ID: nht74-1.16

DATE: 07/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1974 informing us that Volkswagen of America, Inc. has decided not to initiate a notification campaign as a result of a technical violation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110. You ask for our concurrence in your decision.

The designated seating capacity of the Dasher vehicle is 5 (2 in front, 3 in rear) and you have informed us that "some early production cars" bore tire inflation pressure labels stating that the capacity was 4 (2 in front, 2 in rear). The other required information (vehicle capacity weight, tire size designation, and recommended inflation pressures) are, you state, correctly indicated.

We agree with you that "religious observance of the instructions contained on the placard would provide the car with additional load capacity that would go unused", and have concluded that the situation you describe does not indicate the existence of a safety-related defect.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

June 18, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, Office of the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This will confirm my phone conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent concerning the issue of recalling a number of early production Dasher vehicles bearing FMVSS No. 110 labels, which incorrectly state the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

Dasher models are manufactured with and equipped for five (5) seating positions. Inadvertently, some early production cars were fitted with placards required by S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, which erroneously state the designated seating capacity of the vehicle to be four (4) seats (two (2) front and two (2) rear), when in fact it has five (5) seats (two (2) front and three (3) rear). Sample of a correct label is attached. Vehicle capacity weight, recommended inflation pressures for maximum and half load as well as tire size designations are correctly indicated.

Mr. Vincent suggested that this error probably did not amount to a safety related defect within the meaning of Section 1402 of Volume 15 USCA, as amended, and regulations issued thereunder, because vehicle owners and occupants are not likely to be misled into using the vehicle in a manner that would make it less safe. In fact, religious observance of the instructions contained on the placard would provide the car owner with additional load capacity that would go unused.

Since inconvenience to the owner resulting from a recall would outweigh any benefits to be gained from a corrected label, we believe it would not be in the public interest for us to conduct a notification and recall campaign in this instance.

Your confirmation of our position would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Cerhard P. Riechel -- Attorney

Enc.

cc: Taylor Vincent

ID: nht91-5.6

DATE: July 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Hanna -- Lectric Limited, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-91 from Ken Hanna to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 6238)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. 108, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification tht is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

ID: 11295ADRN

Charles A. Grandy, Esq.
Baker & Daniels
300 North Meridian Street
Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204-1782

Dear Mr. Grandy:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation that OEM passenger car wheel manufacturers have no certification responsibilities.

In your letter, you explain that your client is "an automobile wheel manufacturer that exports wheels to certain automobile manufacturers in the United States to be used in the production of passenger cars." You state your belief that your client does not have to certify its wheels, since neither Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims, nor 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, "appears to apply to automobile wheels and we find no other Safety Standards applicable to automobile wheels."

You are correct that Standard No. 110 does not apply to your client's product. A motor vehicle wheel is comprised of a wheel rim and wheel disc. While Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements for passenger car rims (section S4.4), it is a "vehicle" standard with which the completed vehicle must comply, rather than an "equipment" standard for wheel components. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not your client, would be responsible for certifying compliance with this standard.

With regard to Standard No. 211, we wish to clarify an issue about the applicability of the standard. Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to passenger car equipment. S4, Requirements, of the standard states:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections that extend beyond the plane that is tangent to the outboard edge of the wheel rim at all points around its circumference. ***

Standard No. 211 defines "winged projection" in S3.2, and shows an example of a "winged projection" in Figure 1.

Your letter does not provide enough information to enable us to determine with certainty whether your client's wheels comprise components subject to Standard No. 211. The term "wheel discs" used in S4 typically refers to a component that is a part of a wheel in the same manner as a center-mounted wheel nut or hub cap. Your client's wheels may or may not include such components.

Please note that NHTSA is considering rescinding Standard No. 211, based on our tentative conclusion that it is unnecessarily design-restrictive. (60 FR 31947, June 19, 1995.) The public comment period closed on August 3, 1995. NHTSA is reviewing the public comments and expects to make a final decision on the matter in the near future.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:110#211 d:1/30/96

ID: 11239-1PJA

Mr. Hai Tee Young
10313 Lower Azusa Road
Temple City, CA 91780

Dear Mr. Young:

This responds to your letter telling us of several types of outside rear-view mirror designs you have invented, and asking for funding, or assistance in obtaining funding, for you to develop and patent these inventions. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your purpose is to provide a wider view of the road behind the vehicle, and eliminate blind spots. Each of your mirrors consists of either a composite of two flat mirrors that are joined at an angle or a single convex mirror. Each is depicted as being mounted substantially in front of the driver.

I would like to begin by noting that, in a December 11, 1995 letter to you, this office told you about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) NHTSA has issued on a number of aspects of motor vehicle safety. Manufacturers of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors (I have enclosed a copy for your convenience), has a number of requirements that you should be aware of before you finalize plans for your invention. Based on your letter, you appear to intend to market these mirrors for buses, vans, and passenger cars. FMVSS No. 111 has different requirements for different classes of vehicles, such as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and schoolbuses. You should review S5 through S10 of the standard to determine what requirements apply to the specific vehicles for which you intend to market your mirror.

We have identified four instances, described below, where your mirrors may fail to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. These are not meant to be exhaustive. A manufacturer that uses your system is responsible for ensuring that all the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 are met.

1. The requirements for passenger cars (in S5.2 of FMVSS No. 111) basically require a horizontal field of view, extending 8 feet out from the side of the car at a point 35 feet behind the driver. This field of view must be provided by a "unit magnification" (flat) mirror. Therefore, your convex mirror design (Devices D-3, D-4 in your illustrations) alone would not comply with the standard. Your composite flat mirror design (Devices D-3, D-5, D-6, and D-7 in your illustrations) would comply only if the required field of view were provided by a single flat surface of the mirror. Any extra field of view, beyond what is required, could be provided by other pieces of mirror.

2. Some of your mirrors extend the mirror from the vehicle only at certain times, by having the mirror fold out or slide out of a housing. The caption for Device D-4 describes an electrical switch with which the driver would manually deploy the mirror. The caption for Device D-5 says that the mirrors would be deployed only when the driver signals for a turn, and only on the side that has the turn signal on.

These designs would not be allowed under FMVSS No. 111. S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 specifies the field of view that must be provided by the mirror at all times the vehicle is being operated. When your mirrors are not deployed, the requisite field of view would not be provided.

3. To deploy both mirrors simultaneously, you suggest that the driver would activate the emergency lights. The emergency lights are designed for emergencies. S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, prohibits installing motor vehicle equipment (including mirrors) that impair the effectiveness of the emergency flashers. We would consider a mirror system that requires non-emergency use of the emergency lights to impair the effectiveness of the lights, because other vehicles would not know whether there was an emergency or if the driver just wanted to deploy both mirrors to look around.

4. We also note a concern with Illustrations F and G. These depict the mirror position in the front left and right corners of the vehicle. We note that a mirror of unit magnification so far in front of the driver would have to be fairly large (possibly obscuring the driver's forward view of the road) in order to provide the required field of view. It would also have the potential to inflict injuries on pedestrians, being larger and at the front.

I would like to reiterate some of the information contained in our December 11, 1995 letter, because it also applies to your mirror inventions. The manufacturer of these mirrors would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Other legal requirements would apply depending on how your product would be marketed. Since your mirrors would not comply with FMVSS No. 111, they could not be installed on new vehicles to meet the standard=s requirements for mirrors. Similarly, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair business could not install your mirror on used vehicles to replace the original mirrors. While we do not prohibit individual vehicle owners from modifying their own vehicles in any manner, we encourage owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your mirrors would be permitted.

Regarding your request for funds, NHTSA's Office of Crash Avoidance Research does not have a grant or contract program to help inventors develop or market their inventions. Our vehicle research efforts are primarily directed toward obtaining technical data to support the development of motor vehicle standards. Your submission has been reviewed by the staff in that office and there are no funds available from this agency for development of your mirror inventions.

Since you have given so much thought to mirror-related safety, you may be interested in knowing about an upcoming public meeting on the subject of mirrors. It will be on March 13, 1996, in Detroit, and I have enclosed a copy of the meeting notice in case you want to go. Even if you cannot attend the meeting, there will be a public docket where you can send your written comments.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:111#108 d:3/6/96

ID: 1983-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harper; Robinson & Co. -- Betty Thain

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Betty Thain Harper, Robinson & Co. 9620 N.E. Colfax Portland, Oregon 97220

Dear Ms. Thain:

This responds to your recent letter to this office, asking whether a client of yours may import used tires from Japan for resale. You noted that the tires met the requirements of Japanese Industrial Standards, but do not have a DOT symbol marked on the sidewall. Such tires may not be imported into this country, except under very limited circumstances.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that "no person shall...import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title, unless it is in conformity with such standard." You stated that your client wants to import used truck tires.

Section S6.5(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119) also requires tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars to have a DOT symbol permanently labeled on the sidewall, as a certification by the manufacturer that the tire fully complies with the standard. Without such a certification, the tires are not in conformity with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the law expressly prohibits importing such tires.

There are three very narrow exceptions to this principle. First, tires which are not in compliance with applicable safety standards may be imported if the importer posts a bond with the Customs Service, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3), to insure that any nonconforming tires would be brought into conformity with the applicable standards (in terms of meeting performance and certification requirements). This would be very difficult for the importer, because the used tires would have to conform to new tire standards. To my knowledge, no importer has ever been able to do this with used tires.

The second exception which allows tires without a DOT symbol to be imported occurs when the importer can furnish proof that the tires were manufactured before the applicable safety standard came into effect. For tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 119 became effective March 1, 1975. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, it appears that the tires your client wishes to import are more recently manufactured than this date, and so this exception will not prove useful.

The third exception involves three conditions, all of which must be satisfied for the tires to be imported. Tires without a DOT symbol on the sidewall may be imported if:

(a) they are used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars;

(b) they have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining on the tire; and

(c) the tires are imported solely for the purpose of retreading.

When these three conditions are met, the agency has interpreted the tires not to be "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the law. However, your client's tires appear to meet only the first condition.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by phone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 8, 1983

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: CONFORMANCE STANDARDS & REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTATION OF USED JAPANESE TIRES FOR U.S. RESALE

DEAR SIR:

OUR CUSTOMER, CALCO MARKETING SERVICE, INC. HAS REQUESTED US TO CONTACT YOU FOR A RULING CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF USED JAPANESE TRUCK TIRES WITH 60% - 90% TREAD FOR RESALE IN THE U.S. MARKET. THE TIRES MEET JAPANESE INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS (J.I.S.), BUT WERE NOT ORIGINALLY MANUFACTURED FOR THE U.S. MARKET AND THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE A D.O.T. NUMBER. I HAVE CONTACTED YOUR SEATTLE OFFICE AND WAS ADVISED THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY NO SPECIFIC RULING ADDRESSING THIS SITUATION AND SHOULD CONTACT YOU ON IT.

ATTACHED PLEASE FIND A COPY OF THE LETTER FROM OUR CUSTOMER REQUESTING US TO CONTACT YOU. IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT ME.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR PROMPT GUIDANCE AND ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER AND LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU.

VERY TRULY YOURS, HARPER, ROBINSON & CO.

BETTY THAIN

encl-

Miss Betty Thain Mgr. Harper Robinson & CO. 9620 N.E. Colfax Portland, Oregon 97220

Dear Betty,

I would appreciate your getting me a ruling on imported Japanese used tires.

I have been importing casings from Japan for recap purposes for many years and they prove to be better in quality than our own U.S. made tires. The Japanese tires made for their own domestic use is built stronger to with stand the rough dirt and gravel roads in Japan. Japan does not have as many surfaced road and freeways as the U.S. Since the Japanese casings that we import are used for off roads logging operations we find that they hold up better as recaps than do U.S. tires that have been recapped. After the tires have been buffed they still have about 1/2 inch remaining under rubber which is ideal for recapping. The U. S Tires do not have the remaining under rubber so they do not hold the retread as well as the Japanese casing.

The people that export the Japanese casings to me have offered me some used tires with from 60% to 90% tread remaining a and at attractive prices. I would like you to get me a ruling immediately from the Dept. of transportation as to the legality of importing this shipment of used tires. I have ordered a container load of the used tires and they should be shipped within the next week or two. That is why it is imperative that we get a ruling immediately. I understand that all new tires from Japan must have a Dept. of Transportion number stamped on them but I have been told that used tires from immediate use do not fall under this ruling. Please telephone me just as soon as you have an answer to my request.

I hope to hear from you very soon.

Very truly yours

ID: 1985-01.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dennis Moore -- Sierra Product, Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Dennis Moore Sierra Product, Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore, CA 94550

This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1984, asking whether it is permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to combine a turn signal lamp with a center high mounted stop lamp that is intended for the aftermarket as a retrofit.

As you have noted, the recent amendments to Standard No. 108 cover the center high mounted stop lamp only as an item of original equipment and do not purport to regulate the item as an aftermarket device. This means that the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.1 against combining the center high mounted stop lamp with any other lamp does not apply. The legality of such a combination, indeed, the legality of the auxiliary stop lamp itself, is determinable under the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered and/or operated.

The sole federal restriction on use of aftermarket devices does not appear in Standard No. 108, but in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108 (a)(2)(A) in essence forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. The combination turn signal/center high mounted lamp would not appear to have this effect.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

SIERRA PRODUCTS inc.

In reference to selling a High Center Mount Brake Light Retro-Kit to owners of Pre 198F autos and trucks"our Company is faced with a logistics Problem that includes questions of law and the desire to put out an economical reliable product whereas millions of Americans can easily and economically retrofit their used Autos with a High Center Mount Brake Light and enjoy the safety benefits as will people buying new 1986 cars.

We feel several factors lead us to a conclusion that if a High Center Mount Brake Light were allowed to be combined with a High Turn Signal that millions more retrofits would occur because of the low retail price and greater simplicity and reliability of a typical installation

These factors are:

1. In order to avoid the Federal Requirement of S4.4.1 of Standard 108 on "Retrofit Kits" for Pre 1986 Autos in the U.S., all *"Combined Function" lighted cars must be wired in the front to the Brake Switch or use a 15 to 30 Electronic Component "Separating Circuit" to accomplish the same effect.

2. Most U.S. autos (over half of 130 million) use "combined function lights and the chance of the owners of combined function autos using a High Center Brake Light will be significantly reduced if $7 to $10 is added to the Retail Price of a Retrofit Kit which must be done presently.

3. If "combined function" light auto owners are asked to wire to the Brake Light Switch, this makes for a much more difficult installation then going just a couple of feet into the trunk area. Sales of such a Retrofit package and therefore use of High Center Mount Brake Lights will be significantly reduced.

4. For years, SAE 186 has allowed Combination of High Brake Light with a High Turn Signal and apparently has been used to some degree in the U.S. unchallenged. However, the changing of S4.4.1 now challenges the legality of SAE 186 even when applied to "add on" lighting.

5. Buyers representing auto supply distributors and mass merchandisers are very reluctant to carry different models of a High Center Mount Brake Light (one for separate function and one for combined function lights). They are apt to forget about the more expensive model which would include the electronic converter or not carry such a product at all. One universal, low priced model has a good chance of national distribution. There have been many a good product "die on the vine" in the U.S. because of lack of Distribution and this should not be one of them.

6. If a "Separating Circuit" were to be used on a large scale (as they are beginning to), they should have federal safety specifications to assure reliability to the public. Otherwise the public will be lead into a false feeling of buying something that the government has sanctioned and says helps safety only to find out they are possibly at the mercy of an "unreliable electronic black box" that breaks down because of the lack of a reliable safety specification.

Even though Federal law only requires this device in Post 1986 autos and has no law requiring retrofit lights on Pre 1986 cars, the public will indirectly hold the Federal government responsible for a failure such as this, whether they are directly responsible or not, causing hard feelings and a definite loss of credibility.

7. A High Turn Signal combined with a High Center Brake Light as permitted in SAE 186 is a desirable additional safety feature over the High Center Mount Brake Light and we feel it does not at all confuse the functions of the existing required lights (on Pre 1986 autos).

8. Even though Post 1986 autos will not have the High Center Mount Brake Light combined with any other light, we feel that our design of combining a High Center Mount Brake Light with a High Turn Signal feature must be deemed a modification that is unconsequential to Public Safety. As a matter of fact, we feel it is Consequential To Public Safety but only in a Positive way.

9. In all traffic, especially heavy traffic, it is desirable for the following traffic, both immediately behind and far behind to know when a vehicle is about to change lanes or turn off the highway. Furthermore, lanes of traffic to either side could use this information in a constructive way to avoid accidents. In essence, we subscribe to the proven fact that if a High Center Mount Brake Light is put "Where People Look" and it reduces rear end accidents by over 50%, then the other "intention light", that is the Turn Light, would have a similar savings in "lateral" accidents as they would be also "Where People Look". Even if they were not immediately construed as a Turn Signal from a far distance, it is still a signal to other vehicles that "something that could affect traffic conditions is about to happen" and is valuable information to surrounding autos.

We believe a Study in Lateral initiated accidents would show this; however, we haven't the funds or the resources for such a study.

IN CONCLUSION: We are Petitioning for a Clarification of this Point and as soon as possible as this situation may cost the American Public great sums of money unnecessarily and perhaps undermine the effectiveness of a needed product.

*"Combined Function" autos is an automobile whose Brake and Turn Light are represented by One Filament in one or more bulbs.

ID: 86-5.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Doug Bereuter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Doug Bereuter Member, U.S. House of Representatives P.O. Box 82887 Lincoln, NE 68501

Dear Mr Bereuter:

Thank you for your July 18, 1986, correspondence enclosing a letter from your constituent, Ms. Dianna L. Prosser of Beatrice, who asked about Federal regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. I regret the delay in our response.

Ms. Prosser believes that the Federal government should encourage States to enact laws requiring passengers to use safety belts on school buses. She suggests that such a requirement would be consistent with State laws requiring the driver of a passenger car or school bus to use his or her safety belt. She asks also whether any states have enacted requirements for safety belt use in school buses.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your constituent's concerns. I would like to begin by clarifying that safety belts are not required by Federal law to be installed for passengers on large school buses. We have been carefully examining the issue of safety belts on large school buses. While NHTSA has often explained that States are free to order safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so, we believe that large school buses are very safe and that safety belts for passengers are not needed for safety.

Some background information on our school bus regulations might be helpful. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fastened a safety belt. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus driver since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses and the additional restraint system is needed to provide adequate crash protection for passengers.

However, large school buses already offer substantial protection to passengers and a Federal endorsement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary. In addition to meeting Federal school bus safety standards, large school buses are very safe vehicles because of their size and height, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. As stated earlier, NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large school buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own pupil transportation needs.

Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed in a June, 1985 NHTSA publication entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses." I have enclosed a copy of the report for Ms. Prosser's information.

Ms. Prosser also asked whether any State mandates the installation and use of safety belts in buses. New York has recently required installation of safety belts for passengers in large school buses. Requirements for the use of the belts would be set by the local board of education or board of trustees.

I would like to reiterate that the agency does not endorse installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses because we believe belts are not necessary to provide adequate crash protection. This contrasts with the data we have with regard to the use of safety belts by persons driving passenger cars. The Department's decision to promote effective State laws requiring the proper use of safety belts in passenger cars reflects our finding that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. If comparable data were available for school buses, our agency would not hesitate to take necessary and expeditious action.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

July 18, 1986

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

DOUG BEREUTER, M.C.

Please respond to: Pat Wergin District Staff P.O. Box 82887 Lincoln, NE 68501

June 27, 1986

Mr. Doug Bereuter Nebraska Representative U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Bereuter:

After much consideration, I have decided this issue should be addressed at the national level and not the state level.

Many states now have lawamaking it mandatory to wear seat belts when riding in the front seats of cars. Do any states mandate the provision of and use of seat belts on school buses? I have riden school buses and know that children don't always remain seated as they should. This has to be a source of great distraction for the driver. It it my understanding that school bus drivers must wear seat belts, maybe the children should too.

There was a school bus accident involving one of our city school buses this spring. Several of the students were injured and treated at the hospital, some school days were missed. The bus overturned and students were thrown as it turned. Some of these injuries surely could have been prevented if seat belts had been in use. Constantly, during the school year, we hear of accidents involving school buses that turned out worse.

Your consideration of this matter would be appreciated.

Sincerely, Dianna L. Prosser 705 Elk St. Beatrice, NE 68310

ID: aiam5533

"Dear Mr. Shetler: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995 asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green. You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted that the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators. You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. You also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acceptable. We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard specified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including turn signal pilot indicators and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator. We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light 'with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm.' must be used 'if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle.' Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with 'a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm.' must be used 'if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders.' Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to 'inside' and 'outside' the vehicle are inapposite. Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so. As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard No. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment 'be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions.' If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5555

"Dear Mr. Pennington: This responds to your letter concerning the rea seats of a 1979 Porsche 911 SC, which were not equipped with any type of seat belt. You asked two questions relating to whether these seats should have been equipped with seat belts. Your questions are addressed below. 1. Did the manufacturer's designation of 'two front' passenger seats eliminate any obligation on the part of the manufacturer to provide seat belts in the rear seats under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208? As explained below, a manufacturer's designation that a vehicle has two front seats does not eliminate the obligation to provide seat belts at rear seats, if those positions are 'designated seating positions.' By way of background information, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 required passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1973 and before September 1, 1986, to have either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each rear 'designated seating position.' The term 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1980, the term 'designated seating position' was defined as: any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. In a May 22, 1978, notification to vehicle manufacturers, the agency stated that manufacturers are responsible for determining the number of seating positions that are in the vehicle. The agency also stated: This does not mean, however, that the manufacturer's designation will be accepted by the agency if there are additional, obvious seating positions that are likely to be used by occupants while the vehicle is in motion. The agency unquestionably intends to require protection for all vehicle occupants. Thus, a manufacturer's specification that a vehicle has two front seats did not eliminate Standard No. 208's requirement for a seat belt assembly at each rear seat, if those locations met the above definition. 2. Did the Porsche 911 SC comply with, or did it violate, the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208? NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a vehicle complied with applicable safety standards outside a compliance proceeding. However, I can advise you of the factors the agency would look at to determine if the rear locations are designated seating positions. If those locations are designated seating positions, they should have been equipped with a seat belt assembly when originally manufactured. The May 22, 1978, notice provides a good summary of the agency's position. That notice states: the agency will consider any position ... capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female to be a 'designated seating position', if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the manufacturer knows the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. I note that the hip breadth of a sitting fifth percentile female is approximately 13 inches, and the sitting height is approximately 31 inches. These are the measurements NHTSA would consider in determining whether a position is capable of accommodating a fifth percentile female. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam0034

Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in response to your letter of August 16 in which you attached letter from your constituent, Mrs. Beverly Hoffman of San Diego. Mrs. Hoffman asked if there is any Federal or state regulation, or city ordinance, which forbids the removal or concealment of passenger seat belts in taxicabs. Mrs. Hoffman has raised an important question and one which is of vital concern to the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966: the retention of a (sic) safety equipment in a vehicle after its original purchase.; Since I expect that California law is of most interest to both Mrs Hoffman and you, I will answer her question on the basis of the California Vehicle Code. Since January 1, 1964, Section 27309 has made it an offense to sell in California any new passenger vehicle which does not have at least two state approved restraint belts or harnesses in its front seat. Retention of the front seat belts by the vehicle owner is indirectly required by Section 40001(b)(2) which makes it unlawful for 'an owner to request, cause, or permit the operation of any vehicle which is not *equipped as required in this Code*.' (emphasis supplied) Since California has no annual motor vehicle inspection, enforcement of this law has presumably been by spot inspection. Members of the California Highway Patrol (Section 2804) and city traffic officers (Section 2806) have the authority to inspect a vehicle to determine whether its equipment is in compliance with the Code.; With respect to rear seat belts which most directly concern Mrs Hoffman as a passenger, their installation has not been required by the Code. Such belts as she may have seen in the rear of California taxis have been provided as a courtesy of the owner rather than as a requirement of the law. But, as she correctly notes, all passenger cars including taxicabs manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these, Standard No. 208, will require taxis to be manufactured with lap restraint belts installed in each rear seating position. But if the California legislature has not amended the Vehicle Code itself to require their installation it would appear that there is no legal reason why a cab owner may not remove rear seat belts should he wish to go to the trouble.; Under the Act, the Secretary of Transportation does not have th authority to directly regulate motor vehicles 'after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Instead, Congress intended that used vehicles be regulated by periodic state inspection. To implement this intent the Secretary has been directed to study state inspection systems and, in due course, to establish uniform standards applicable to all used motor vehicles. A hypothetical standard--and one which we shall consider--requiring the presence of original equipment safety items at time of each inspection would be sufficient to cover retention of rear seat safety belts. But the Act establishes no requirement that the states or any individual follow any used vehicle standard. For the probably enforcement mechanism of used car standards it is necessary to turn to the companion Highway Safety Act of 1966. Under this Act each state is required to have a highway safety program in accordance with standards promulgated by the Secretary. One such standard, already issued, establishes minimum requirements for periodic motor vehicle inspection. Eventually it is possible that used car standards will be suggested to the states through this motor vehicle inspection standard, but enforcement of the used car standards will be left to the states.; Concerning concealment of the belts, I am aware of no legislation Federal, state, or municipal, which requires that a safety item not only be retained but also available for use. But I believe that sufficient authority may exist in the Highway Safety Act's mandate to the Bureau to include 'vehicle operation' in the highway safety program standards to warrant our serious consideration of it.; I hope that this has answered Mrs. Hoffman's questions and I appreciat her interest in traffic safety.; Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M. D., Director