ID: aiam2879

Dear Mr. Utans: This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1978, with respect t Subaru's intention to offer 'a retracting center auxiliary lamp' on one of its models. You have asked us to comment on the lamp's nomenclature, switching, and compliance problems.; The lamp in question is not an item of lighting equipment required b Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and may be added as standard equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard does require. Whether this device would cause impairment we cannot say since you have told us nothing of its candlepower output or its color. If it is operable by a separate on/off switch it could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of the headlights by causing the operator to use it and rely on it at a time when the headlamps should be in use. We have no opinion on what you should call the lamp.; Even if permissible and not prohibited under Federal lightin requirements we believe that you should be aware of possible problems at the State level. An auxiliary driving light similar to the one you describe (though positioned closer to the right headlamps) was offered as optional equipment on 1960 Dodge cars, named the 'Super Lite', and intended to be used in conjunction with low beam headlights to increase the strength of the headlamp system without producing glare effects associated with high beams. The States of New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont prohibited the lamp primarily because its bluish color was judged close to that of the color reserved for use on emergency vehicles (see *Chrysler Corp. v. Rhodes*, 294 F. Supp. 665 (1968) and *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499 (1969)). We therefore suggest that Subaru review its plans with State officials.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3904

Dear Messrs. Waimey and Hansell: I am responding to your correspondence regarding the definitions o 'convertible' and 'open-body type vehicle' under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) safety regulations.; Your first question concerns the definition of 'open-body typ vehicle.' Our regulations provide a definition at 49 CFR S571.3: '...a vehicle having no occupant compartment top or an occupant compartment top that can be installed or removed by the user at his convenience.' The common usage of that term in our interpretations is that this term is intended to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, such as Jeep-type vehicles. Thus, neither of the automobiles in the pictures you included with your letter (Porsche 911 Carrera Cabriolet and Porsche 911 Carrera Targa) are considered to be open-body vehicles.; You also ask whether the Porsche 911 Targa is considered a convertible You state that there is no fixed, rigid structural member joining the 'A' pillar with the 'B' pillar. Despite this absence, the Targa roof, beginning behind the 'B' pillar, apparently is a fixed, rigid structural member that meets Federal roof-crush standards.; You are correct in stating that our regulations do not expressly defin 'convertible.' NHTSA interpretations, however, have consistently defined 'convertible' as a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Thus, the Porsche 911 Targa is considered a convertible because it meets this definition. While the vehicle is therefore not required to meet the roof-crush standards, it is commendable that Porsche has designed it to do so.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5619

Dear Mr. Stupak: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondenc from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA regulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses. Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jobs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with 'mini-school buses,' which he believes is economically unfeasible. I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law. NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a 'school bus' is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards. While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation. The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definition to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013. NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of 'school buses' when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school bus and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, 'Pupil Transportation Safety,' copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high-backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Carol Stroebel Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Enclosure;

ID: aiam1039

Dear Mr. Heath: This is in reply to your letter of February 28th to Mr. Douglas W Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the mounting of lamps and reflectors on mini-pickup trucks.; The December 8, 1972, letter from Commissioner W. Pudinski was place in Docket 69-19, Notice No. 3. We inadvertently failed to knowledge this action to Mr. Pudinski.; The visibility requirements of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 10 are predicated on the normal driving or closed tail gate position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with tail gates down or trunk lids open or otherwise having lights and reflectors obscured by a particular load on the vehicle, is under the jurisdiction of the individual states, we do not anticipate rule making on this subject.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam0156

Dear Mr. Hoffman: Thank you for your letter of April 7, 1969, to Mr. Frank Turner Federal Highway Administrator, concerning your request for a clarification of the requirements of rear lights on Drop Frame Trailers.; In determining compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 108, requirements for tail, stop, and turn signal lamps on this type of vehicle will be predicated on the normal driving, or closed tailgate, position. These lamps should therefore meet the requirements of the referenced SAE Standards in Table I and be mounted per the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108, a copy of which is enclosed.; Thank you for your interest in meeting the intent of the requirement of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: nht88-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/88

FROM: CLAIRE HAVEN -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUADWEST

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-22-88 TO CLAIRE HAVEN, QUADWEST, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA; REDBOOK A33; STDS. 209, 208, 302; VSA 108(A)(2)

TEXT: As You can see by the enclosed letter, I've been corresponding with Carl Clark, Inventor Contact, at the Department of Transportation, regarding the Joyride Seatbelt Pad.

We propose to sell this pad as a comfort item to be used on the shoulder strap of a standard seatbelt. By eliminating the uncomfortable pressure and chafing of some seatbelts, we believe our product will increase the use seatbelts generally, thereby inc reasing the level of driver safety.

Mr. Clark has advised us that he see no objection to the use of Joyride Seatbelt Pad. Therefore, upon his advice, I am requesting a formal letter from you, as Chief Counsel, that our product does not take the manufacturer-installed seatbelt out of compl iance with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. A sample of the Joyride Seatbelt Pad is enclosed for your reference.

As we wish to distribute our new product shortly, we would be most grateful for you early reply.

Thank you for your help.

ID: aiam3252

Dear Mr. Wood: This confirms your April 9, 1980, telephone conversation with Roge Tilton of my staff in which you asked whether a styrofoam board that lies beneath a layer of polyurethane foam would be required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*.; As Mr. Tilton explained to you, the standard applies to seatin components such as yours only to the extent that they fall within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment air space. This requirement is specified in paragraph S4.2 of the standard. You indicate that your styrofoam board would not fall within 1/2 inch of the compartment because the polyurethane cover will always be thicker than 1/2 inch. Assuming this is true, your styrofoam board would not be required to comply with the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3757

Dear Mr. Ziwicka: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1983, to Mr. Vinson o this office asking for reconsideration of our December 8, 1982, letter in which we stated that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. You have pointed out that this appears to reverse a previous interpretation issued by this office on March 15, 1978, in which we concluded that such covers were not precluded.; As is well known, SAE Standard J580 *Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly precludes the use of covers in front of headlamps in use. Because Standard No. 108 allows installation on motorcycles of half of a passenger car sealed beam headlighting system (principally because SAE J584 allows use of headlamps meeting SAE J579 *Sealed Beam Headlamp Units*), the 1982 interpretation applied the prohibition against covers to all sealed beam headlamps, even those used on motorcycles. With respect to unsealed lamps, the agency cited paragraph S4.1.3, the prohibition against installation of additional equipment impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, and concluded that the possibility of deterioration of light output through cracked or discolored covers precluded covers over nonsealed lamps. On the other hand, the 1978 interpretation concluded that, since the cross referenced J579 did not itself reference J580, the prohibition did not apply.; We have reviewed this matter and have concluded that headlamp cover for motorcycles are not *per se* prohibited by Standard No. 108. As the 1978 interpretation implies, and as you make explicit, the only standard Table III directly incorporates for motorcycles headlamps is J584, whereas J580 is one of several standards directly incorporated for headlamps on four-wheeled vehicles. Nevertheless, we still conclude that these covers are prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.; If, for example, the angle of the cover is so extreme that headlam 'effectiveness' is 'impaired' because of deterioration of the beam, then the manufacturer may wish to remove the shield or redesign it. If, as another example, a plastic cover is intended and a manufacturer has knowledge that it is susceptible to accelerated hazing or cracking, that manufacturer should not use a cover manufactured of this plastic.; In summary, this letter modifies both our 1978 and 1982 opinions b concluding that headlamp covers for motorcycles are permissible if they will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.; The agency is reviewing this subject to determine if rulemaking i advisable to prohibit covers of any sort over motorcycle headlamps, similar to the prohibition against such covers on four-wheeled motor vehicles.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-5.27

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Larson, Victor -- P.E., Cryenco, Inc.

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Conspicuity Striping Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/14/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Victor Larson (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: Cryenco is a manufacturer of cryogenic tank trailers. Our trailers are cylindrical in shape and in most cases, have no side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road, except at the center of the tank (at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions). This is at a height of approximately 90" above the ground. Additional structures would have to be added to the sides of the trailer to provide lower mounting surfaces that are at the 1.25m height. In our interpretation of the rule, which is based on phone calls with NHTSA and 3M striping performance specifications, the side striping 1.) Can legally be placed at a height of 90" above the ground, if that is the only available vertical mounting area, and 2.) it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface for the side striping. Please advise if this interpretation is correct.

Additional limited side mounting areas are sometimes available. For instance, some cryogenic transports have a rear cabinet that is approximately 4' long. Some also have a midship undermounted cabinet. These locations provide limited lower areas for side striping to amount to, approximately 4' to 6' length each, that could be used for striping location. However, if striping is mounted to these surfaces and to the remaining areas above, (on the tank at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions and 90" height), the result is a fragmented, non-aligned striping pattern that is not visually pleasing, and which Customers object to. Since transporters are highly interested in visual impact they sometimes find this pattern unacceptable. Would compliance be satisfied if the side striping was placed only at the higher (90" above the ground) location, where the predominant available vertical mounting surface is found?

Requests to mount the side striping lower on the tank, to better fit-in with their graphics, have been received. In one instance, if this were done, the side striping would be rolled down from the 3:00 and 9:00 positions to about the 4:30 and 7:30 positions. This would place the side striping on an area of the tank that angles downward approximately 30 degrees. The striping manufacturers do not certify to meet the reflectivity requirements at compound angles exceeding 15 degrees down, combined with the horizontal angles indicated in the rule. The general feeling among transporters and striping suppliers is that the rule is not definitive about the angular orientation of the striping, i.e. that there is no need to have the striping mounted on a surface that is perpendicular to the road. Please verify what the requirement is relative to orientation of the striping for conspicuity.

ID: aiam2738

Dear Mr. Premo: This responds to your December 6, 1977, letter asking which portions o the roof and sidewall structure of your small bus must comply with the head impact requirements of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; In accordance with the head impact zone requirements outlined i paragraph S5.3.1.1 of the standard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that those portions of your bus constituting the bus sidewall and window structure are not required to comply with the head impact requirements. Only those portions of your bus which constitute part of the roof structure are included within the head impact zone requirements. We have marked in yellow on the enclosed drawing those areas that must comply with the head impact requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel