ID: 24100.ztv

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865





Dear Mr. Yousry:

This is in reply to your e-mails of February 21 and 22, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You referenced S5.1.1.18 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which states that a backup lamp is not required to meet minimum photometric values at each test point specified in Table 1 of SAE Standard J593c if the sum of the candlepower measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 2 of Standard No. 108 is not less than the group totals specified in that figure. You have tested a backup lamp that exceeds the 300 cd maximum at test point H-V by 80 cd, but meets the group total requirements, and ask whether the lamp is acceptable.

The answer is no. Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 require back up lamps to be designed to conform with SAE Standard J593c, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under the SAE Standard, when one or more back up lamps are used, the maximum intensity at any point in each lamp must not exceed 300 cd.

The SAE standard establishes 22 discrete test points. Figure 2 of Standard No. 108 clusters these test points into six groups and totals the minimum photometric value of each test point in the group for a group total. If a manufacturer tests a back up lamp for photometric conformance and the lamp does not meet the minimum value specified at any one of the 22 test points, under S5.1.1.18, the lamp will pass the photometric test if the value measured at the failed test point, when added to the measured value of other test

points in the group, results in a total that equals or exceeds the total required for the group as a whole. But Figure 2 in no way affects the limitation of 300 cd imposed by SAE Standard J593c.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/4/02

ID: nht92-1.45

DATE: 12/02/92

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, TIRE DIVISION, RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO FRANK E. TIMMONS (A40; STD. 109; STD. 119; PART 574); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER (DATE ILLEGIBLE) FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.

TEXT: Your November 13, 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce Kuwait has just been brought to my attention (see attached). There are two statements in your letter that are incorrect. If the Kuwait government does not realize this, it is possible that US tire manufacturers could be adversely affected.

In your third paragraph, starting on line 3, you state" . . .all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119)." This is not true. Only those tires designed and offered for sale for use on highway vehicles, other than passenger cars, must be certified as being in compliance with FMVSS 119.

The other misstatement in your letter is in your response to their question No. 1. "Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the 'DOT' mark?". Your answer - "Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles." is not correct. Only those tires intended for use on highway vehicles must be labeled with the DOT mark. NHTSA has stated in the past on more than one occasion that the DOT may not be labeled on tires that do not have an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

It is requested that NHTSA send a follow-up letter to Kuwait clarifying that your response applied only to motor vehicles and their tires that are designed primarily for use on the highway.

As mentioned to Walter Myers of your staff yesterday, I will ask Mr. Ed Wunder to discuss this with his contacts in Kuwait. Mr. Wunder is stationed in Saudi Arabia and is supported jointly by industry and the Department of Commerce (NIST) to help US manufacturers sell their products in the Gulf countries.

ID: nht71-5.55

DATE: 05/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1971, requesting an additional interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation.

If in fact, the vehicle manufactured is not considered a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act and the mini-bike interpretation (34 F.R. 15416) (copy enclosed), then Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, and section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402) will be inapplicable.

SINCERELY,

PATTON, BLOW, VERRILL, BRAND & BOGGS

May 3, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Re: Your reference 40-30

Thank you for your letter of April 28th in response to my letter of April 12th which requested confirmation of my interpretation of certain requirements of MVSS Part 574. Your reply raises an additional question which I would appreciate having answered by your office.

Your letter states that "the regulation does not apply to tires manufactured exclusively for the [off-road vehicle]." The underscored words "manufactured exclusively" concern me inasmuch as I pointed out in my April 12 letter that Cushman frequently utilizes DOT coded tires on golf carts and other off-road vehicles -- that is, tires that could also be used on on-road vehicles. The question remains, therefore, whether the record-keeping requirements as well as the requirements of Section 15 U.S.C. @ 1402 apply in the case of tires that could be used for either on-road or off-road vehicles but are in fact utilized on off-road vehicles.

In light of the foregoing, I find it necessary to repeat my request for confirmation of the analysis made in my April 12 letter as follows:

"As I understand it, Cushman is not required to follow the Part 574 record keeping with respect to tires installed

2 on such vehicles [off-road], nor would the other requirements of 15 U.S.C. @ 1402 apply. Further, as I read Part 574, Cushman has no obligation to report to the tire manufacturer any information regarding tires purchased for installation on off-road vehicles."

In the event that you have any questions in connection with the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Charles O. Verrill, Jr.

ID: 18569.ztv

M. J. Shaw
379 E. Main St.
Peru, IN 46970-2522

Dear Mr. or Ms. Shaw:

This is in reply to your postcard of August 4, 1998, to Philip Recht, the Deputy Administrator of this agency, about the recent final rule on low-speed vehicles.

Your first question is whether "the Canadian Bombardier neighborhood vehicle (electric mini-car) [is] now street legal in the USA." Your second question is whether "all states, including [Indiana, are] registering the NV for legal operation."

The Federal government has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards such as it did recently with Standard No. 500 Low-Speed Vehicles. Thus, if a motor vehicle that meets the definition of "low-speed vehicle" is manufactured and certified by its manufacturer as complying with Standard No. 500, it is legal to import and sell that vehicle in the United States. Thus, Bombardier may import its Neighborhood Vehicle (NV) from Canada by certifying compliance with Standard No. 500. We do not know, however, whether Bombardier has begun to do so. Although the sale of a certified low-speed vehicle would not violate Federal law, the requirements for registration of vehicles and conditions of their use on the public roads are matters under the authority of the states. This means that a vehicle could be "street legal," to use your term, for Federal purposes but not under state law.

This brings us to your second question. We have no information whether states are or are not registering NVs or other types of low-speed vehicles. Some states, at this point, may be reviewing Standard No. 500 to determine how it affects the laws currently existing in that state. We do not know the views of Indiana on this issue. However, if you wish to ask the Indiana Department of Motor Vehicles for its opinion, you should identify the vehicle as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose maximum speed is more than 20 miles per hour but not more than 25 miles per hour.

If you have any further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:500
d.9/29/98

ID: 1982-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Norton Motors Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1982, asking whether a proposed motorcycle taillamp assembly would comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you point out, the standard requires a minimum distance of 4 inches edge to edge between turn signal lamps and stop/tail lamps. Since you state that you cannot achieve this with your design, the lamp as currently designed would not be permitted by our standard. This will confirm the oral interpretation provided by Taylor Vinson of this office when you telephoned on March 22.

You will be interested to know that we are presently studying side and rear conspicuity of motorcycles. This research is being conducted by Ketron in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania, and the final report is expected in July 1982 should you wish to obtain a copy of it from us.

As you requested confidential treatment of your engineering drawing, we are returning it to you.

ENC.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAWING

NORTON MOTORS (1978) LIMITED

MARCH 5, 1982

Frank Berndt Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dept of Transportation

Dear Sir,

NORTON REAR LAMP UNITS 92-1068

1. We have designed a new rear lamp unit, and enclose a print of the drawing, which we would ask you to regard as confidential.

2. As you will see, the rear lamp unit comprises a very wide stop/ tail light assembly, with three separate lenses.

3. Your regulation (MVSS 108 issue 1, March 79) calls for minimum horizontal separation centre line to centre line, of 9 inches between turn signal lamps. Ours are 12.2 inches apart.

4. However, you also call for a minimum distance of 4 inches, edge to edge between turn signal lamps and stop/tail lamps. This we cannot achieve because of our very wide rear light.

5. We feel the wide rear light makes a positive contribution to road safety. We need your assistance to determine whether or not you consider this rear lamp unit satifies the spirit of your legislation, if not the letter.

We shall await your reply with great interest, and thank you for your assistance.

G.K. BLAIR SALES MANAGER

ID: nht81-1.10

DATE: 02/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Richard A. Rechlicz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 18, 1980, letter asking several questions about the application of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to school buses.

First, you refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.1 and question which paragraph establishes the minimum safety level. Since paragraph (a) was first proposed and subsequently modified by the addition of paragraph (b), you believe that paragraph (a) defines the minimum level of safety while paragraph (b) meets or exceeds that level of safety. This reading of the standard is not completely accurate. Paragraph (a) of that section was the first part of the section to be proposed. Before the rule became effective, however, the proposal was amended to include paragraph (b). Accordingly, both paragraphs must be read together as defining the minimum mandatory safety performance requirement.

Second, you ask for our opinion of the preemption clause in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). You state that your interpretation is that no State or local government may adopt a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. An exception exists for standards applicable to vehicles purchased for the State's or the local government's own use. This is an accurate reading of the preemption clause, however, a major area of contention frequently arises around what constitutes the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard.

Third, you ask whether the Federal government, through Standard No. 217, has preempted States from regulating unobstructed openings for purposes of emergency exists. As you are aware, the standard states that the emergency exit opening must be of a certain size. Further, the standard specifies the location of one of the seats at the forward-most side of the emergency exit. These are the agency's only requirements relating to the unobstructed emergency exit opening. With respect to whether a State could regulate further in this area, it would depend upon the type of regulation the State adopted. For example, a regulation that governed the size of the opening or the location of the forwardmost seat would probably be preempted. However, a regulation that required an aisle leading to the side emergency door would not likely be preempted, since the Federal government does not regulate aisles in buses.

Your fourth question asks us to comment on whether a Wisconsin statute requires aisles in school buses. The agency does not issue interpretations of State statutes. You should contact appropriate State officials for this information.

Finally, you recite a Wisconsin definition of emergency door zone which states that it is "the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit . . . " You then ask whether there are any such zones on buses constructed with side emergency exits. The agency, as stated above, requires an unobstructed opening at each exit (S5.2.3.1). If Wisconsin defines this as a zone, then such a zone exists in buses for purposes of the Wisconsin statute.

SINCERELY,

RICHARD A. RECHLICZ

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR

December 18, 1980

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

RE: Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release File No. 80-82

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Please be advised that the undersigned has been retained by and represents a corporation engaged in the manufacture of school buses throughout the United States, for the purpose of investigation certain issues that relate to standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release and the Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter MVD 17 entitled Transporation of School Children.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request a written legal opinion from your offices on the issues raised in this correspondence as they relate to standard 217 and MVD 17.

First, as I understand the legislative history of standard 217, S5.2.3.1 was first issued with only subsection (a). Later, as a response to and after opposition was voiced by certain west coast bus manufacturers using the "California window" due to rear mounted engines, NHTSA promulgated subsection (b). Thus, the present standard allows the manufacturer to choose either subsection (a) or subsection (b). Is it correct that subsection (a) established the minimum degree of safety and that subsection (b) either meets or exceeds that minimum standard?

Second, please advise as to the NHTSA position on the supremacy clause, 15USC section 1392(b). It was my belief that with respect to the directive of Congress to the NHTSA to address itself to the safety standards itemized in 15 USC 1395(i), where the NHTSA issued a safety standard thereon, the State could not adopt "any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of said vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." (State owned and used vehicles excepted).

Third, and I believe this relates to question 2, as I read Standard 217, especifically 217 S5.2.1, it is my impression that all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more "shall meet the unobstructed openings requirements by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 through S5.5". Has the federal government pre-empted the field as to what is unobstructed for the openings? For this example, please refer to the spec drawing enclosed: if the manufacturer meets the requirements of S5.4.2.1(b), can the State initiate a rule that the seating arrangement as shown in the drawing for the side door obstructs the opening? (Assume also that the seating arrangement meets federal specifications as to distance.)

Fourth, it is my belief that nowhere in the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17, is there a requirement that buses must have aisles. From your reading of that chapter alone, and I suggest that the word aisle is used only in MVD 17.13(1) and 17.25(2)(b), do you find anywhere that MVD 17 either

(1) defines aisle? or

(2) requires aisles in school buses?

Again, I request the opinion on this aspect only from your reading of the provision, not from other outside factors.

Finally, MVD 17.06(3) defines "emergency door zone" as "the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit. . ." From a reading of this definition alone, could you please advise as to whether there are any emergency door zones on a bus that is manufactured with exists meeting FMVSS 217 S5.2.3.1(b) ("California window" and side door exit).

I understand that responses to all of these issues raised in this correspondence will require a considerable amount of time by your offices. Please realize that it is important that we have a response from your offices on each question.

Accordingly, if there is any question that is not clear to you as stated, please call.

Furthermore, I would request that you acknowledge receipt of this correspondence.

Your prompt and immediate attention to this correspondence is appreciated as we are currently experiencing certain time restraints.

I thank you in advance for your consideration and courtesies. Seasons greetings to you and your family.

ENC.

cc: THOMAS BUILT BUS, INC. ATTN: BRYCE HUNT; RODDY LIGON, JR.; WILLIAM G. LADEWIG, ATTY AT LAW;

NOTE:

THE SEAT JUST FORWARD OF THE SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR CAN NOT EXTEND BEYOND LEADING VERTICAL EDGE OF DOOR OPENING.

APPLIES TO:

"S" MODELS WITH SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR AND WITHOUT REAR EMERGENCY DOOR.

ALL GAUGES TO CONFORM TO AMERICAN IRON A STEEL INSTITUTE (AISI) SPECIFICATIONS

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC. HIGH POINT, N.C.

TITLE

SEAT LOCATION - SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR FMVSS #217

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 003059 bts

Mr. Joe Masci
Pollak Switch Products Division
300 Dan Road
Canton, MA 02021

Dear Mr. Masci:

This responds to your May 2, 2003, faxed letter and your telephone conversations with Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to a seat belt tension sensor (BTS). You stated that the BTS is used in conjunction with a passenger weight classification system to prevent misclassification of children seated in child safety seats. Your letter asked several questions as to how a seat belt assembly using a seat belt tension sensor would be tested for compliance with Federal standards. Each of your questions is addressed below.

1. General Applicability of FMVSS No. 209.

You asked if the BTS would be considered part of the seat belt assembly under FMVSS No. 209, or if it would be considered an anchorage under FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, which is a vehicle standard. S3 of FMVSS No. 210 defines a seat belt anchorage as:

[A]ny component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

Accordingly, FMVSS No. 210 applies to fixed attachment points on the vehicle structure and the associated hardware. FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies, defined as:

[A]ny strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle. (S3 of FMVSS No. 209)

In your phone conversation, you stated that the BTS is sold to manufacturers of seat belt assemblies and may be placed in a variety of positions on the assembly. As a component of the seat belt assembly, the BTS would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 209. However, because the BTS may be incorporated into a seat belt system in a variety of ways, we are unable to determine whether the BTS could ever be considered a seat belt anchorage under FMVSS No. 210.

2. FMVSS No. 209 Strength requirements

In your letter you included a diagram properly identifying the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly and asked for verification of the strength requirements for each labeled component. The strength requirements for FMVSS No. 209 are contained in: S4.2, webbing; S4.3, hardware; and S4.4, assembly performance.

Under S4.2(b), webbing in the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a breaking strength of not less than 22,241 N (5,000 pounds). The upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a minimum breaking strength of 17,793 N (4,000 pounds). The testing procedure for both portions of webbing is contained in S5.1(b).

S4.3(c) requires that attachment hardware bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly must be able to withstand a force of at least 40,034 N (9,000 pounds) when testing in accordance with S5.2(c)(1). Other attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 26,689 N (6,000 pounds) when tested under S5.2(c)(2).

S4.4 sets forth the strength requirements of a Type 2 seat belt assembly in subsection (b). Under S4.4(b)(1), each structural component in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds). This includes the BTS, if it is located along the pelvic portion of the pelvic restraint. S4.4(b)(2) requires that each structural component in the upper torso restraint portion of the seat belt assembly be able to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds). This includes a torso guide loop and retractor if the design permits only upper torso restraint forces on the restraint. Under S4.4(b)(3), any structural component that is common to both the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). This would include any buckle or portion of the BTS that would be subject to forces from both the pelvic and upper torso restraints. The seat belt assembly performance for a Type 2 seat belt assembly is tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b).

3. Procedure for Testing Assembly Performance

In your letter you asked what would be the proper method of attaching and orienting an assembly with a BTS under the test procedures in S5.3. Under S5.3, each end of the pelvic or torso portion of the belt assembly is attached to an anchorage bar to form a loop over rollers on a testing machine. (See FMVSS No. 209 Figure 5, enclosed.) The anchor points are such that the webbing is parallel in two sides of the loop. The attaching bolts are either aligned with or at an angle of 45 or 90 degrees to the webbing, whichever results in an angle nearest to 90 degrees between webbing and attachment hardware.

You stated that you believe the appropriate testing method for an assembly with the "BTS installed between the fixed anchor on the pelvic-only side of the belt and the belt webbing" would be to utilize the procedure in S5.3(a)(2) for a "nonthreaded anchorage." Such a determination would be governed by the specific application of the belt assembly and not by the presence of a BTS. S5.3(a)(2) declares that testing will be performed in accordance with the installation instructions provided with belts designated for use in specific models of vehicles. In such an instance, the anchorages of the vehicle-specific assembly would be installed for testing so as to produce the maximum angle in use indicated by the installation instructions. From your letter and phone conversations, the BTS is sold to seat belt assembly manufacturers for eventual use in a variety of vehicle models. As such, the "nonthreaded anchorage" procedure would only be appropriate in those instances where the BTS is incorporated into a seat belt assembly that is designed for a specific vehicle and is accompanied by instructions for installation specific to that vehicle.

For the assembly you specified, compliance testing would require the attaching bolts to be set according to the general set-up procedure. The attaching bolts would be positioned under S5.3(a)(2) such that the angle between the webbing and the attachment hardware is as close to 90 degrees as possible.

4. Minimum Force Requirements for Assembly Performance

In your letter you asked if the force minimums listed for the Type 2 belt component strength requirements apply to each component individually or to the test loop as a whole. The answer is that these force requirements apply to the components and not to the test loop. Under S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 209, for a Type 2 belt, the structural components in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds), the structural components in the upper torso restraint must withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds), and structural components that are common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). The test procedure for Type 2 belt assembly components requires a tensile force equal to that of the appropriate minimum be applied to the components (S5.3(b)). Therefore, in compliance testing of the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly, a force of 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be applied to the test loop. The application of the 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be required so that the components would experience a tensile force of 11,120 N (2,500 pounds); the minimum required.

We note that in a letter to Mr. Douglas Kubehl, dated March 16, 1992, we took the position that under S4.4(b) and the corresponding procedure in S5.3(b), the minimum force requirement would be applied to the test loop. However, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect. The previous interpretation would result in Type 2 seat belt assembly components being tested to much lower force requirements than components in a Type 1 seat belt assembly. However, it is our understanding that all manufacturers of Type 2 seat belt assemblies have built and tested their products in a manner consistent with this revised interpretation, so this revision will not cause any seat belt assemblies (or the vehicles in which they are installed) to become noncompliant. To the extent a manufacturer has relied upon our previous interpretation, we will only pursue an enforcement action for noncompliance with the standard prospectively.

5. Manual Belts Subject to the Requirements of FMVSS No. 208

In your letter, you ask if you are correct in understanding that the strength requirements of S4.4 do not apply if the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208 are met instead. Your understanding is correct. Under S4.6 of FMVSS No. 209, manual seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, would not be required to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of FMVSS No. 209. [1] This includes the FMVSS No. 209 strength requirements for seat belt assembly components.

You further ask, "how frequently do vehicle manufacturers opt for the 208 test option over the static component strength tests in 209?" A seat belt assembly subject to FMVSS No. 209 must comply with that standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to that standard. We do not collect or maintain data on how vehicle manufacturers certify with respect to their seat belt assemblies, although NHTSA may examine a manufacturer's certification in connection with any prospective or pending enforcement action. As such, we do not know with what frequency manufacturers opt for the FMVSS No. 208 compliance option.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:209
d.7/16/03





---

[1] Excepted from this provision are seat belts that are subject to S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 208, which cross references FMVSS No. 209. S4.1.2.1(c)(2) does not apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1986.

ID: nht91-5.35

DATE: September 6, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jt Covelli -- President, Jt Covelli Marketing & Media

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter undated from Jt Covelli to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6369)

TEXT:

This responds to your recent undated letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to whether Federal law allows the use of decals on center highmounted stop lamps. You report that Wisconsin has no law governing the use of a decal on the brake light.

THe subject is a complicated one under Federal law, but I shall try to explain it as simply as possible. There is no restriction under Federal law on the application of a decal to the center stop lamp, if the decal is placed there by the vehicle owner.

Center stop lamps were not required on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and there are no Federal restrictions upon application of decals to lamps on pre-1986 model cars that may have been retrofitted with them. With respect to application of the decal on the center lamp of a passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, Federal law prohibits the application a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop, either before or after its sale to the first owner, if the application of the decal creates a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Conversely, such application is permitted if the lamp remains in compliance with all applicable Federal requirements with the decal installed. For example, the Federal standard calls for a minimum "effective projected luminous area" of 4 1/2 square inches. Application of a decal to a lamp meeting the minimum area requirement would reduce the effective projected luminous area below 4 1/2 square inches, creating a noncompliance. On the other hand, if that area were large enough, and more than 4 1/2 square inches of it remained after the application of a decal, application of the decal would not create a noncompliance with the luminous area specification. The standard also calls for measurement of photometric performance at certain specified test points on the lamp. Obviously, the lamp must continue to provide the minimum photometric performance specified by the standard for those test points with the decal applied. Thus, whether application of a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop creates a noncompliance is dependent upon the size of the lamp and the size, lettering, and transparency of the decal.

ID: 0473

Mr. John Sheppard
Sales and Marketing Manager
Reflexite Canada, Inc.
6790 Kitimat Road, Unit 18
Mississauga
Ontario L5N 5L9
Canada

Dear Mr. Sheppard:

We have received your letter of November 2, 1994, asking whether certain conspicuity material could be used on trailers required to meet S5.7 of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed samples of the material.

The material alternates red and white stripes "oriented at a 45 degree angle to the edge of the roll." Rolls are either 6 or 8 inches in width and "will not have DOT-C2 marking." In addition, we note that the horizontal length of the red segments is 5 1/2 inches (and presume an equal length for the white segments). Specifically, you have asked whether this material could "be applied to the lower edge of the vehicle's rear doors as a compliant substitute for the 2" 'block pattern' material currently being used?"

Paragraph S5.7's specifications for conspicuity material are intended to ensure uniformity of treatment in order to enhance the ability of drivers of other vehicles to detect large objects in the roadway under conditions when headlamps are used. While S5.7 does not require that the red and white color segments be rectangular, it does establish requirements for their length and width. Under S5.7.1.3(b), each segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm. The color segment separation of 5 1/2 inches on your sample is approximately 140 mm, and thus below the minimum permitted by the standard. Although currently, under S5.7.1.3(d), three widths of retroreflective material are permissible: 50 mm (DOT-C2), 75 mm (DOT-C3), and 100 mm (DOT-C4) and your widths of 6 inches (150 mm) and 8 inches (200mm) do not conform to these specifications, the agency has proposed that these be minimum minimum widths for the DOT grades indicated. We expect a final rule to be issued on this proposal in the near future.

Because the retroreflective material discussed above would not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for color segment length (and currently width), it could not be used as a substitute for the DOT-C2 material that you currently manufacture. Further, geometrically and photometrically complying material would require the appropriate DOT grade identification marking for use on a trailer required to comply with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/7/94

ID: nht94-4.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Sheppard -- Sales and Marketing Manager, Reflexite Canada, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/2/94 FROM JOHN SHEPPARD TO CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA (OCC 10473)

TEXT: We have received your letter of November 2, 1994, asking whether certain conspicuity material could be used on trailers required to meet S5.7 of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed samples of the material.

The material alternates red and white stripes "oriented at a 45 degree angle to the edge of the roll." Rolls are either 6 or 8 inches in width and "will not have DOT-C2 marking." In addition, we note that the horizontal length of the red segments is 5 1/ 2 inches (and presume an equal length for the white segments). Specifically, you have asked whether this material could "be applied to the lower edge of the vehicle's rear doors as a compliant substitute for the 2" 'block pattern' material currently bein g used?"

Paragraph S5.7's specifications for conspicuity material are intended to ensure uniformity of treatment in order to enhance the ability of drivers of other vehicles to detect large objects in the roadway under conditions when headlamps are used. While S 5.7 does not require that the red and white color segments be rectangular, it does establish requirements for their length and width. Under S5.7.1.3(b), each segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm. The color segment separation of 5 1/2 inches on your sample is approximately 140 mm, and thus below the minimum permitted by the standard. Although currently, under S5.7.1.3(d), three widths of retroreflective material are permissible: 50 mm (DOT-C2), 75 mm (DOT-C3), and 100 mm (DOT-C4) and your widths of 6 inches (150 mm) and 8 inches (200mm) do not conform to these specifications, the agency has proposed that these be minimum minimum widths for the DOT grades indicated. We expect a final rule to be issued on this proposal in the near future.

Because the retroreflective material discussed above would not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for color segment length (and currently width), it could not be used as a substitute for the DOT-C2 material that you currently manufacture. Furth er, geometrically and photometrically complying material would require the appropriate DOT grade identification marking for use on a trailer required to comply with Standard No. 108.