Mr. Hayashi when your respons e has been issued.

Sincerely,

Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

ID: nht88-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Federal Bureau of Investigation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Federal Bureau of Investigation P.O. BOX 709 Portland, OR 97207

Dear Mr. Bendig:

This responds to your letter, as supplemented by the information you provided in a November 19 telephone conversation with Deirdre Hom of my staff, requesting this agency to approve the Bureau's acquisition of one M-151 series vehicle for occasional off- road surveillance work. I regret the delay in responding. We continue to recommend against the sale of M-151 vehicles to civilians.

As you might know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was first contacted by Department of Defense (DOD) personnel in May 1971, for comments and recommendations concerning sale of M-151 series vehicles to the public. After a serie s of meetings between DOD and NHTSA staff, NHTSA recommended against the sale of these vehicles to the public under any circumstances. This recommendation, in fact, followed DOD policy which only allowed persons to drive these vehicles after a specialize d training program.

The reason for the DOD policy and NHTSA recommendation concerning the M-151 series is the definite tendency of these vehicles to turn over without warning when operating limits are exceeded. This tendency results from the unique independent rear suspensi on system of the military design, coupled with the vehicle's short wheelbase, narrow tread width, and high center of gravity. Accident statistics maintained by the Department of the Army after the 1971 recommendation, for the period of july 1972 through December 1977, indicate that the M-151 series vehicles were involved in 1,703 rollovers, 105 fatalities and 1,546 disabling injuries to D.S. Army personnel. Over 80 percent of these rollovers reportedly occurred due to driver error despite the required i ntensive driver training program.

NHTSA believes that the M-151 series vehicles present a clear safety hazard if not driven within specific operating limits. Control of such vehicles, once sold to the public even for "off road" use, appears to pose unique hazards. NHTSA is concerned for the safety of Bureau personnel who would operate M-151 series vehicles if we were to recommend that the Bureau be permitted to acquire such a vehicle, and we are concerned also for the safety of other motorists who would share the road with these vehicle s. NHTSA continues to recommend against disposal of the vehicles to the public until the DOD can provide evidence that the M-151 series is safe.

Thank you for your inquiry. If you have further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation Chief Council 400 7TH ST. S.W., N.O.A.-20 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs,

Our office is requesting four (4) Military Jeeps model A1 from surplus. These vehicles will be used for surveillance work only in dense wooded areas.

In the past we have been using our own BUCARS, which have received damages, costing the bureau not just monies, but also vehicle down time.

The vehicles will be used in Bend, Coos Bay, and Eugene, Or. the forth one will be used in our Seattle Wa. field office.

The only time these vehicles would be on main roads and/or highways, would be the time required to get from the office to the sight.

If approved please send a copy of the letter to DRMO-Ogden 500 W. 12TH ST. Ogden, Ut. 84407-5001 Attn: Jim Marsh (Ph.# 801-399-7033)

Raymond E. Bendig

Property Clerk Portland Office

ID: nht93-9.25

DATE: December 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Thomas Luckemeyer -- ITT Automotive Europe

TITLE: FAX 07142/73-2895

ATTACHMT: Attached to Fax dated 12/10/93 from Thomas Luckemeyer to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9418)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of December 10, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked the following questions with respect to the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars:

"Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the FMVSS 108."

Paragraph S5.1.3. of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation as original equipment of additional lamps such as rear fog lamps if the additional lamp "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard." The determination of whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit impairs the effectiveness of other lighting equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the lamp is installed. Unless such a determination is clearly erroneous, this agency will not question it.

We do not know whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit is permissible in all the States. Because a fog lamp is not required motor vehicle equipment under Federal law, each State in which it is used may regulate it according to its own laws. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, and suggest that you ask the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its FAX number is 001 703 522 1553, and its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

"Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?"

There are no Federal requirements that apply to rear fog lamps, and, as noted above, we are not conversant with state requirements. For your information, the latest specification of the Society of Automotive Engineers for this item of equipment is SAE Recommended Practice J1319 AUG87 "Fog Tail Lamp (Rear Fog Light) Systems."

"Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?"

No. The certification of the vehicle manufacturer is its representation that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. A State has no authority to question this certification.

However, a State is permitted to have a State vehicle lighting standard

provided that the State lighting standard is identical to the Federal lighting standard in those areas covered by the Federal lighting standard. Under these circumstances, a State may enforce the State lighting standard even if the vehicle is certified as conforming to the Federal lighting standard. Furthermore, a State may have its own State lighting standard in those areas where there is no Federal lighting standard, such as fog lamps.

"Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S."

AAMVA may be able to provide you with this information as we are unable to. Because State requirements must be identical with respect to the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, State specifications and prohibitions will differ only with respect to supplementary lighting equipment not covered by Standard No. 108 such as cornering lamps and front and rear fog lamps.