ID: 2809o

Mr. Paul Scully
Vice President
Peterson Manufacturing Co.
4200 East 135th St.
Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, l988, asking for a clarification of a letter that this Office sent Wesbar Corporation on March 16, 1988, with respect to the term "effective projected luminous area."

Wesbar had asked whether it could include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" (Wesbar's language) in its calculation of the l2 square inch minimum effective projected luminous area required by S4.1.1.7 of Safety Standard No. l08. We replied that it could, assuming that the light shines through the reflector. You have pointed out that although a small amount of light escapes through a reflex reflector, the reflector is designed to return light from an outside source, rather than to direct light from a source inside the lamp, and that heretofore agency interpretations (e.g. on October 28, 1970, and October 28, 1979) had expressly excluded reflex reflectors from areas included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. Reflex reflectors are also excluded from the term by SAE J387 Terminology.

We appreciate your calling this matter to our attention. Previous interpretations by this Office clearly indicate that a "reflex reflector" is not to be included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. We also note that the SAE definition (paragraph 2, SAE J594f, January l977) is incorporated by reference into Standard No. l08, stating that this item of equipment is one that provides an indication of vehicle presence by reflected light (rather than projected light). We are providing a copy of this letter to Wesbar so that it will be apprised of our reevaluation, and our conclusion that the reflex reflector portion of a lens cannot be included in the calculations of the projected luminous lens area.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:108 d:8/l9/88

ID: 7378

Mr. Berkley C. Sweet
Vice President
School Bus Manufacturers Institute
7508 Ben Avon Road
Bethesda, MD 20817

Dear Mr. Sweet:

This responds to your letter of May 29, 1992 asking what minimum passenger size (weight and height) was used in developing the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. You noted that several school districts are now transporting newborn and under-school-age children to schools which provide day-care service, and that you have received inquiries concerning the "limits, if any, on passenger size and age that can be safely transported on school bus seats."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, defines a "school bus" as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purposes of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA has never specified a passenger size and/or age range applicable to the compartmentalized school bus seats required by Standard No. 222. In developing the standard, however, NHTSA considered the range of sizes and ages of children attending preprimary through secondary school.

NHTSA has developed approximate size and weight guidelines for child restraint systems. For children from birth to 9-12 months (or up to 20 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of an infant or convertible seat facing the rear. For children from 9-12 months to 4 years (or 20 pounds to 40 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of a convertible or toddler seat. If a school is transporting children in these age and weight ranges, they may want to consider using a school bus with safety belts to secure a child restraint system. I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled "Transporting Your Children Safely" for your information.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:7/28/92

ID: 2976yy

Ms. Vicki Haudler
4636 S. Cedar Lake Rd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Dear Ms. Haudler:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars.

I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:5/l0/9l

ID: 22705.drn

Mr. Bob Douglas
American Transportation Corporation
751 S. Harkrider
Conway, AR 72032





Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your request that we write a letter to the Government of Israel's Minister of Transportation. You wrote that you needed this letter because you are:

working to secure a bid for commercial buses to be built here in Conway Arkansas and to be exported to Israel. They have requested that we provide them a letter that states that FMVSS 220 is an official regulation and that the regulation only pertains to school buses. They require that this letter come from NHTSA.

The following provides the information you request.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was enacted on September 9, 1966,

(P.L. 85-563), in order to reduce traffic accidents, deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. This law, now codified as chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, directs the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), to which motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must conform and to which the manufacturers of such vehicles or equipment must certify compliance. The responsibility to establish FMVSSs has been delegated (by regulation) to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

It is my understanding that the Israeli Government wishes to procure buses that are not school buses. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards on rollover protection that apply to non-school buses. NHTSA has issued FMVSS 220 (49 CFR Section 571.220), School bus rollover protection to establish performance requirements for school bus rollover protection, but does not apply this standard to non-school buses.

If you wish further information, please write to me at this address or contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at: (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:220
d.3/6/01

ID: 15302.ztv

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1997, to Samuel J. Dubbin, the former Chief Counsel of this agency. You ask for a "reconsideration" of his interpretation letter to you of July 29, 1996.

That letter informed you that we saw no conflict between California Vehicle Code Sec. 25100(e) requiring clearance lamps to be visible from all distances between 500 feet and 50 feet to the front and rear of the vehicle, and paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 providing that clearance lamps located other than on the front and rear need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard. In our opinion, S5.3.1.1.1 did not relieve clearance lamps of the requirement that they be visible and meet minimum photometric requirements "directly to the rear" and at 45 degrees outboard.

You disagree with this interpretation, commenting that "perhaps one could see at least one of the so-called Clearance lights 'to the rear' if one were in the left or right lane directly adjacent to the lane" in which the vehicle carrying the clearance lamps were traveling. We do not think that our interpretation was mistaken. It remains our belief that a clearance lamp located other than on the rear of a vehicle, such as on a fender, but which is visible directly to the rear, will be visible without reference to an adjacent lane, and will be visible from 50 to 500 feet directly to the rear of the vehicle as specified by CVC Sec. 25100(e). The issue of whether a particular manufacturer may have violated the standard by recessing its clearance lamps on the side of a vehicle so that they are not visible and do not meet applicable photometric requirements from the rear is a different issue, and does not call into question our prior interpretations.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:7/17/97

ID: 1992y

Commander
U.S. Army Missile Command
(Mr. Bob Bergman)
ATTN: AMCPM-FM-TM
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 35898-5793

Dear Commander:

This is in reply to a letter of August 7, l989, from Jerry L. Dooley, Deputy Project Manager, Non-Line of Sight, with respect to "safety standards of the military nature", in particular those that would apply to the M1037 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheel Vehicle (HMMWV), as well as the M993 Bradley Fighting Vehicle System (BFVS).

This agency has jurisdiction over all motor vehicles, defined as vehicles driven or drawn by mechanical power which are manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Our principal role is the issuance of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the monitoring of the notification and remedial campaigns of manufacturers upon the occurrence of noncompliances with the standards, or safety related defects in vehicles. We have never issued safety standards for military vehicles. Quite the opposite; although we interpret our authority as covering military vehicles, the agency has always specifically exempted from compliance with the standards any motor vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in accordance with contractual specifications.

Frequently, military contracts for procurement of vehicles will call for their conformance with the Federal safety standards, when the nature of the vehicle is such (e.g. passenger car, bus) that conformance with the standards is not inconsistent with the configuration required to accomplish their mission. None of our safety standards for civilian vehicles cover driver field of view, basic visibility requirements, or ingress/egress. Our glazing standard does specify minimum levels of light transmittance, and our rearview mirror standard covers rear view mirror placement and rearward field of view. I am enclosing copies of these standards for your information.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures - Standards Nos. lll, 205

ref: 571.7 d:9/7/89

ID: nht79-2.15

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 1, 1979

Mr. William G. Finn Operations Manager Continental Products Corp. 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. Finn:

This is in response to your letter of September 7, 1979, asking whether tire sidewall molding, required by the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), may be accomplished using characters with a height of 6.5 millimeters, rather than 5/32nds of an inch as stated in the regulation (49 CFR 575.104, Figure 1). You also ask whether UTQG sidewall moldings must appear on both sides of the tire.

The specification of 5/32-inch tire sidewall characters was intended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish a minimum requirement to assure readability of the UTQG information presented. The agency has no objection to the use of characters of a height greater than 5/32nds of an inch, e.g., 6.5 millimeters, so long as all characters used to convey UTQG information are of the same height. UTQG information need be molded on only one sidewall of the tire.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 7, 1979

Mr. Hipolit - Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Per our telephone conversation of September 5, please let us know the answers to the following questions regarding the UTQG law which goes into effect for radial tires on March 1, 1980.

1. Can the lettering molded into the side-wall of the tire be 6.5 mm high?

2. Must these markings be molded on both sides of the tire, or is one side sufficient?

Your prompt reply would be most appreciated, and we thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

William G. Finn Operations Manager

WGF:jld

ID: nht87-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Ernst; Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ernst Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt GERMANY

Dear Dr. Ernst:

This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1987, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new headlamp manufactured by Hella that BMW has installed on a new car which it introduced in the United States around April 1, 1987.

The headlamp is of the replaceable bulb type, and as you describe it consists of two additional parts: "the housing, to which the cover lens is bonded by means of a two "component adhesive", and 'the optical module, consisting of the reflector and the convex lens, joined by the lens carrier...." In your words, "The two parts are held together by three screws", and you believe that "the two parts, firmly screwed together, are as effectively joined as would be the case if bonded".

Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 108 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" in pertinent part as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly. . . ." In the Hella design, the lens and reflector assembly are not bonded, and thus the headlamp is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp" that is permissible for use on motor vehicles sold and used in the Unite States. The intent of the definition is to ensure that the headlamp lens and reflector are an integral replaceable unit, since that is the only means to assure a mechanically aimable replaceable bulb headlamp which is capable of using any replacement standardized replaceable light source and meets the necessary photometric performance. The foundation of mechanical aimability is that the beam and aiming pads are manufactured to have a specific relationship. If this relationship is altered by replacement of the lens only, or of the reflector only, there is a high likelihood that the lamp may not meet minimum performance requirements when aimed mechanically.

ID: nht87-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allen R. Tank

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Allen R. Tank President Minikin 606 NE Lincoln Avenue St. Cloud, MN 56301

Dear Mr. Tank:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1986, with respect to the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether a vehicle with two wheels at the front, and one at the rear with two tires mounted on it, would still be regarded as a motorcycle.

The definition of a motorcycle is "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." This is technically inaccurate in part because wheels do not contact the ground. I believe that the drafter of the definition meant to say "tires" rather than "wheels." Thus the configuration about which you have asked is one in which four tires contact the ground, and we therefore conclude that such a vehi cle would not be regarded as a motorcycle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I have communicated with George Shifflett in the Department regarding our three wheel vehicle. According to your standards, we are governed by the laws specifically addressed to motorcycles. The question was raised, if the three wheel vehicle had two whe els in the front with one in the rear, the rear rim having two tires mounted on it, would it still be regarded as a motorcycle.. I have enclosed three photos that will visually explain our proposed application.

I would appreciate your opinion on the additional tire effect on our motorcycle classification.

Sincerely,

Allen R. Tank President

cc: George Shifflett

ID: nht88-2.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/88

FROM: WAYNE IVIE -- MANAGER, VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, NHTSA

TO: NHTSA, OFFICE OF SAFETY COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED DEC. 8, 1988 TO WAYNE IVIE, OREGON DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA

TEXT: On June 16th of this year, Oregon enacted a mandatory helmet law. Anyone riding on a motorcycle or moped on our highways must wear "approved" protective headgear.

Our agency adopted FMVSS 218, Motorcycle Helmets, as the minimum standard for helmets. Part S5.6.1 of the standard requires permanent and legible labeling of helmets, including the DOT symbol, to prove that a helmet meets that standard. Helmet manufactu rers apparently attach a sticker with the DOT symbol onto the back of the helmet.

Our office is receiving inquiries from individuals and police officers, who advise that on many helmets, this DOT sticker has fallen off or been removed by someone in order to paint the helmet, etc. They add that often there is no other labeling in or o n the helmet, so they can not determine that it meets any standard. (Is considered "approved" for use in Oregon.) To complicate this further, there is no manufacturer or brand name anywhere on the helmet, so contacting a dealer or manufacturer for infor mation is not possible. Advising someone to dispose of such a helmet and get another with proper labeling doesn't seem an appropriate answer, and may be just an undue expense for the motorcycle rider.

Are manufacturers allowed to use the DOT sticker only, with no other labeling, or is this being done in violation of FMVSS 218? (If the DOT sticker is now the only label used, we would definitely like to recommend that a permanently embossed DOT symbol somewhere in or on the helmet be also required.) Have you been advised of similar problems by other jurisdictions? Do you have suggestions on how we can resolve the situation of a helmet that appears to have been made in compliance with standard require ments, is in a good, undamaged condition, yet does not have any labeling?

Thank you for your help in this matter.