ID: 2843o

Mr. M. Iwase
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1988, with respect to photometric values for stop lamps and taillamps on motorcycles, and the spacing required between them and turn signal lamps.

You have asked two questions with respect to two types of motorcycle rear lighting devices, which you call "Structure l" and "Structure 2". Although a single lamp located on the vertical centerline may be used to fulfill rear lighting requirements on motorcycles, each of your Structures features two bulbs, symmetrically placed on each side of the vertical centerline. Each Structure is a single lighting device, featuring a turn signal bulb at each extremity. In Structure l a chamber containing a tail/stop lamp bulb is directly inboard of the chamber containing a turn signal bulb. The two chambers on each side are separated by a central portion of the device which is decorative in nature. Unlike Structure l, Structure 2 is a three-chamber device, with separate chambers at each end for the turn signal bulbs, and a central chamber incorporating two tail/stop lamp bulbs.

With respect to each Structure and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 you have asked:

"(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section '1' which are specified in Figure 11b of S4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamp on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section '2' which are specified in figure 1b of S4.1.1.11."

Figure lb specifies the minimum and maximum allowable candlepower values for lighting devices with one, two, and three lighted sections. However, the number of lighted sections is calculated with respect to each lamp, not the total number of lighted sections used for a specific purpose, or lit at a given time. We consider Structure 1 to comprise two separate tail/stop lamps, each consisting of a single chamber. Similarly, Structure 2 incorporates a single tail/stop lamp consisting of a single chamber in which two bulbs are used. Therefore, for both Structures and for both (a) and (b) the lamp should be designed so that the single chambers meet the photometric values for single compartment lamps.

Your second question for each Structure is whether the specified minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signals and tail/stop lamps is required. The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:108 3/16/88

ID: 24416ogm

Mr. William McAlister
McAlister Electronics Service Center
926 E. Fremont Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94087




Dear Mr. McAlister:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding Federal regulations that govern seat belts in vehicles. You ask if vehicle manufacturers are required to provide a "lifetime" warranty for seat belts and seat belt assemblies and, if such a warranty is required, the procedures that would be employed to enforce that warranty.

Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised that authority and established Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in new motor vehicles. In addition, Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), contains minimum performance requirements for seat belt assemblies installed in new vehicles and sold as "aftermarket" equipment, and Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210), Seat belt assembly anchorages, sets minimum standards for anchorage location and performance. Each new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the requirements in Standards No. 208, 209 and 210. Federal law does not, however, require vehicles to comply with these standards after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

None of the regulations or statutes administered by NHTSA require manufacturers to provide a lifetime warranty for seat belts. However, NHTSA has the authority to require manufacturers to replace seat belts under certain circumstances. If a vehicle or item of equipment is not more than ten years old and is determined to have a safety-related defect or fails to meet an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, NHTSA can compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge to the vehicle owner.

Your letter indicates that the automatic belt assemblies on your 1990 Ferrari Testarossa have ceased to function. A search of our recall database indicates that NHTSA or Ferrari have not determined that the automatic belt system of the 1990 Testarossa contains a safety-related defect. In the absence of such a determination, Ferrari is not required to repair or replace the belts by the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at 202-366-5253.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/22/02

ID: 7021

Mr. Wm. Richard Alexander
Chief, Pupil Transportation
Maryland State Department of Education
Office of Administration and Finance
200 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This responds to your letter of February 18, 1992 requesting confirmation "that forward-facing wheelchairs on school buses do not need a crash barrier located forward of each wheelchair position." As explained below, your understanding is correct.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires "a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point." Under S5.2.1, the rear surface of the restraining barrier must be within a distance of 24 inches or less from the seating reference point.

Standard No. 222's requirement for a restraining barrier does not apply to wheelchair positions. First, a wheelchair position is not technically a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Second, Standard No. 222's seating requirements apply only to "school bus passenger seats." See S1 of Standard No. 222. The term "school bus passenger seat" is defined in S4 as "a seat in a school bus, other than the driver's seat or a seat installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers."

I would also note that installing a crash barrier forward of a wheelchair securement location in compliance with S5.2.1 would appear to be impractical. First, the seating reference point could move depending on the type of wheelchair secured at the location. Second, many wheelchairs would not fit behind a restraining barrier complying with S5.2.1 as some are longer than 24 inches forward of the seating reference point.

While the current requirements of Standard No. 222 do not have any requirements for wheelchair securement locations, NHTSA is concerned about providing crash protection for all students on school buses. NHTSA has recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems on school buses. The notice proposed amending Standard No. 222 to include minimum strength and location requirements for the anchorages for securement and restraint devices and minimum strength requirements for the securement and restraint devices themselves. This notice did not, however, propose to require a restraining barrier forward of wheelchair securement locations. I am enclosing a copy of the notice 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:222 d:3/19/92

ID: 7170

Mr. Tom Mario
Vice President Sales
Sealco Air Controls, Inc.
215 East Watkins Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Dear Mr. Mario:

This letter responds to your inquiry about recent amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to trailers. That final rule (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) amended the standard by deleting the requirement for a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. It also added requirements for the retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's supply line in the event of pneumatic failure and for the prevention of automatic application of trailer parking brakes while the minimum supply line pressure is maintained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

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

NHTSA promulgates safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

One such safety standard, Standard No. 121, specifies performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. Any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible.

You first asked whether a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment becomes effective on October 8, 1992. The answer is yes. While the amendment deletes a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device. Your next two questions asked which air brake system would be required on certain axles for different types of trailers. As indicated above, any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. I note that while the standard does include certain specific requirements for braking at particular axles, all of the requirements amended or adopted in the October 1991 final rule are written in terms of overall vehicle braking performance. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with these requirements, manufacturers must assess how the selection of brake designs at each axle will affect overall braking performance.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

ref:121 d:5/21/92

ID: nht92-6.44

DATE: May 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Mario -- Vice President Sales, Sealco Air Controls, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/31/92 from Tom Mario to Steve Wood (OCC 7170)

TEXT:

This letter responds to your inquiry about recent amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to trailers. That final rule (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) amended the standard by deleting the requirement for a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. It also added requirements for the retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's supply line in the event of pneumatic failure and for the prevention of automatic application of trailer parking brakes while the minimum supply line pressure is maintained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

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

NHTSA promulgates safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

One such safety standard, Standard No. 121, specifies performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. Any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible.

You first asked whether a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment becomes effective on October 8, 1992. The answer is yes. While the amendment deletes a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device.

Your next two questions asked which air brake system would be required on certain axles for different types of trailers. As indicated above, any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. I note that while the standard does include certain specific requirements for braking at particular axles, all of the requirements amended or adopted in the October 1991 final rule are written in terms of overall vehicle braking performance. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with these requirements, manufacturers must assess how the selection of brake designs at each axle will affect overall braking performance.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.2

DATE: 09/17/92

FROM: MARK W. RUSSO

TO: WALTER MYERS -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MARK W. RUSSO (A40; STD. 222); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7-14-92 FROM PAUL RICE TO MICHAEL F. HECKER (STD. 222)

TEXT: Thank you for discussing the R-Bar subject with me. As I mentioned in our conversation, I am very concerned over the "applicability" issue regarding the R-Bar and FMVSS 222. I fear that a device not covered by a "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard" may be installed in a school bus that will be transporting my children!

In addition to our conversation, I want to stress one area where I believe this device creates a condition that could be considered in non compliance with the objectives of FMVSS 222, section S5.1.4 (c). With reference to a NHTSA letter from Mr. Rice to Mr. Hecker (Micho, Ind.) dated May 14, 1992, which indicates that Mr. Hecker claims the device incorporates a design that allows it to "move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended". Being familiar with the operating principle of this device, I tend to agree in theory. However, what Mr. Hecker fails to mention is that the device also incorporates a "drop down" feature (by nature of a positive mechanical action) which is activated by forward movement of the device! Thus, if a passenger is "recoiled" forward, or if a subsequent frontal collision occurs, impact with the bar should activate this approximate 2 inch drop down feature. So, if there is any concern regarding minimum clearance in accordance with section S5.1.4 (c), it appears the operating principle of this device complicates the problem. Further, I also believe this "drop down" mechanism, in the above scenario, could create the potential for the bar to become jammed against a passenger's legs as a result of this "roller and track" drop down mechanism.

I would also like to know if there has been any further developments at NHTSA regarding the R-Bar subject since Mr. Rice responded to Mr. Hecker of Micho (May 14 letter from NHTSA). The N.J. Department of Pupil Transportation is under the impression that Micho Industries had planned to write to NHTSA again to suggest that only a different "interpretation" of their test data would resolve this issue.

I have a list of questions I am sending to Micho Industries covering many of the things you and I had discussed. I will keep you advised as to their response to these questions and any other new developments. I would appreciate any comments you may have regarding this R-Bar subject.

ID: nht90-4.87

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Department, Koito Manufacturing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-13-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from M. Iwase

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1990, with respect to photometric measurement procedures for a L.E.D. center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL).

According to your letter, "photometric output of L.E.D. lighting device decreases as the time passes after activation, as shown in Figure 1." Your Figure 1 demonstrates that L.E.D.s at five minutes have a relative photometric output of slightly more than 70 percent of the output when the lamp is activated. After 20 minutes, it would appear to be only slightly more than 60 percent of initial output. You have asked at what time after activation of the CHMSL its photometrics are to be measured; in your opinion, five minutes is a reasonable time. You support your opinion with three arguments, which I will not summarize here since they are not relevant to my response.

Standard No. 108 does not specify when the CHMSL photometric test is to occur. Neither SAE Recommended Practice J186a, Supplemental High Mounted Stop and Rear Turn Signal Lamps, January 1977, the applicable standard that is incorporated by reference, nor any other section of Standard No. 108, requires the photometric test to be conducted at any particular time. The standard does require that CHMSLs and other lamps be designed to conform to its requirements; therefore, we expect the CHMSL to meet the minimum photometric specifications at whatever point in time it is tested after its activation. If Koito wishes to test at five minutes after activation, it may do so.

The purpose of the CHMSL is to reduce the frequency and severity of rear end collisions. Thus, its initial activation is the one that is most critical to highway safety. Although the short survey of continuous brake application times that Koito conducted, and which is referenced in your letter, showed one continuous brake application that exceeded four minutes, at such a period in time the warning message of the light would have been long delivered to the driver following. Thus, the fact that the L.E.D. diminishes over a continuous period of time would not appear to affect its purpose, as long as the CHMSL conforms to the minimum photometric requirements upon each application of the brake pedal, no matter how long the previous brake application and no matter how short the interval between brake applications.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht91-7.44

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: ACTION: General Motors Modified Antitheft Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert Rogers to Barry Felrice; Also attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert A. Rogers (A39; Part 543)

TEXT:

On November 18, 1991, General Motors Corporation (GM) submitted a letter informing NHTSA of a change in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system that was installed on the My 1992 Pontiac Bonneville. (GM discovered, through a review, that the information of the second generation "PASS-KEY" had not been forwarded to the agency.) Since the initial petition for the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville, but before the start of production, of the MY 1992 Bonneville, a design change had been made to include GM's second generation "PASS-KEY II" theft deterrent system, as standard equipment on this car line and not the original "PASS-KEY" system as described in the petition. GM had previously been granted a partial exemption on the original "PASS-KEY" system for the MY 1992 Bonneville.

Rulemaking has reviewed the changes to the system, and finds that the differences between the "PASS-KEY II" and the original "PASS-KEY," as described below, would qualify for de minimis treatment.

GM has changed the system in which the shut down period of the system would be for three minutes plus or minus 18 seconds, instead of the previous 2 to 4 minutes. GM believes that this is more precise than the prior system. The other change in the system is that the "PASS-KEY II" timer does not reset back to zero if further resistance comparisons are attempted while the decoder module is shut down. GM states that this functional difference will still provide a similar level of theft deterrent performance since the decoder module while in the shut down mode, will ignore any further attempts to start the vehicle by means of a key with an improper pellet resistance during that time, and continuous attempts will result in the module remaining inoperative until the proper key is used.

As stated above, Rulemaking does not believe that these changes are significant enough to warrant submission of a full modification petition by GM and, therefore, would qualify for de minimis treatment. Accordingly, Rulemaking requests a letter granting the change to the antitheft system be forwarded to GM, pursuant to Part 543.9 (j).

Attachment

USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert A. Rogers to Barry Felrice. (Text omitted)

ID: nht92-8.23

DATE: March 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wm. Richard Alexander -- Chief, Pupil Transportation, Maryland State Department of Education, Office of Administration and Finance

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/18/92 from Wm. Richard Alexander to Mary Versailles (OCC 7021)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 18, 1992 requesting confirmation "that forward-facing wheelchairs on school buses do not need a crash barrier located forward of each wheelchair position." As explained below, your understanding is correct.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires "a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point." Under S5.2.1, the rear surface of the restraining barrier must be within a distance of 24 inches or less from the seating reference point.

Standard No. 222's requirement for a restraining barrier does not apply to wheelchair positions. First, a wheelchair position is not technically a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Second, Standard No. 222's seating requirements apply only to "school bus passenger seats." See S1 of Standard No. 222. The term "school bus passenger seat" is defined in S4 as "a seat in a school bus, other than the driver's seat or a seat installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers."

I would also note that installing a crash barrier forward of a wheelchair securement location in compliance with S5.2.1 would appear to be impractical. First, the seating reference point could move depending on the type of wheelchair secured at the location. Second, many wheelchairs would not fit behind a restraining barrier complying with S5.2.1 as some are longer than 24 inches forward of the seating reference point.

While the current requirements of Standard No. 222 do not have any requirements for wheelchair securement locations, NHTSA is concerned about providing crash protection for all students on school buses. NHTSA has recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems on school buses. The notice proposed amending Standard No. 222 to include minimum strength and location requirements for the anchorages for securement and restraint devices and minimum strength requirements for the securement and restraint devices themselves. This notice did not, however, propose to require a restraining barrier forward of wheelchair securement locations. I am enclosing a copy of the notice 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.

ID: 10526

Mr. Harry C. Gough, P.E.
State of Connecticut
Department of Motor Vehicles
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161

Dear Mr. Gough:

This responds to your letter to this office asking whether the retroreflective tape required to outline school bus emergency exits can, in the case of the rear emergency door, be placed on the door itself. The short answer is no.

You stated that the State of Connecticut requires that school bus bumpers be black. You further stated that one school bus manufacturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of the retroreflective tape installed on the rear bumper. You then noticed that a number of school buses from a different manufacturer had the bottom part of the tape installed on the door itself. You asked whether the language of S5.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, permitted the installation of the retroreflective tape on the door itself.

Paragraph S5.5.3 of FMVSS No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, . . .

This requirement was imposed by amendment to FMVSS No. 217 promulgated by a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). In discussing this requirement in the preamble portion of the final rule, we said at 57 FR 49421:

Accordingly, the final rule requires a minimum 1 inch wide strip of retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, to be placed around the outside perimeter of the emergency exit opening, not the emergency exit itself (emphasis added).

As you may know, the buses with the tape on the emergency exit doors have been recalled by the manufacturer. For information about the recall, you can contact the bus manufacturer, Thomas Built Buses, P. O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261.

Enclosed for your information are two interpretative letters issued by this office on related issues pertaining to the retroreflective tape requirement. See letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, dated July 7, 1993; and letter to Mr. Turner dated March 28, 1994.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ref:217 d:3/16/95