ID: nht73-1.21

DATE: 04/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Lewis Polin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to our Region III office in which you 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 presently 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 of 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,

4 Enclosures

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

REGION III March 22, 1973

Mrs. Lewis Polin

1912 Nester Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19115

Dear Mrs. Polin:

We would like to thank you for your interest in highway safety. Your request for information concerning regulations enacted in regard to infant car seats, along with brand names of those manufacturers who have produced such products in conformance with these standards, has been forwarded to our Washington office, and they in turn will help you with obtaining the information you need.

Sincerely,

Vincent D. Walsh, Sr. -- Regional Administrator

ID: nht73-1.22

DATE: 09/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 26 and August 7, 1973, requesting an opinion on the applicability of the emergency exit provisions (S5.3 to S5.5) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217), to buses that are of the same design as "school buses," but which are not manufactured (they are not painted yellow, nor do they have warning devices) nor used as school buses. You ask further that the standard exempt prison buses.

We interpret the exemption for school buses to include buses similarly designed, without regard to their intended use. School bus is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean,

"a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school . . . ."

We are of the opinion that buses which share the same design as buses that clearly fall within the definition of "school bus" are school buses under Standard No. 217, and are therefore exempt from the emergency exit provisions of the standard. No modification of the standard is accordingly called for.

With respect to your request regarding prison buses, we are presently considering similar requests previously received, and plan to respond by notice published in the Federal Register in the near future.

Yours truly,

August 7, 1973

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Vehicles U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Thomas Built Buses, Inc., High Point, North Carolina, a manufacturer of school bus bodies, respectfully petitions the Department of Transportation for a revision in wording of said Standard, particularly section S5.2.3 School Buses. We petition that the wording in this section be changed to read as follows: "The emergency exit requirements do not apply to school buses or buses of like design adapted for use for other than transporting children to and from school, but if such buses contain any pushout windows or other emergency exits, these exits shall conform to S5.3 through S5.5."

We base our petition on the fact that we as a body manufacturer do offer our base product design for other uses such as churches, activity buses for schools used for field trips and other school events, Boy Scouts, YMCA's, Salvation Army Clubs, etc. These units are constructed of the same basic design as what is termed a school bus but may vary as to color and omission of specific school bus safety warning systems. Our conclusion is that as the Standard is presently worded, it is a double Standard in that it states the Standard applies not to school buses but to those same buses if used for other than hauling children to and from school. We feel strongly that the Standard should apply to neither school buses or those of like design used by other groups or the Standard should apply to all buses including school buses. Due to the basic design of the product for school use, we are in agreement with the Standard as proposed but suggest the above additions.

In addition to the above, we respectfully submit to the Department of Transportation that prison buses which are vehicles manufactured to haul prisoners from one point to another, should not be included under this Standard. Prison buses should be exempt along with school buses and the others listed. The basis for this petition on prison buses is due to the fact that the Standard contradicts the specific purpose of a prison bus. In other words, prison buses are security vehicles with a minimum of escape possibility whereby the Standard increases escape possibility.

We would respectfully request your expediting a ruling on this petition since all body manufacturers have buses as described in this petition on order to build after September 1, 1973, and the effective date of said Standard is September 1, 1973. If further information is required by you, please advise us immediately.

Respectfully submitted,

James Tydings Chief Engineer

c.c. Berkley Sweet Executive Secretary School Bus Manufacturers Institute 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D. C. 20015

July 26, 1973

Berkley C. Sweet Truck Body & Equipment Association

Dear Mr. Sweet:

Kindly forward this letter to the Department of Transportation for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation on FMVSS #217 - Bus Window Retention and Release.

We request an interpretation on the definition of "School Bus" as applied to units which we sell to school bus route contractors. Many contractors use their buses for purposes other than just carrying school children. For example, they may carry a Sunday School class to the beach for a weekend. Will the requirement for a minimum number of emergency exits be applicable to a bus used in such a case?

We request that the "designated seating capacity" for a handicapped persons vehicle be taken as the number of wheelchair spaces plus the seated passenger capacity.

Are "School Activity Buses" required to have a minimum number of emergency exits? Such buses are used to carry sports teams to games and classes on field trips. These buses are owned by the schools and used because most states have laws that preclude the use of state owned route buses for such activities.

We request an exemption for buses which are sold to prisons on the basis that we sold less than 100 of them during 1972. We expect to sell approximately 30 such vehicles this year. Also, there is the reason of possible prison escape.

Thanking you in advance for your services, we remain

Very truly yours,

James Tydings Chief Engineer

ID: nht73-1.23

DATE: 08/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Oregon Traffic Safety Commision

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 23, 1973, enclosing an amended version of Oregon House Bill 2721.

We note that Section 2 of the Bill no longer requires a mandatory green-yellow-red rear mounted lighting system but specifies that it may be used on an optional basis, in accordance with the suggestions in Mr. Wilson's letter of July 20, 1973. In order to avoid preemption under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ORS 483.412(3)(b) [Section 3] should be similarly amended to substitute "may" for "shall" so that all references to a mandatory system are removed from the Bill.

Sincerely,

OREGON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

July 23, 1973

James E. Wilson -- Associate Administrator, Traffic Safety Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: N40-30 (ZTV)

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Attached is an engrossed (amended) version of Oregon House Bill 2721 relating to a series of red-yellow-green taillights.

Note that, as passed, the law is permissive. It does not relate to the manufacturer of a vehicle. A vehicle owner may, under the new law, add an accessory with a red-yellow-green series of taillights on his car.

Since this is in addition to the standard taillight system, it does not conflict with 49 CFR @ 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.

When you are in Oregon we would be pleased to show you this system. We believe it will reduce rear-end collisions substantially.

Sincerely,

Gil W. Bellamy Administrator

[Enclosure Omitted.]

ID: nht73-1.24

DATE: 12/06/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Fruehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 20, 1973, asking whether you may install "lights as set forth in Example 1." In this example identification lamps would be mounted under the rear crossmember of the vehicle while "the combination tail and turn signal lamps (at the bottom) could serve as the clearance lamps."

The rear lighting scheme shown in your "Example 1" appears to be seriously at variance with Standard No. 108. There is a clear violation of paragraph S4.4.1 which forbids the optical combination of tail lamps and clearance lamps. Both clearance lamps and identification lamps must be located "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." The fact that you have developed a clearance lamp that can be mounted in the header area demonstrates that that is the "practicable" location, despite the fact that the header may be too shallow to accommodate the lamps specified by the customer. Further, since the performance required of clearance lamps is identical to that for identification lamps, and three of your clearance type lamps could serve as identification lamps and the header would appear to be the "practicable" location for the identification lamp arrangement as well.

Sincerely,

November 20, 1973

Richard Dyson National Highway Safety Administration, DOT

Ref: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

Dear Mr. Dyson:

We would like an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 in the area of rear clearance lamps and identification lamps under the conditions outlined below:

Fruehauf Corporation has been asked to build a large number of van type trailers (over 80 inches in overall width) which incorporate a rear header too shallow to accommodate the identification lamps or clearance lamps specified by the customer.

The customer contends that due to the shallow header, it is not practicable to mount the identification lamps any higher than below the rear crossmember and that the combination tail and turn signal lamps (at the bottom) could serve as the clearance lamps.

EXAMPLE I (Graphics omitted)

Rear Header

Stop & Tail Lamp

Tail & Turn Signal Lamp

Identification Lamp

Fruehauf Corporation has a clearance lamp which could be installed in the shallow header and has proposed that they be installed at the top rear corners, with the identification lamps being installed below the rear crossmember.

EXAMPLE II

Clearance Lamp

Identification Lamp

The customer has refused to accept Fruehauf's proposed installation due to the clearance lamps not being compatible with the existing lamps in his large fleet, thus creating a hardship.

This order will be held in abeyance until we can get a ruling from your department as to whether we may install the lights as set forth in Example I and certify the vehicles as being in accordance with FMVSS No. 108.

Very truly yours,

FRUEHAUF CORPORATION -- R. O. Crider - Manager, Government Safety Standards and Regulation Compliance

cc: E. Chosy

ID: nht73-1.25

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1973

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Reservation Business Enterprise

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16 concerning a definition of "steady burning" lamps.

Our definition of "steady" is "regular, uniform; not changed, replaced or interrupted; not fluctuating or varying widely." Stop lamps activated by the Pulsating Safety Brakelite would therefore not be "steady burning."

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 16, 1973

E.T. Driver, Director -- Office of Operating Systems, Motor vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Driver;

Over a year ago, I wrote you concerning our "Pulsating safety brakelite". Recently we have developed a legal question concerning our product and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stanlanl no. 108. 108 states that the brakelite must be steady burning. Our device does not over turn the bulb out but only changes it's brilliance in a pulsating manner.

Our question is; does "steady burning" mean that the bulb must always be on, and therefore our product falls within that definition or does it require it to burn at a steady intensity which would make our product fall outside the definition.

We are very eager to get this clarified.

Sincerly

Mel Aanerud, Manager -- RESERVATION BUSINESS ENTERPRISE

ID: nht73-1.26

DATE: 04/23/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Hyster Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 1, 1973, to Mr. J. E. Leveath of this Office, concerning the lighting requirements for special purpose dollies and trailers as manufactured by your company.

The first vehicle in question, which you identify as a helper dolly and(Illegible Word) on page 2 of your letter, would be classified as a trailer converter dolly for purposes of determining conformance to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As such, the vehicle is excepted from the lighting requirements specificed in FMVSS No. 108 (copy enclosed). The vehicle would, however, be subject to the applicable lighting requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) regulations when it is towed alone (without an attached(Illegible Word) in interstate commorce.

The second and third vehicles in question, as shown on pages 3 and 4 of your letter, would be classified as trailers for purpose of determining conformance to FMVSS No. 108. As such, the vehicles must be equipped with lighting devices as specified in the standard. If the vehicles are 80 or more inches in overall width, front clearance lamps, installed as specified in Table II of the standard, are required. An interpretation of the term "overall width" is provided on page S 108-5 of the standard.

The requirements of FMVSS No. 108 are applicable to each new vehicle (truck, bus, trailer, etc.) as manufactured and offered for sale. The possibility that one vehicle may be operated in combination with another in no way alters the specified requirements. Vehicles operating in combination on the public highway are subject to regulations of the individual States and to BMCS regulations (for vehicles engaged in interstate commerce). BMCS regulations permit deactivation of lamps which are obscured when vehicles are operated in combination, but temporary removal of such lamps is prohibited (see 49 CFR, Sections 390.1 through 390.7, 393.14, 393.15, 393.25 and 393.26).

Should you desire additional information concerning the requirements of FMVSS No. 106, please do not hesitate to contact me. For further information on the BMCS regulations, I would suggest that you contact Mr. W. R. Fiste, Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20590.

Sincerely,

MArch 1, 1973

Edward Leyseth National Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Leyseth: We build heavy duty low bed trailers and related dollies and booster axles. I need some information concerning legal definitions of some of our vehicles and lighting equipment required by Federal Standard No. 108.

The first vehicle in question is a helper dolly, which is not a converter dolly because of load transfer and kingpin, but is similar in appearance and use (see page 2). What is the legal definition of this vehicle and what lighting equipment is required? What lighting is required by a converter dolly?

also build beam frame trailers designed for hauling large machinery, usually tracked, which straddle the frame to keep the load low and the trailer light (see page 3). Does this trailer require a front clearance light directly in front of the undercarriage? The trailer shown is a folding gooseneck type and is 5 ft. wide across the frame.

Next is a booster dolly, which is a hydraulically loaded trailing axle or axles articulated at the rear of the trailer. The frame comes to a point similar to tow type trailer tongue at the point of articulation (see page 4). What is the legal definition of this unit? Are front side marker and clearance lights required?

Also, can lights be temporarily removed when another vehicle in a combination prevents their visibility (e.g., the rear lights on a trailer are removed when a helper dolly is attached and replaced when the trailer is pulled alone)? Any information you could give me would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

HYSTER COMPANY --

Jim Glover,

Project Engineer

ID: nht73-1.27

DATE: 05/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of May 14, 1973, you present the fact situation of an equipment manufacturer who installs lighting equipment on a component which he supplies to distributors or dealers, for installation by them on motor vehicles. For purposes of this letter, I assume that the installation occurs before the first sale of the vehicles for purposes other than resale. You ask what the equipment manufacturer should do to advise the distributor or dealer "that the lamps and/or reflectors which he has affixed to his product meets the published S.A.E. specs required by Standard 108."

There is no Federal requirement that an equipment manufacturer in this fact situation supply compliance information, although covered equipment that he sells must continue to conform. The requirements for certifying or otherwise providing information concerning conformity with Standard No. 108 apply to the manufacturer of the lighting equipment, and the manufacturer(s) (final-stage and others) of the vehicle in question. It may well be that the customers of the supplier you describe will demand assurances of conformity through commercial channels.

Yours truly, Mr.

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Legal Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm., Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591

Good morning, Dick!

One of our members, who is a bumper manufacturer, has asked for the correct procedure he should use when supplying a license plate lamp for the rear bumper which he produces and sells to distributors and dealers.

I can't see that he would be required to report his production of this bumper, since the unit itself is not covered by a Safety Standard. It would seem however, that he should provide some sort of data regarding the S.A.E. specs of the lamp which he places in the bumper.

Now that I think about it, this is really no different than the body manufacturer who supplies lamps and reflectors as a part of his body or body kit, which could open a whole can of worms. Therefore, I need to rephrase my question to include all lamps and reflectors which manufacturers provide Final-stage Manufacturers. Based upon the above, what must a prudent manufacturer do, if anything, to advise the Final-stage Manufacturer that the lamps and/or reflectors which he has affixed to his product meets the published S.A.E. specs required by Safety Standard 108?

Thaks in advance for your cooperation with this matter.

Best regards,

THOMAS S. PIERATT--

Executive Secretary

ID: nht73-1.28

DATE: 04/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: ADC Marketing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking for a clarification that the Front brake Light Adapter you describe "does not fall within the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108." The adapter, as we understand it, connects the stop lamps with the front turn signal lamps so that when the brakes are applied, the front turn signal lamps are activated in a steady-burning state, indicating that the vehicle is decelerating or has come to a halt.

In our opinion, use of the adapter as original equipment on a vehicle might be precluded by paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibiting devices that impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. The front turn signal lamp is a lamp that flashes in operation to indicate to oncoming drivers, or pedestrians, that the vehicle is preparing to turn, or that a potential hazard exists ahead (when the system is activated as a hazard warning system). Accordingly, when the brake pedal is applied, if the adapter overrides the flashing effect of the front signal lamps it would impair their effectiveness, and be prohibited by Standard No. 108.

The adapter would be permissable as original equipment, however, provided that the signals still flash when the brakes are applied, but a State would not be preempted from regulating it. Nothing in the standard precludes aftermarket sale of the adapter, but its use also would be subject to regulation by the individual States.

Yours truly,

March 29, 1973

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Subject: Regulation Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 --

Front Brake Light Adapter

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to a meeting today with Mr. Lem Owen of the Lighting and Visibility Division and the suggestion that we place in writing our request for an official ruling that the Front Brake Light Adapter submitted does not come within or violate the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have submitted samples and discussed the background of the Front Brake Light Adapter presently being marketed by ADC Marketing, Inc. with the Lighting and Visibility Division, and it has been verbally stated that in their opinion this does not apply to Regulation No. 108.

We believe that we have satisfactorily shown to your Lighting and Visibility Division that there is a definite safety factor involved and that the Adapter does not impair or change, in any manner whatsoever, the present function of the lighting system of any automobile and, therefore, does not violate any of the provisions in Regulation No. 108.

Recently we submitted Form 1171, Docket No. R3-73-163, an Application for Presenting New or Improved Articles, to the General Service Administration, Federal Supply Service requesting a Schedule Contract on the item. At this instance Standardization Division of GHA questioned whether this might come within the provision of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and while the verbal opinion given us in todays meeting would suffice for our own information, we feel that a written ruling should be made.

This Front Brake Light Adapter was first submitted to your Division in 1970 and correspondence continued into 1971. At that time U.S. Senator E.S. Muskie referred Mr. Clarence C. Turner's inquiry to your Division with the request that this item be included in Motor vehicle requirements. We are not pressing in this request for such a consideration, however, we do need to have clarified that this Front Brake Light Adapter does not fall within the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Very truly yours,

ADC MARKETING, INC.

LOUIS A. SISLER,

General Counsel

cc: Lloyd E. Singleton

Samuel P. Haines

ID: nht73-1.29

DATE: 08/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1973, asking whether a rear "light signalling" switch may be installed on your vehicles.

As I understand your letter, the switch and circuitry in question provide automatic flashing of side markers, clearance, tail, and identification lamps. Wiring of this nature, whether installed by the incomplete, intermediate, or final stage manufacturer would violate S4.6(b) of Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.5.8(b)). You are correct in saying that a switch and circuit may be furnished by manufacturers of truck-tractors, and incomplete vehicles for flashing only the side markers, and "that trailer manufacturers and subsequent vehicle manufacturers shall be responsible for the electrical circuitry to insure that marker lamps are independent from clearance, tail, and identification lamps." Of course, wiring these lamps to the same on-off switch would not violate the standard provided there is no flasher in the circuit.

You also ask "who assumes the responsibility for older trailers which will not have marker lamps on an independent circuit." The person completing the circuitry on a trailer is responsible for compliance to standards in effect when the trailer is completed.

Yours truly,

July 19, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

ATTENTION: Office of the Administrator

SUBJECT: Request for interpretation of use of interrupting switch for flashing vehicle lighting for signalling purposes.

REF: Part 571.108, Standard 108, Paragraphs 54.5.3 & 54.5.8 (b)

Dear Sir:

As a manufacturer of heavy duty motor trucks, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc. receives many customer requests for a "light signalling" switch, which we have refused to furnish.

Paragraph 54.5.8 (b) permits flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps. Is it the intent that a manufacturer of truck-tractors (complete vehicle when 5th wheel is installed) and original manufacturer of "Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages" may furnish a switch and circuit for flashing markers only, and that trailer manufacturers and subsequent vehicle manufacturers shall be responsible for the electrical circuitry to insure that marker lamps are independent from clearance, tail, and identification lamps? If so, who assumes the responsibility for older trailers which will not have marker lamps on an independent circuit?

Customers report that other truck manufacturers do furnish a rear lighting signalling switch and, due to our refusal (based on our interpretation) to offer this type of switch, Diamond Reo is being placed at a disadvantage when bidding on vehicle build contracts.

Your immediate interpretation will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

DIAMOND REO TRUCKS, INC. -- R. D. Shepard, Staff Engineer - Electrical & Safety

cc: G. Sztykiel

ID: nht73-1.3

DATE: 04/05/73

FROM: R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Holiday Rambler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 20, 1973, to this agency asking about the applicability of paragraph S4.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 to vehicles other than passenger cars.

Your understanding is correct that the standard establishes wiped area requirements only for passenger car windshields. The NHTSA is engaged in research with the intent of establishing as all-weather visibility standard, combining Standards No. 103 and 104, that would among other things extend the windshield wiped area requirements to vehicles other than passenger cars. However, it is not possible to say when we will issue a rulemaking proposal on this subject.