ID: nht88-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: JERRY'S SERVICE

TO: LEGAL OFFICE NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 08/03/87 TO DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 TO JERRY K YOST FROM L. F ROLLIN; LETTER DATED 03/28/88 TO C-MORE-LITE JERRYS SERVICE FROM DON O. HORNING RE TEST REPORT NO 92606;

TEXT: NAME OF UNIT

C-More Light Headlight Relay.

DESCRIPTION OF UNIT

The unit is a replacement headlight relay. See technical drawings A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4.

The C-More Light Headlight Relay allows the driver to select either high or low beam headlights, as is presently the case. The difference with this relay is that as the driver chooses to add more light by changing from low to high beams, the highbeam is added to the low beam; rather than turning the low beam off and the highbeam on. The choice is no longer either low or high; it is low beam always, with or without highbeam added.

BENEFITS OF THE UNIT

It can be added to virtually every motor vehicle as an after market device.

It can easily replace all headlight relays now being used during manufacture of motor vehicles.

It increases motoring safety by adding more light to the roadway. See diagrams B-1, B-2, and B-3. 2000 candle power is added during highbeam operation.

It increases motoring safety by continuing to light the dark area immediately in front of the motor vehicle now being created as low beams are turned off and highbeams are turned on. This area is overshot by highbeams.

It increases motoring safety by continuing to provide low beam illumination if high beam is defective. Currently, if one high beam is burned out and high beams are selected by the driver, there is no light from that side of the vehicle. This unit allow s the low beam to continue to provide light.

It increases motoring safety by eliminating the delay between low and highbeam operation. In properly functioning systems this delay is minescule and is hardly noticed by the average driver. However, as vehicles become older this delay often becomes lo nger and may be critical at highway speeds. The delay is eliminated by the continuous operation of the lowbeams.

PERFORMANCE TESTING OF THE UNIT

The units have been in limited use since 1965.

Drivers of the equipped vehicles report greater awareness during hours of darkness. Use of the unit does not seem to affect oncoming drivers as the added light is between the front of the vehicle and the area covered by the highbeams, and the lights are required to be dimmed in any case.

The C-More unit has not adversely affected the balance of the motor vehicle electrical system. If an electrical short occurs, the dimming system continues to operate in the old, "either/or" mode.

There appears to be greater low beam life; most likely due to a lessening of the number of on/off changes.

ID: nht88-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/88

FROM: M. IWASE -- MANAGER TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. KOITO MFG. CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: INSTALLATION OF TAIL & STOP LAMP ONTO MOVING VEHICLE PART

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/15/88 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 07/30/80 TO DIETMAR M HAENCHEN FROM FRANK BERNDT

TEXT: Dear Sir;

Thank you for your kind consideration which you have extended to us.

We, Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd., would like you to advise us about the tail & stop lamp as shown below;

(DRAWING OMITTED)

1. Lamp "A" having function of tail & stop lamp is fitted onto the moving vehicle part (trank lid, etc.).

2. Lamp "A" meets the min./max. values for both functions of tail & stop specified in FMVSS No. 108 at a design attitude when the moving part is closed.

It is designed that vehicle be driven with its trank lid closed. Therefore, Lamp "A" installed on moving part should be permissible, we think.

Question:

1. Whether such a tail & stop lamp fitted onto moving vehicle part could be permissible or not under FMVSS No. 108.

2. If Lamp "A" is turn signal lamp instead of tail & stop lamp, how about the permission under FMVSS No. 108.

Again, thanking you and awaiting your prompt reply, we remain,

With our best regards,

Yours very truly,

ID: nht88-1.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nuvatec/Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. William B. Huber Senior Vice President Nuvatec/Inc. 3110 Woodcreek Drive Downers Grove, Illinois 60515

Dear Mr. Huber:

This response to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You stated that you manufacture an electronic instrument cluster for use with van conversions and class "A" motorhomes and other vehicles. The gauges ar e of a bar graph type, and associated with each graph is an icon or symbol to indicate the graph function. During normal operation, the icons are illuminated to the same light intensity as the graphs. You stated that as an added feature, the icons blink when, and only when, that function becomes critical or dangerous, such as for low fuel, high temperature, low oil pressure, and low battery. You stated that some of your customers have expressed concern about using your instrument cluster because it may not comply with Standard No. 101, and you requested a formal opinion. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements.

The Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with Part 567, Certification. Persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer are consi dered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers, dis tributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety not from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or it em of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Standard No. 101 (49 CFR Part 571.101) specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. The standard's requirements for displays are applicable only to vehicles with a gross vehicle Height rating of less than 10,000 pounds. See section @5. For these vehicles, the gauges identified in your letter (fuel, temperature, oil pressure, and electrical charge) are displays regulated by the standard.

The primary issue raised by your letter is whether the identification of gauges may flash. As discussed below, Standard No. 101 does not prohibit such flashing.

Section @5.3.3 states:

@5.3.3(a) Means shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions.

(b) The means for providing the required visibility-- (1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in @5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adopted to dark ambient roadway conditions.

(2) May be operable manually or automatically, and

(3) May have levels of brightness at which those items and their identification are not visible.

(c) Effective September 1, 1989, if the level of brightness is adjusted by automatic means to a point where those items or their identification are not visible to the driver, a means shall be provided to enable the driver to restore visibility. (d) For a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1989, the requirements of @5.3.3(b)(1) shall not apply to any gauge during the actuation of a telltale which shares a common light source with the gauge.

Under section @5.3.3(a), means must be provided for making the identification of gauges, i.e., the icons or symbols in your design, visible to the driver under all driving conditions. The on-and-off cycling of the identification occurring during flashing would create momentary periods of time when the identification is not visible.

However, it is our opinion that a flashing identification or other item is considered visible so long as it is visible during the on part of the cycle.

This opinion is limited to the specific issue addressed above and does not constitute an opinion an to whether your electronic instrument cluster complies with Standard No. 101.

As you may know, several amendments were made to Standard No. 101 during 1987. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the current standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

October 1, 1987

Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Association 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Yesterday I talked with a Mr. E. Glancy about an interpretation of FMVSS 101. Mr. Glancy indicated that it was against department policy to make interpretations over the phone, and we should make a written request with your office for a formal opinion.

Nuvatec manufactures an electronic instrument cluster for use with van conversions and class "A" motorhomes and other vehicles. The gages are of the bar graph type and associated with each graph is an icon or symbol to indicate the graph function. During normal operation, these icons are illuminated to the same brilliance as the graphs (as required by @101). As an added feature, we blink these icons when, and only when, that function becomes critical or dangerous, such as low fuel, high temperature, low oil pressure, and low battery. This blinking is similar to the blinking symbol for low fuel in the Lincoln electronic instrument cluster.

Some of our customers have expressed concern about using or instrument cluster because they may not comply with the referenced standard. Therefore, we are requesting a formal opinion. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Should you require any additional material or information, please give me a call.

Sincerely,

William B. Huber Senior Vice President

WBH/slp

ID: nht88-1.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LEONARD CAIN, -- DIRECTOR, SCHOOL BUILDING AND TRANSPORTATION -- MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 30, 1987 LETTER FROM CAIN TO TILLMAN

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry of July 30, 1987, in which you pose some questions concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and Standard 17 to certain vehicles used for transporting school students. I apologize for the delay in this response.

Before I answer your specific questions, I think it might be useful to give you some general information on the Federal role in school bus regulation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) deals with school buses under two different Federal laws: the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Vehicle Safety Act), and the Highway Safety Act.

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act and directed NHTSA to issue safety standards respecting certain elements of school bus performance, and addressing any person who manufactures or sells a new "school bus." The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued under this Act are mandatory Federal standards that apply to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A school bus manufacturer must certify its vehicles as complying with Federal standards that are applicable to school buses. A seller ma y not sell a vehicle that does not comply with those standards if the seller has reason to know that the buyer intends to use the vehicle as a school bus.

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. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one m ust consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use.

Under the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA has issued guidelines (23 CFR No. 17, Highway Safety Program Standard) that cover a wide range of subjects relative to school bus identification, operation, and maintenance.

2

Different practices apply to "school vehicles" under the guidelines depending upon whether the vehicle is "Type I" or "Type II." This agency may recommend that an individual State adopt all or part of these guidelines as the State's own policy governing student transportation programs. However, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA does not require compliance with these guidelines. Instead, each individual State decides whether it will adopt some or all of these "Standards 17" guidelines.

Please keep this information in mind as I answer your questions in order. I have assumed in answering your questions that the activities to which you refer are school-related.

Question 1a: Does a vehicle (type 1 bus) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

The answer to your question is "yes." However, the agency's regulatory and enforcement authority is directed toward the person manufacturing or selling a school bus. This agency can not regulate purchase or use of a school bus, and consequently can n ot require a school district to purchase a particular kind of vehicle for transporting students. As noted above, the definition of "school bus" includes vehicles sold for transporting students to and from school-related events. An activity bus is a sch ool bus under this functional definition. Therefore, a manufacturer or seller of a vehicle who has reason to believe that the vehicle's intended use is solely for transporting students to and from school-related activities must ensure its compliance with any Federal safety standard that applies to a school bus.

Question 1b: Does a bus purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow?

School bus color is a matter addressed under the guidelines set out in "Standard 17" discussed above. Accordingly, the answer to your question depends on the laws and regulations of Mississippi. There is no Federal standard requiring that a manufacture r or seller paint a school bus a particular color.

Question 2a: Does a van (designed to carry 11 or more persons) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Recall again that our regulations are directed to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A van designed to carry 11 or more persons, and intended to transport students to and from school-related events is a "school bus" under the agency's definition. Th erefore, a manufacturer or seller would have to ensure the vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. To determine whether a local school district may use a noncomplying vehicle it purchases, you must look to state law.

3

Question 2b: Does a van purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow?

Again, for the reasons set out in my answer to Question 1b, the answer to this question depends on the laws of your State.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA 2. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAY COSTA -- ASSISTANT PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST, METROPOLITAN SEATTLE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7-21-87, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM JAY COSTA; MEMO DATED 6-18-87, CONTRACT No. T/F 19-84 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW; MEMO DATED 6-25-87, CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-83 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW

TEXT: I am responding to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). Specifically, you expressed concern that some transit system passengers are opening the rear emergency exits on your public tr ansit vehicles. Apparently, some passengers open these emergency exits to commit acts of vandalism. You state that "in the interest of safety the rear emergency window (in these vehicles) should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window." You asked whether Standard 217 would prohibit your "body shop" from modifying your "transit buses" in this manner.

Assuming that your body shop does not hold itself out to the public as a business that repairs motor vehicles for compensation, the shop would not be prohibited from modifying the buses as you describe.

Under paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard 217, buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more (such as your transit buses) must have at least one "rear emergency exit", unless the configuration of the bus precludes installing an accessib le rear exit. The manufacturer of your buses has stated that the bus configuration does not preclude installing an accessibel rear exit. Therefore, your manufacturer must deliver buses that are equipped with a rear emergency exit.

On the other hand, your "repair shop" is subject to different considerations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) prohibits certain commercial establishments from "rendering inoperative" an y device or element of design included on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In your example, the rear emergency exit is an element of design included in the buses in compliance with an applicable safety standard, and remo ving these exits would render inoperative that element of design.

However, the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defined in @ 108(a)(2)(A) as "any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensatin." Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard.

Assuming that your transit system body shop does not hold itself out to the publci as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles for compensation, it can make the modification you describe without violating any Federal requirements.

The problem you describe apparently involves the design for releasing the kind of emergency window exit in your vehicles. Standard 217 does not require a specific design for releasing an emergency exit. Rather, the Standard sets out a ceiling for the m agnitude of force necessary to release the exit, and a required direction for applying the release force. The transit system could replace the "operable" rear emergency window with a push-out window or other type of design that would still meet the rele ase requirements of Standard 217, yet make it difficult or impossible for a passenger to commit the acts of vandalism you describe.

Please note that the purpose of our emergency exit requirements for buses is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit in the event of an emergency. Though nothing prohibits you from modifying the vehicles to close off the rear emergency exit, I urge you to give your fullest consideration to the implications of making this modification. It is NHTSA's position that compliance with Standard 217 is the safest way to facilitate vehicle exit in an emergency, and it is my opinion that you needn't eliminate th e rear window exit to resolve your problem. Further, you might want to check with the State of Washington to learn if it prohibits modifications that would make your transit buses no longer comply with Standard 217.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Captain Robert W. Barthelmess

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Captain Robert W. Barthel Box 5744 APO, NY 09633

Dear Captain Barthelmess:

This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1987, to this agency with respect to the requirements for importing tires without the DOT symbol.

You have asked whether the DOT symbol must still appear on the tires of vehicles that conform to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is yes; there has been no change in the requirement that the DOT symbol appear on the sidewall of tires manufactured as either original or replacement equipment. The DOT is the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In your letter, you stated that one individual at the Army Air Force Ex change Service indicated that the DOT symbol had been replaced by a series of numbers. This individual may have confused the requirement for the DOT symbol with a different Federal requirement for an identification number to appear on tires. The tire ide ntification number, along other things, assists in the tracing and recalling of tires which may prove to be noncomplying or defective. The requirement for the tire identification number is in addition to, not in place of, the requirement for the DOT symb ol.

You have also asked (with reference to service personnel like yourself who recently bought non-DOT marked tires for your U.S. type automobiles) whether there is a technical possibility of denial of entry to vehicles certified as meeting U.S. safety speci fication but equipped with tires not bearing the DOT symbol. The general procedure is that when a motor vehicle arrives at the port of entry it will be inspected to see whenever it bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance (generally in the dr iver's door post area). We do not know whether Customs makes it a practice to inspect vehicles of U.S. origin for this certificate when a serviceman is returning to the States. If an inspection occurs and the vehicle bears the certification, the vehicle is admitted without further inspection. It is possible, of course, that a Customs inspector could happen to notice in passing the lack of the DOT symbol on the tires. In this instance, as the vehicle would not be in conformity with all applicable standar ds, the Customs inspector could require entry of the vehicle under bond, which would be released upon the importer's production of a statement to this agency that the noncompliance had been corrected. Although we are not aware of any instance in which th is has actually happened, you may wish to contact Customs with respect to its inspection procedures. You may also wish to write GoodYear asking for a statement that the Vector tires comply with Standard NO. 109, which could be presented to Customs should questions arise.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/88

FROM: JERRY SMITH -- MINNESOTA BODY AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY

TO: SHANON FORD -- DIRECTOR SOUTHEAST IOWA COMMUNITY ACTION ORGANIZATION, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO R.C. ROST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 03/18/88 TO CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA, FROM R & C ROST RE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COL OR OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED, OCC-1763; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/11/88 TO SHANON L FOND FROM JERRY SMITH RE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF SCHOOL BUS USER; UNDATED BROCHURES ON SCHOOLBUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: As per our telephone conversation today, I am enclosing a copy of my Wayne cost sheet which reflects $ 107.75 for the warning lights which is included in my bid price for the Wayne Chaperone submitted on February 12, 1988.

As agreed, time is of the essence to maintaine a desirable delivery date and to utilize the chassis that was bid.

Therefore, please issue your purchase order at your earliest convience Upon receipt of your order, I will be able to establish a production "slot" for your bus with out further delay.

Between the time that I receive your order and actual production starts we will have approximately 60 days in which to resolve the warning Light issue.

Hopefully by working with the Head Start regional office in Kansas City, IDOT and Wayne Corporation, we can resolve the issue prior to the production start date.

Upon resolution, we will delete the warning lights from the body order, which in turn will be reflected in a reduction of $ 107.75 from the bid price.

I will continue to give this problem my close attention in an effort to obtain the light reduction and ensuing credit for you.

Please send your purchase order to my attention and as follows:

Minnesota Body & Equipment Company P.O. Box 218 Waukee, Iowa 50263

Sincerely,

30 years of treating customers FAIRLY and SERVICING What we sell.

Proud of our past!

MINNESOTA BODY & EQUIPMENT CO. 7380 HIGHWAY 101 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379

OUR Services:

Leasing/Financing Service/Parts Bid Specifications Handicapped Equipment Equipment Evaluations Customer Needs

Service Department:

PATRICK O'REILLEY, Service Manager 6 years with Minnesota Body

MARK ENDERSON, Service Technician 3 years with Minnesota Body

WESLEY MOEDING, Field Service Coordinator 7 years with Minnesota Body

An Investment in YOUR future

Customer Satisfaction -- Best Advertisement

Thirty Years of selling and servicing Quality-Built buses speaks for itself. Our customers know of our commitment to them and how we stand behind that commitment. It is not just talk, but a fact that we take great pride in and customers know they can de pend on our firm.

We hope you will join with us in celebrating our 30th year.

Let us be a part of your vehicle planning and growth, so that together we can face the 1990s.

Bob Rost, President

These people are here to serve you regarding your transportation needs.

ROBERT ROST, President 31 years experience

GARY SELANDER, New & Used Bus Sales -- Minnesota 27 years experience

ROGER BLOHM, New & Used Bus Sales -- Nationwide 11 years experience

JOHN ROBERTS, New & Used Bus Sales -- Minnesota-Wisconsin 3 years experience

JERRY SMITH, New & Used Bus Sales -- Iowa Manager 6 years experience

GRANT WELLBORN, New & Used Bus Sales -- Iowa 32 years experience

MARK ROST, New & Used Bus Sales -- Minnesota-Wisconsin 1 year experience

KIRK LARSON, Accounting & Parts 12 years experience

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: nht88-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1988

FROM: SHIMAZU, KUNIO -- TOYOTA GENERAL MANAGER

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: INTERPRETATION -- FMVSS 208 -- AUTOMATIC SAFETY BELT PLACEMENT

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SHIMAZU

TEXT: Toyota seeks NHTSA's concurrence with its interpretation of the belt placement requirement of FMVSS 208 applicable to automatic safety belts during dynamic testing.

Sec. 10.5.2, setting forth the belt path requirement, states:

S10.5.2 Automatic safety belts. Ensure that the upper torso belt lies flat on the test dummy's shoulder after the automatic belt has been placed on the test dummy.

However, this section does not clearly specify the belt path or how the belt is to be positioned on the dummy's shoulder. We are concerned that test personnel may feel that they are prohibited from adjusting the belt path after the door has been shut , unless the belt fails to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder.

Compliance tests should not only be repeatable, but conducted under conditions which simulate as closely as possible those of

2

the real world. However, the belt path, immediately after the door has been shut, may not be appropriate for compliance testing if it differs from the real world belt path.

This difference occurs because a human occupant moves to operate controls (ignition key, transmission lever, seat adjustment, door lock, etc.) and adjusts the belt for optimum comfort after the belt has first been positioned across the torso. As show n in the video tape and Appendix attached to this letter, the initial belt path after the door closing is changed by occupant movement, and afterward the belt path remains in this new position.

NHTSA recognizes this in the note at the end of FMVSS 208 which states;

NOTE: The concept of an occupant protection system which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to designate a system which will perform its protective restraining function after a normal proce ss of ingress or egress without separate deliberate actions by the vehicle occupant to deploy the restraint system. Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but wo uld normally slightly push the seat belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort.

3

Therefore, automatic belts that need slight adjustment by the occupant upon entry or for comfort, are recognized as such under this standard. Accordingly, in the case of this type automatic belt (where slight adjustment is needed) the initial belt pa th immediately after the door is shut differs from that after it is adjusted by the occupant.

For these reasons, we believe that the belt path on the test dummy should be adjusted by test personnel in the manufacturer's and NHTSA's compliance tests to ensure that the belt path simulates that of the real world.

There may be several methods to adjust the belt on the dummy to simulate a real world position. For example, moving the upper torso by grasping the dummy's head, pulling the belt some inches forward from the dummy's chest and releasing it, etc.

However, based on our experience, the results obtained through those procedures may vary. Accordingly, in order to achieve consistency before conducting a compliance test, NHTSA could request the manufacturer to provide its belt position procedure (a s it already now does in specifying its "normal design riding position" of an adjustable seat back).

Incidentally, we believe the most appropriate objective method is to place the belt over an imaginary straight line running from the upper to lower anchorage as seen from head on.

4

To test an automatic safety belt vehicle after merely closing the door is not only not repeatable but is not representative of real world conditions and, therefore, would not accurately measure the crashworthiness of the vehicle's occupant protection system.

Enclosures

INVESTIGATION OF BELT PATH

Using a TOYOTA Cressida and a Volkswagen Golf, we investigated whether the belt path on a dummy (the Hybrid III dummy) would differ from that of a human occupant. The Cressida is equipped with a typical motorized automatic belt system, whose shoulder an chorage is motor-driven along the roof side rail. The Golf, on the other hand, is equipped with a typical non-motorized belt system whose non-movable shoulder anchorage is attached to the door frame.

The video tape which accompanies this letter shows the results of our investigation.

Golf

Dummy

The Volkswagen Golf is shown first. After the dummy has been positioned according to the standard, the door is then shut to place the belt across the dummy's torso (please note test personnel made no adjustment to the dummy or the belt after the closing of the door). As the video shows, the belt catches on the dummy's upper shoulder.

2

Human Occupant

The same test is then carried out using a human occupant, equivalent to a 50th percentile adult male. Although the belt may lie improperly across the shoulder immediately after the door is shut, when the occupant moves forward to turn the ignition key, operate heater controls, etc. the belt will then move from that position to the middle of the shoulder. Under the same conditions, using a 95th percentile adult male, the belt lies across the middle of the shoulder after the door is shut.

This demonstrates that the unadjusted belt position on the dummy does not represent the normal riding belt position on a human occupant.

Cressida

The Cressida was tested under the same conditions as the Golf.

Dummy

After door closing, the belt lies higher on the dummy than the typical position marked on the chest based on our real world experience. The belt moves more than 30mm downward and stop when test personnel move the dummy's upper torso back and forth by gr asping the head.

3

Human Occupant

In the case of the human occupants equivalent to the 50th and 95th percentile adult males, the belts initially lie on the body at high positions. However, through body movement the belt moves to a lower position.

Summary

1. The belt path on a human body right after the door has been closed is, in most cases, quickly changed by occupant movement.

2. The belt path on a test dummy right after the door has been closed differs substantially from the belt path on a human occupant after movement.

ID: nht88-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1988

FROM: GARY EVANS -- PRESIDENT, WESTEX

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-18-88, TO GARY EVANS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA

TEXT: I have had 3 conversations with individuals in different departments within the NHTSA. These conversations have resulted in a recommendation to contact the NHTSA Legal Department for advice.

Westex is an Importer and Distributor of automotive parts for German made vehicles. Among the many manufacturers we do business with are several companies which produce original equipment taillights, side reflectors and headlight assemblies. These firm s are very familiar with DOT, SAE, etc.

One of these firms produces Warning Triangles as described in FMVSS-125. As you may know, Warning Triangles are required in all vehicles (including cars) in Germany. This company has a new innovative patented technique which allows a Warning Triangle t o be attached to the side window of a car. This side-mounted Triangle is about 20% smaller than the specification shown in FMVSS-125.

This idea has evolved for use by the elderly, handicapped or individuals who are afraid or unable to leave their car. It does not give advanced warning as the Triangles placed along the road do. However, it does give motorists a warning (day or night) that the vehicle is stopped and advises the Police someone needs help.

I would like to import and sell this item here in the U.S. Before I do so, I would like to have some degree of comfort that the Triangle complies with any standards which may affect it.

FMVSS-125 states it does not deal with devices attached to the vehicle. Logically, I guess I am looking for the standard(s) which deals with warning devices that are attached to the vehicle without self-contained energy sources, if indeed such standards exist.

I would appreciate your earliest reply so I may proceed with the sales of this item.