ID: nht94-4.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1994

FROM: Ken Daining -- Supervisor, Vehicle Test and Development, ITT Automotive

TO: Marvin Shaw -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO KEN DAINING (REDBOOK (2)); STD. 105

TEXT: I received your name through a recent phone conversation with Mr. George Soodoo. I work for ITT Automotive as the supervisor of the Chrysler vehicle ABS/TCS test and development department. I am interested in obtaining information relating to any existi ng (or future) legislation on the legalities of an ABS on/off switch. Currently, Chrysler Jeep owners which enjoy serious off-road driving, disengage their ABS because of the perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations. One proposal being kicked around is the possibility of automatically disengaging ABS function through the shifting of the vehicle into the 4WD-LO configuration (as most serious off-roaders do today). Any information you can provide will be very helpful. Thank you for your time and cooperation.

ID: nht94-4.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 24, 1994

FROM: Mariano Garcia -- Ricca & Whitmire

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Whether or not the D.O.T. regulates the manufacturing or certification of Kawasaki "Mule" KAF 450-B1

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Mariano Garcia (A43; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern:

This is to request a brief statement regarding whether or not the above referenced vehicle is covered by D.O.T. Regulations. I attach a brochure for your reference. This vehicle is primarily used as an "off-road" light utility vehicle.

Therefore, please state if any regulations apply. I sincerely appreciate your help and response.

Sincerely

Enclosure:

Mule 1000/2510 brochure.

(Text omitted. See original document.)

ID: nht94-4.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 25, 1994

FROM: Matt Decker -- Project Engineer, Wenger Corporation

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Petition for Exemption of FMVSS 108 (Section only with reference to the addition of trailer conspicuity)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/16/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MATT DECKER (A42; STD. 108; PART 555)

TEXT: The Wenger Corporation of Owatonna, Minnesota, U.S.A. is petitioning for exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment as it relates to the conspicuity treatment in S5.7 (effective date December 1, 1993).

The Wenger Corporation manufactures and sells a complete line of music education and performance equipment. Wenger Showmobiles, mobile performance stages in trailer form, are offered and sold primarily to city municipalities such as Park and Recreation Departments throughout the United States. As you can see from the enclosed advertising literature, aesthetics is of major concern to our customers. The addition of the conspicuity striping is unacceptable for many of our potential customers because of how it would impact their graphics on the sides and rear of the product.

The annual sales volume for this particular product is approximately 20 (twenty). The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) is 13500 lbs. Average annual mileage after delivery of this product ranges from a low of 25 miles to a high of 500 miles. Our cust omers generally store this product within their city yards. This product is typically towed by a 1-1/2 ton pick-up truck or city truck to the performance site which is normally within the city limits. The performance sites can vary from a closed off st reet to the middle of a city park.

In summary the Wenger Showmobile product is a low mileage vehicle that is generally parked off-road at night, either on private city property or city parks. Exterior appearance (graphics) is very important to owners of this product. With utmost importa nce it is Wenger Corporation's opinion that exemption from the conspicuity requirement would not have an adverse effect upon safety with regards to the Showmobile product.

Please review the information included with this petition and offer your ruling as soon as possible. If there are any questions relating to this petition please direct them by telephone or in writing to:

The Wenger Corporation

Attention: Matt Decker

555 Park Drive Owatonna, MN 55060

Telephone: (507) 455-4100 Ext. 174

ID: nht94-4.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1994

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

TO: Platt, Debra, (Florida)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 8/29/94 Letter From Debra Platt To NHTSA Office Of Chief Council (OCC 10334)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 29, 1994, in which you inquire whether a child "partially sitting on a bus seat [is] provided crash protection of Standard 222." You explain that you were referring to a third child sitting on the edge of a bus seat nearest the aisle. The child can only face the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward, because the bench seat is overcrowded.

Some background information would be helpful in responding to your question. 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966) provides this agency the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each new vehicle or item of equipment that is sold to the consumer must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on its date of manufacture. However, once the vehicle or equipment is sold, the use of that product becomes a matter of State jurisdiction. NHTSA has no authority to regulate the operation of used vehicles or items of equipment.

With respect to school buses, it has been shown that school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in America (see enclosed School Bus Safety Report, May 1993). Every year, approximately 380,000 public school buses travel approx imately 3.8 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school related activities. Occupant deaths per vehicle mile travelled in school buses are about one-fourth those in passenger cars. Crash protection in large school buses , those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds and which typically seat 16 or more, is provided by "compartmentalization." That concept requires strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed and evenly-spaced seats for school b us occupant protection. Compartmentalization has been shown to be effective by independent studies of the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences. Small school buses, on the other hand, those with a GVWR of 10,000 poun ds or less and which typically seat fewer than 16 occupants, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions.

Turning to your inquiry, this agency agrees it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, facing the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward. To get the full benefit of compartmentalization, the child occupant should f ace forward to be cushioned and contained between the strong, well-padded seat backs on the school bus. Thus, Standard 222 requires school bus passenger seats to be forward-facing (paragraph S5.1). When a child is sitting on the edge of the bus seat, a s you described, it would seem that either the school bus is overloaded or the passengers are seating themselves improperly, indicating a possible lack of adequate supervision. This agency is seriously concerned about such conditions, but as pointed out above, once a vehicle is sold to the first retail customer, the use of that vehicle becomes the responsibility of the State.

Since the States regulate the use of school buses, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Governor's highway safety representative for Florida is:

Mr. Frank Carlile

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

605 Suwanne St., MS-57

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Telephone: (904) 922-5820

I am also enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued jointly by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration and provides recommendations to the states on the operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Although these recommendations are not mandatory, they might be helpful in your discussions with school officials.

I hope this 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.

ID: nht94-4.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1994

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

TO: Gupta, Rishi -- Autolite (India) Limited

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 8/29/94 Letter From Rishi Gupta to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 10324)

TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX of August 29, 1994, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. For future reference, requests for interpretations of U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety regulations should be addressed to the Office of Chief Counsel.

You have asked whether the size and types of aiming pads you propose to place on headlamps manufactured by Autolite conform to DOT specifications. You describe these headlamps as "a 7" round and a 200 x 142 mm rectangular replaceable halogen sealed beam s [which] use a replaceable halogen bulb (HB2)." You enclosed diagrams showing "aiming pad's position as per SAE J1383 - 1992" (Figures 1 and 3), and in the manner you wish to place them on the Autolite lamps (Figures 2 and 4). We understand that these replaceable bulb headlamps are intended to be sold as replacements for sealed beam headlamps of the same dimensions.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the DOT specification that applies to Autolite's headlamps. The aimability performance requirements for non-sealed beam headlamps are found in S7.8. of Standard No. 108. S7.8 allows any aiming pad pattern that will fit on the headlamp and that will allow any one of the available aiming adapters described in SAE J602 to be used on the headlamp.

Specifically, S7.8.1 in pertinent part allows non-sealed beam headlamps to be equipped with aiming pads to be used with the photometric procedures of SAE J1383 APR85 (not "1992" as you wrote) when being tested for photometric compliance, and to serve for the aiming reference when the lamp is installed on a motor vehicle. S7.8.5 allows an installed headlamp system to be aimable with an externally applied aiming device. Under S7.8.5.1, this aiming device shall be the equipment specified in SAE Standard J602 OCT80 Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units.

You write that the aiming pad sizes and types you wish to use are identical to those on headlamps sold by Hella, and that ETL Testing Laboratories has told you that the aiming pad positions and types meet DOT specifications. This indicates that Autolite 's headlamps would be mechanically aimable with SAE J602 equipment, and therefore permissible as meeting Standard No. 108. We recommend that Autolite verify mechanical aimability with SAE J602 equipment before certifying compliance with Standard No. 108 .

Our engineering staff has reviewed your letter and asks that we point out the following errors in Autolite's Figures Nos. 2 and 4. Under both Figures, there is a reference to "HB-2 (H4 P43t)." The HB2 light source is not the same as the H4 P43t light so urce. The HB2 is a light source permitted by Standard No. 108 while the H4 P43t is not permitted by the Standard for motor vehicles. Under the drawing, the dimension "68.5" should be "68.58 +/- 0.51" (see Figure 4-4 of Standard No. 108). The dimensions of "32" and "52.0" must be the sum of two dimension "A"s from Figure 4-4, thus the sum is 42.16 +/- 0.25 + 42.16 +/- 0.25 = 84.32 +/- 0.50, not 84 as nominally calculated. Finally, with respect to Figure 4 only, because this lamp is intended to replace a 200 x 142 mm sealed beam lamp, the position of the aiming pads are not, but should be identical to the 200 x 142 mm sealed beam to facilitate mechanical aim when only one headlamp is replaced.

ID: nht94-4.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

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

TO: Thomas L. Wright -- Coordinator, Technical Support New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7/15/94 FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO ROBERT HELLMUTH

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1994, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency requesting an opinion whether brush guards offered as accessories for Range Rovers and installed in front of headlamp units are in violation of Standard No. 108.

Our letter is based upon the configurations of "brush bars" depicted as accessory equipment in a 1994 Range Rover brochure. The brochure notes that brush bars "may be illegal for on-road use in some states. Please check local regulations before purchas e, installation, or use." We note that this advisory applies to the rear lamp guards as well. The purpose of the brush bar is to offer protection to the grille, radiator, and front and rear lamps, and it does so by incorporating three slender horizontal bars in front of the lenses of the front and rear lamps.

Paragraph S7.8.5 of Standard No. 108 states that headlamps when activated "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens." The lamp guard portion of the brush bar is the type of "other f eature . . . in front of the lens" that is prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a Range Rover could not be displayed for sale and sold with a brush bar installed unless the lamp guards had been removed. This should present no proble m as, according to the brochure, the "lamp protectors are easily removable for cleaning and maintenance." In our view, the proper time for installation of the lamp protectors is when the vehicle begins to be used off-road.

Although there is no similar direct prohibition in Standard No. 108 applicable to other vehicle lamps, the parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps are required to conform with the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lamp guards are in place. This is based upon two paragraphs of the standard. S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps from meeting the required photometric output. S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of supplementary motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment.

The guards are designed for maintenance by the owner, and their installation by the owner after purchase of the Range Rover would not be in violation of Federal law, even if installed for on-road use. Operation of the Range Rover is subject only to Stat e law, and a State may forbid on-road use of a Range Rover with the lamp guards installed if it so chooses.

ID: nht93-1.17

DATE: 01/22/93

FROM: GUY DORLEANS -- INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER, VALEO LIGHTING

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: AIMABILITY OF HEADLAMPS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-4-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GUY DORLEANS (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: Valeo Lighting is currently studying new principles for aiming small circular headlamps. Two versions are considered:

Version A:

A pair of headlamp spacer rims, hereunder designated by the acronym "HSR", are permanently attached to the car. The lens of each headlamp has 3 bosses, so that the HSR shown on sheet A1 easily finds its place between the lens and a standard circular adpater for 5" 3/4 sealed-beam units. Sheet B2 shows the assembly, before adjunction of readily available aimers for 5" 3/4 sealed beams units.

The pair of "HSR" is placed in an accessory kit, in the trunck. Relevant instructions for use are included in the owner's manual.

Version B:

The part shown on sheet B1 replaces the functions of the HSR and the function of the standard circular adapter.

The B1 specific adapter (see sheet B2) is the link between the lens of the headlamp and the external 5" 3/4 aimers, these latter devices being available in the United States for more than 30 years.

In this case also, a pair of specific adapters are sold with the car, and permanently placed in the trunck of each car. Relevant informations are provided by the owner's manual.

-------

Valeo respectfully asks NHTSA to confirm that both versions are in compliance with Standard 108.

Do not hesitate to contact me if further clarifications are needed.

ATTACHMENTS

(GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

ID: nht93-1.18

DATE: January 25, 1993

FROM: Jeff Gerner -- Product Engineering Manager, Banner Welder, Inc., Environmental Recycling Equipment Division

TO: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from John Womack to Jeff Gerner (A41; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: After speaking to George Entwistle from OVSC of NHTSA, George recommended that I write your office to request a legal interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 571.121 for BANNER's line of Mobile Machinery.

BANNER manufactures two (2) lines of mobile machinery, the Farwick American Mobile Trommel Screener and the Jenz American Mobile Shredder. The machines are designed to be used at compost sites (similar to a landfill environment) for processing yard waste. Some of these machines may be towed to the site and never moved from the site again. Others may be used to operate multiple sites, and will require daily or weekly transportation on Federal, State and local highways. In general, however, the machines are primarily off-road vehicles.

Upon reviewing 121, I have learned that mechanical emergency braking is a requirement of this standard. Utilizing a braking system of this type will prove to be extremely inconvenient for normal daily operation, which will require frequent moving of the machine. Typically these machines are moved at the compost site with front-end loaders. With a brake system of this type, this will not be possible. Instead a truck with an air brake system will be required at all times in order to move the machine.

Please review the enclosed literature and technical specifications and provide a response that states whether this machinery may be exempt from this standard.

In addition, please provide any references to standards that are applicable.

Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.

Attached to brochures (Farwick Mobile Trommel Screens and Jenz American Mobile Shredder).

(Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht93-1.19

DATE: January 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/22/92 from Paul David Wellstone to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8181)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Ms. Tutti Sherlock and Ms. Mary Bock, regarding the application of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus standards to Head Start facilities.

Your constituents ask that NHTSA inform the Minnesota Department of Transportation that we do not require school bus manufacturers to provide school bus equipment, such as stop arms and special stop lights, on Head Start buses. They base this request on their belief that in 1985, NHTSA said that states may decide which regulations should apply to Head Start buses. They also believe that stop arms and lights for Head Start buses are unnecessary, and that painting Head Start buses yellow could be confusing.

We cannot provide the requested interpretation, because the understanding of your constituents is incorrect. By way of background, your constituents' concerns relate to two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSS's for school buses, including FMVSS's requiring these buses to have a stop arm and warning lights. The Safety Act requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSS's for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement.

The question of whether Head Start facilities are "schools" under the Safety Act has been addressed by NHTSA since the beginning of the school bus FMVSS's. The agency's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore "schools" under the Safety Act. We base this conclusion on a review of the goals and functions of the Head Start program (see, e.g., 45 CFR 1304.1-3), and on past NHTSA interpretations of "school." NHTSA has stated its position that Head Start facilities are schools most recently in an August 21, 1992 letter to Mr. Chuck Anderson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Any new bus that is sold to a Head Start facility must have the safety features of a school bus at the time of the vehicle's sale, including the stop arm and signal lights.

However, the Safety Act does not require Head Start facilities to USE school buses or any other particular vehicle, nor does it require school buses to be painted yellow. The maintenance and operational characteristics of school buses are matters left to the individual states. (1) NHTSA's second set of school bus regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, is a set of recommendations to the states for developing effective pupil transportation

programs. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed), recommends that any vehicle designed for 11 or more persons that is used as a school bus should comply with the FMVSS's for school buses and should be painted yellow. However, Guideline 17 would affect the operation of your constituents' school buses only to the extent that Minnesota has incorporated it into state law.

I hope this information will be helpful in responding to your constituents.

(1) We stated this in NHTSA's September 27, 1985 letter to Mr. Charles Pekow, to which you refer in your letter. To clarify your understanding of the letter, NHTSA stated that "The requirements for school bus OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ... are matters left to the individual states to determine. (Emphasis added.)

Attachment

Copy of Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 81, Rules and Regulations pertaining to Part 1204.4, Pupil Transportation Safety. (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-1.2

DATE: 01-01-93 EST

FROM: Joseph G. Wilson -- President, The Monmouth Corporation

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-21-93 from John Womack to Joseph G. Wilson (A41; Std.108)

TEXT: The Monmouth Corporation has developed a system, which protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision. With BLU-LITE installed in your vehicle, you are able to signal the driver behind you instantly while braking suddenly to avoid an accident.

We would welcome an opportunity to demonstrate our system to you and your staff at your earliest convenience. Until that time we are sending you a brochure describing the advantages of the BLU-LITE SYSTEM FOR YOUR PERUSAL.

I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Attachment: Copy of Blu-Lite brochure "Drive Safely with Blu-Lite." (Text omitted.)