ID: 9211

Mr. Randolph Schwarz
141 North Madison Drive
South Plainfield, NJ 07080

Dear Mr. Schwarz:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids. Your letter has been referred to my office for a response. As a consumer retrofitting your vehicle with DOT 5 brake fluid, you had several questions concerning the possible effects that an ingredient in the brake fluid might have on elastomers used in brake systems. Your questions are answered below.

You mentioned "seal swelling additives" added to DOT 5 brake fluid, that contact various elastomers in the brake system. Your first question was, when brake fluid manufacturers combine additives with brake fluid, should consumers be concerned with the combined fluids' compatibility with various elastomers used in braking systems?

Standard No. 116 defines, at S4. Definitions, brake fluid as a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system where it will contact elastomeric components made of: styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR); ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR); polychlorophene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock; or natural rubber (NR). In order to minimize failures in hydraulic braking systems, Standard No. 116 specifies minimum performance standards for brake fluids. These performance standards include tests for styrene and butadiene rubber cups, the most common type of elastomer in a hydraulic brake system. The brake fluid manufacturer must certify that the brake fluid complies with Standard No. 116. (See S5.2.2(d).) While DOT 5 brake fluid must meet Standard No. 116, the specific ingredients in the fluid are not regulated by the standard.

The brake fluid manufacturer is expected to be aware that in addition to SBR, its brake fluid may contact EPR, CR, and NR elastomers in the brake system. Thus, the brake fluid manufacturers must ensure that contact between the fluid and the above stated elastomers would not result in a safety- related defect under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the brake fluid manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the brake fluid contains a safety related defect, the brake fluid manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective brake fluid and remedying the problem free of charge.

Your second question was whether DOT 5 brake fluid's compliance with Standard No. 116 ensures compatibility with elastomers. The answer is yes, for SBR elastomers. Further, besides Standard No. 116, the brake fluid manufacturer is subject to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act, that were previously discussed. At this time, NHTSA is not aware of safety related defects resulting from other ingredients used with brake fluid.

Your third question was whether Standard No. 116 only addresses SBR compatibility with brake fluid. Standard No. 116, at S4, addresses brake fluid that contacts four elastomer types. However, the tests specified in the standard are only of the most commonly used SBR cups.

Your fourth question was, if Standard No. 116 only mentions SBR elastomer, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification, or to discuss elastomer compatibility on the brake fluid container?

Information discussing the elastomer compatibility of the brake fluid, or other ingredients, may be voluntarily placed on brake fluid containers. Standard No. 116 specifies information that brake fluid containers must carry. However, Standard No. 116 does not prohibit manufacturers from noting on brake fluid containers, compatibility of the silicone brake fluid, or other ingredients, with various elastomers.

Finally, you asked what Standard No. 116 specifies as the maximum viscosity for DOT 5 brake fluid, at -40 degrees Fahrenheit. Standard No. 116 specifies, at S5.1.3(c), that the maximum viscosity is 900 centistokes (cSt).

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:116 d:5/5/94

ID: 86-6.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Wallace

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Wallace Assistant Manager Chemical Commodities New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn NY 11207

Dear Mr. Wallace:

Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1986, concerning how our regulations would affect the use of certain glazing materials in buses. You explained that the Transit Authority has recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As a part of that pork, the aide glazing of the buses was replaced with glazing that contained the following markings,"Lexan, MR 5000 sheet, ANSI % 26-1, Camplas, NY."

Subsequent to receipt of your letter, we received additional Information from General Electric, the manufacturer of Lexan, concerning the glazing material used in the side windows of your buses. According to General Electric, the Lexan glazing material used in these windows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for "AS-5" glazing materials. The glazing material apparently was not marked as "AS-5" material. As discussed below, if the only markings on the glazing are the markings you described in your letter, the glazing apparently does not comply pith the marking requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as "items" in the standard.) Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexan, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set for AS-5 glazing materials, It can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, and the rearmost windows, if used for driving Visibility.

In addition to setting performance requirements for different items of glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of 56 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked with the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that "item" of glazing material), a model number and the manufacturer's logo. The information you provided about the markings on the glazing installed in your buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.

Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, we have been in contact with General Electric to obtain further information about this possible noncompliance.

Our regulations do not preclude the Transit Authority from operating a vehicle with noncomplying glazing materials: however, you should check with State authorities to determine the effect of New York law on operating these buses.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the agency: If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 19, 1986

Office of the Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

The New York City Transit Authority recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As part of this process, the side glazing on these buses was replaced with glazing marked as follows:

LEXAN MR 5000 SHEET ANSI Z 26-1 CAMPLAS, NY

The Authority has questioned the legality of operating buses with this material and would appreciate any comments your office may have to offer regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

William Wallace Assistant Manager, Chemical Commodities

ID: 13392.ztv

Mr. Miguel Padres
441 N. Grand Avenue, Suite 350
Nogales, AZ 85621

Dear Mr. Padres:

This is in reply to your e-mail of December 30, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the regulations of this agency as they may affect a business plan you wish to implement. We regret the delay in responding to you but your letter presents novel and complex questions.

You would like to take a 1969 VW Beetle to Mexico and "restore or replace all the parts permitted by the laws, that would continue to make it a 1969 VW Beetle." You refer to 49 CFR 571.7(e) and interpret it as saying that "placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axle (as a minimum) are not new and at least two of which were taken from the same vehicle. You intend to " place a new body on the old chassis" which, to you, would mean that it "would still be a 1969 vehicle." As part of your modifications you would either retain or replace with DOT certified items the original brake hoses, lamps and reflectors, tires, rims, glazing and seat belt assemblies. You would then bring the vehicle back to the United States.

First of all, Sec. 571.7(e) does not apply to passenger cars such as VW Beetles; it applies to trucks. However, according to long-standing agency interpretations, the addition of a new body to the chassis of a passenger car previously in use does not result in the creation of a new motor vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the basis of the limited information you have provided us, we do not believe that the parts you have listed that you may replace, together with the body, would exceed this threshold. The vehicle would remain a 1969 model under our interpretations.

Further, our importation regulations do not require that a vehicle comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards if it is 25 years old or older (49 CFR 591.5(i)(1)). This means that the modified 1969 Beetle, when imported into the United States after the modifications are made in Mexico, need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, if the refurbishing involves sufficient manufacturing operations, the vehicle would be considered a newly manufactured one. This means that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of refurbishing (manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards. Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case by case basis.

We are unsure of your connection with Beetlemex, Inc., which shares your street and suite address in Nogales. Beetlemex is advertising on the internet that it is "bringing brand new Beetles into the U.S.", each of which is "officially a restored vehicle, but is actually a brand new Beetle." Beetlemex instals "brand new parts taken off from a brand new sedan" and "at the end, we have a Beetle that has most of the parts from a brand new Beetle." Statements such as these raise the possibility that the threshold has been exceeded. The ad also states that Beetlemex registers and titles the vehicles as well. In our interpretations, we consider it important that a vehicle equipped with a new body on an old chassis would continue to carry its original model year designation for state registration purposes, in this instance, 1969. If the vehicles refurbished by Beetlemex have been registered and titled as 1996 or 1997 models, that is prima facie evidence to us that the modifications have gone beyond what is permissible for the original vehicle to retain its characterization as one manufactured in 1969.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.7/28/97

ID: 15100.ztv

Mr. Lawrence Rucker
3924 O'Bannon Drive, Apt. A
Jackson, Mississippi 39213

Dear Mr. Rucker:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter that arrived in this office on May 5. You write requesting a manufacturer identification number for your "new style of high-mounted brake lights." You have been told "that everything seems to be within the federal code of 108."

This refers to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

My letter is based on the assumption that you intend these lamps to replace the center high-mounted stop lamp rather than to be mounted as pairs to supplement a vehicle's two lower-mounted stop lamps. As you say, your stop lamps are unique because of their design and shape, to judge by the dollar sign and cocktail glass drawings that you enclosed. As replacement equipment, your lamps would have to meet the appropriate requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and be certified as meeting them.

Standard No. 108 does not specify permissible shapes for the center stop lamp but it does require the lamp to comply with minimum and maximum photometric (light output) values measured at certain identified test points, as set out in Table 10 of the standard. The test points are, in essence, a grid and control to some extent the design of the lamp. For example, it appears to us unlikely that stylized lamps such as yours can meet the requirements of Table 10, or the requirement that the effective projected luminous area not be less than 4 square inches. If you intend the lamp to be located on the parcel shelf, it will have to conform when photometered through the rear glass and at the orientation in which it is installed, and minimize reflections from the light on the rear window that might be visible in the rear view mirror to the driver.

You may obtain a copy of Standard No. 108 and the agency's other regulations by placing an order with the U.S. Government Printing Office, whose telephone number is (202) 512-0133. The volume is "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999." You will find Standard No. 108 at Section 571.108. The portions that apply to center high-mounted stop lamps are paragraphs S3, S5.1.1.27, S5.3.1.8, and S5.4, Tables III and IV, and Figure 10 (photometrics).

If any lamp design does not conform, it cannot be manufactured and sold as replacement equipment without violating Title 49, United States Code, Section 30112(a). A civil penalty of up to $1,100 may be imposed for each lamp sold, up to a maximum of $880,000.

However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to center stop lamps sold for use on vehicles that were never required by Standard No. 108 to have them in the first place. The center lamp has been required on passenger cars manufactured beginning September 1, 1985, and on light trucks and vans manufactured beginning September 1, 1993. Thus you would not be in violation of Federal law by selling your lamps as presently designed, for use on vehicles produced before these dates. However, they might not be allowed under the laws of Mississippi or other states where you may want to sell them. We aren't conversant with local laws and suggest you ask the Department of Motor Vehicles in your state for advice.

We have no "manufacturer identification number" for producers of lighting equipment, but we do require manufacturers of replacement lighting equipment to file a simple identification statement with us not later than 30 days after beginning manufacture of their products. This regulation is known as 49 CFR Part 566, and can be found in the same volume as Standard No. 108, reference above..

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:6/11/97

ID: 1982-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wonder Enterprise

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1982, asking whether Federal regulations would prohibit use of your patented device, the "Illuminated Wonder Panel." This device would be used in the space provided for the front license plate and consists of a panel on which numbers or letters would be illuminated from behind, if an owner wished to "personalize" his vehicle. You have indicated that the candela for each character averages .0365, and that with a seven character maximum, a total output of less than .25 candela would result You submitted photographs showing this device in operation from a distance of 50 feet on a vehicle using parking lamps only, and using parking lamps/low beam headlamps.

Your device is not directly regulated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108 As an item of original equipment, your device is permissible unless it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, such as parking lamps and headlamps. Judging by the photographs you submitted, it does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. As an aftermarket item, your device is subject to regulation by any State in which the vehicle bearing it is registered. You will have to consult these States for further advice.

We hope that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

November 22, 1982

Robert Munoz Wonder Enterprise

Frank Burndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Burndt:

I am a distributor that is interested in marketing a special type of lighting device for use on motor vehicles. This device is basically an illuminated personalized auto tag that is affixed to the front bumper of a car (for those states with single license plates). The tag, 6" x 12", will have personalized names or numbers on it, and only these letters or numbers will be illuminated; the rest of the tag will not emit light. This tag, registered in the U.S. Patent Office as the "Illuminated Wonder Panel", is no different than the current personalized automobile tags used in those states with single license plates, except that on this tag the personalized characters are illuminated.

The tag consists of a channel light housing that produces the incandescent light, an amber colored acylic panel thru which the light is emitted, and a clear cover plate. A prototype panel with the name "WONDER" in standard 2 inch letters, was submitted to a testing laboratory to measure the intensity of light produced (attached is the laboratory worksheet). The results showed an average of .0365 candela per letter or less than .25 candela total. With a maximum of seven characters on a tag, the intensity would never exceed .50 candela. Even though this is relatively minimal candlepower, I have enclosed two photographs taken of a vehicle at approximately 50 feet at night with the "WONDER" panel on the bumper, to illustrate the relative light intensities. Since the tag is designed to operate in conjunction with the lights, one picture is taken with the low beam headlights on, the other is taken with only the parking lights on.

The "Illuminated Wonder Panel" as described here, would be available as an automobile accessory; it is a form of ornamental lighting that to my knowledge is not defined by any SAE lighting standards or tests and may therefore not be regulated federally.

I believe this tag can be of value to the user and that the minimal light produced from the tag will not interfere with the intended operation of the existing vehicle's lights, or degrade the level of traffic safety while in its use. After speaking with Mr. Taylor Vinson and upon his suggestion, I am presenting this information to your Administration so that you may review it and advise me by providing a statement or opinion, in regards to its use prior to its production and distribution. Please let me know whether or not this would be in conflict with any safety standards and what subsequent procedures if any, need to be followed on a State level.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Robert Munoz President

ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WORK REQUEST OMITTED.

ID: 15647.ztv

Mr. Michael J. Rood
Vice President, Engineering
Safe-Lite Mfg. Co.
6230 Gross Point Road
Niles, IL 60714

Dear Mr. Rood:

This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We apologize for the delay in responding, but your letter presented unique questions which took some time to resolve to the agency's satisfaction.

There are three aspects of reflex reflector conspicuity treatment that you wish us to address, to clarify questions asked by owners who wish to retrofit their trailers, as well as by manufacturers of new trailers. Retrofitting of trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993, of course, is not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 108.

As you point out, S5.7.2.2(a) allows the use of reflex reflectors as a conspicuity alternative to S5.7.1.4 "in the same locations and in the same length in which retroreflective sheeting is required. . . ." You believe that because reflex reflectors cannot be trimmed, it is impossible that reflex reflectors can comply in some instances with the literal requirement of S5.7.2.2 that they be applied "in the same length" as retroreflective sheeting to meet conspicuity requirements.

The conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108, including the provisions referring to practicability, are stated in terms of sheeting material. Each reflex reflector used to fulfill conspicuity requirements must have photometric performance equivalent to that of a 100 mm length of sheeting material, and the conspicuity treatment may then be implemented using reflex reflectors with a center-to-center spacing not greater than 100 mm. Conspicuity treatments using one reflex reflector as an alternative to 100 mm of sheeting material would be equivalent in minimum performance and nearly identical in reflective appearance to a treatment using sheeting material.

The trailer manufacturer has the choice of using either reflex reflectors or sheeting material. However, reflex reflectors could not be used to comply with the standard if they cannot replicate a complying sheeting material installation. For example, S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires the conspicuity treatment to originate and terminate "as close to the front and rear as practicable," and that it need not be continuous as long as "the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." If sheeting material would terminate closer to the front or rear than is possible with reflex reflectors on a particular trailer, or if it results in a more even distribution of spaces, then sheeting material must be used to meet the practicability provisions. There may be instances when sheeting material is better than reflex reflectors in taking account of ribs and obstructions on the trailer body in marking the overall length of the vehicle, or when its use would result in lesser gaps in the treatment than use of reflex reflectors.

Similarly, if a trailer manufacturer determines that it may use reflex reflectors as a conspicuity treatment, it must use a single reflector of 100 mm length rather than a bar of reflectors of 300 mm if the single reflector would more closely mark the extreme width or length of the trailer or result in smaller gaps.

Underride Protection Devices

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(c) requires a strip of retroreflective sheeting in alternating colors to be installed across the full width of the horizontal member of the rear underride protection device.

You have enclosed sample reflex reflector bars that are 12 inches (approximately 300 mm) in length. You point out that, unlike retroreflective sheeting, reflex reflectors cannot be trimmed in application. Assuming that the underride protection bar is 90 inches (7' 6") in length, you present two options. In the first option, you would center a white reflex reflector on the bar, and work outward with alternating red and white reflectors (seven in all), which would leave 3 inches of uncovered surface at both ends of the underride bar. In the second option, you would work inward from reflectors placed at the end of the underride bar, distributing the 6 inches of uncovered surface evenly between reflectors. We understand that this means that seven reflectors would be provided, with only 1 inch of space between adjacent reflectors.

The standard requires reflex reflectors to be used "in the same locations and in the same length in which retroreflective sheeting is required...with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm (4 in) from the center of each adjacent reflector." The underride protection device in question would have been treated with 90 inches of sheeting material, and an exact replacement using reflex reflectors would require 22 reflex reflectors with each reflector replacing 4 inches of sheeting material. However, Standard No. 108 does not recognize fractional reflex reflectors because, unlike sheeting material, they are non-homogenous indivisible units. Nor does it assume that there will be sufficient space to apply a greater number of whole reflex reflectors. Therefore, the agency has decided that the "full width" requirement can be met by using the greatest number of whole reflectors (on a basis of one reflector per 4 inches) that will fit in the length required for sheeting material. Since both of the options you propose use 21 rather than 22 reflex reflectors, neither would satisfy the standard. Given the space limitations on an underride guard, you would have to supplement the bars of three reflectors with some double or single reflectors to achieve acceptable coverage. Since the maximum cumulative space between reflectors would always be less than 4 inches per element of the conspicuity treatment, the distribution of spaces would have little practical significance. However, arrangements that mark the actual full width are always preferable to those that only approximate it.

Rear Width of a Trailer

Similarly, the conspicuity treatment specified in S5.7.1.4.1(a) is to be applied "across the full width of the trailer." You ask how a continuous pattern of alternating red and white reflex reflectors are to be applied in multiples of 12-inch segments when there are rear door hardware obstructions that do not allow it.

You suggest that if the linear space between hardware obstructions is between 12 and 24 inches, then one reflex reflector can be centered in this space provided that it is a different color than its two neighbors. If the space is between 24 and 36 inches, two reflex reflectors could be centered, again preserving a pattern of alternating colors. This scheme would apply in successive 12-inch increments with the reflectors applied at both ends of the completed scheme, "positioned as close to each end as practicable."

As in the underride interpretation above, the minimum number of reflex reflectors needed to implement an element of conspicuity treatment is the number of mm (or inches) of sheeting material that would have been used, divided by 100 mm (or 4 inches) and rounded down to the greatest whole number. In general, it would be a matter of chance if the minimum number of reflex reflectors could be arranged in a single line when obstructions are present, especially when the reflectors are combined in bars of three. However, element 1 of the rear trailer conspicuity treatment (S5.7.1.4.1(a)) is not required to be located on the same parallel plane; obstructions can be cleared by mounting some of the reflex reflector bars above or below obstructions to obtain a greater number of reflex reflectors in the treatment. Of course, the treatment must mark the full width of the body in the same manner as a treatment with sheeting material.

Unique Trailer Side Walls and Rub Rails

The required conspicuity treatment for trailer sides is set forth in S5.7.1.4.2(a). It requires that conspicuity treatment originate and terminate as close to the front and rear as practicable, and that a strip of retroreflective sheeting need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable.

You bring to our attention the fact that the distance from one outer rib to another on the side of some "plate" trailers could vary from 5 to 42 inches, and that your reflector will not fit into a section narrower than 12 inches. You would provide reflex reflectors in alternate color segments to cover not less than half the trailer length, even though there might be a space between some segments. This treatment would start and finish as close to both ends of the trailer "as practicable," and meet the requirement of S5.7.1.3(c) that neither color in the aggregate exceed two-thirds of the total provided to mark the sides.

As noted above, the practicability requirements for the placement and distribution of the retroreflective material in S5.7.1.4.2(a) were conceived and expressed in terms of a treatment using sheeting. If these requirements are more closely fulfilled using sheeting material, then sheeting material must be used. Although either sheeting material or reflex reflectors could be used on trailers with uninterrupted sills, it may be impossible to use triple reflector bars exclusively as a complying conspicuity treatment on the side of a trailer with ribs. Depending on the distance between the ribs, trailer manufacturers would be expected to use single reflectors or bars of two reflectors (or simply to use sheeting material) for that element of the conspicuity treatment.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/6/98

ID: aiam0945

Dear Mrs. Polin: This is in reply to your letter to our Region III office in which yo requested information on infant car seats and regulations affecting the manufacture of such seats.; Enclosure 1 is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 Child Seating Systems, along with a recent amendment to the standard. The effective date of this standard was April 1, 1971. All child car seats which both seat and restrain a child in a motor vehicle are now required by law to comply with the requirements of this standard. This regulation requires the date of manufacture to be placed on each seat along with recommendations for its use. Child seating systems are recommended for use by children from approximately eight to nine months to three to four years of age.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is presentl developing a proposed amendment to the existing standard which will require dynamic tests of all child restraints and will regulate infant restraints which are not presently covered by Standard No. 213. However, it is not anticipated that this amendment will become effective in the near future.; Enclosures 2 and 3 are copies of press releases notifying consumers o devices which have failed to pass Standard No. 213, and of the action the manufacturers are taking to correct the situation. Additionally, we are enclosing a copy of a consumer information booklet entitled, 'What To Buy In Child Restraint Systems.' We hope this information will assist you.; We do not endorse or advocate any specific product, but rather develop issue, and enforce minimum safety standards for consumer protection. In the final analysis, the consumer should select a restraint which best fits his particular needs. Many practical considerations may affect the usage of a device, for example, the activity level of the child, portability of the device, and ease of attachment. These are all factors which the buyer of a child restraint system should consider in making his selection.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam3758

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter of August 25, 1983, requesting a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. Your specific questions concern the application of the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard to an armrest.; The answers to your four questions are as follows: A) The requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements o S3.5.1(a), apply to the whole area of an armrest. In contrast, the requirements of S3.5.1(c) only apply to a part of an armrest (i.e., the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area).; B) See answer to A. C) The agency does not give prior approval to specific designs. I appears, however, that your design would not comply, since apparently the armrest will not deflect or collapse to within 1.25 inches of a rigid test panel surface without permitting contact with any rigid material, in this case the power window switch. In addition, the power window switch apparently does not have a minimum vertical height of not less than one inch. It is difficult to provide you with a definitive answer since section A-A of your drawing appears to be drawn to a different scale than the scale shown in the lower left corner of your drawing.; D) It appears from your drawing that even if the requirements o S3.5.1(b) were amended, as you suggested, to limit their application to the pelvic impact area of the armrest, the design would not comply since the power window switch area of the armrest is within the pelvic impact area. Rather than seeking an amendment to the standard, you may want to consider modifying your design so that it will comply with either 3.5.1(a) or (c) of the standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4242

Dear Mr. Edwards: I am writing in response to your recent inquiry concerning interio over-head luggage racks on school buses. Your first question seeks this Agency's opinion on whether interior luggage racks on school buses should be considered 'projections likely to cause injury' under the National Minimum Schoolbus Standards. These standards are recommendations by the National Conference on School Transportation (NCST), and are not developed by NHTSA. Requests for interpretation of these Standards should be mailed to the Interpretation Committee, addressed to:; >>>Mr. Norman Loper, Coordinator of Pupil Transportation, Alabam Department of Education, 304 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130<<<; Requests for modification to these Standards and development of ne Standards should be directed to the chairman of the Interim Committee, addressed to:; >>>Mr. Bill G. Loshbough, Asst. State Supt. for Transportation, Dept of Education, Education Bldg., Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786<<<; In response to your second question, there are no federal standards o regulations which specifically address the issue of over-head luggage racks on school buses. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) S571.222 addresses the issue of school bus passenger seating and crash protection. Specifically, S5.3.1 of that standard establishes the head protection zones. As defined in S5.3.1.1, that zone extends up to a horizontal plane 40 inches above the seating reference point. If the luggage rack were to be located within the head protection zone, the rack would have to meet the head form impact requirement in S5.3.1.2 and the head form force distribution requirement in S5.3.1.3.; Please feel free to contact this office if you have any othe questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4526

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. 108. 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. 108, 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;