ID: 1985-01.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Janet M. Goodrich

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Janet M. Goodrich 870 W. Versailles Ct. Baton Rouge, LA 70819

This responds to your letter asking about regulations for automobile ignition systems and steering wheel locking systems. You asked for information concerning requirements for vehicles with automatic transmissions for the removal of the ignition key while the vehicle is in drive or any gear other than park. You specifically asked whether a driver should be able to remove the key from the ignition while the car is in drive even if the engine is no longer running.

Requirements relating to steering wheel locking systems are set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. Section S4.2 of the standard requires (among other things) that vehicles have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both. Section S4.3 of the standard requires that the prime means for deactivating the vehicle's engine shall not activate the deterrent that prevents steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle. Thus, the driver of an automobile may turn off the engine while the car is in motion without activating the steering column lock or impeding forward self-mobility.

Neither Standard No. 114 nor any other standard specifically requires that vehicles be designed so that drivers are unable to remove the key from the ignition while the vehicle is in drive. I would note that the agency has conducted rulemaking addressing the issue of inadvertent activation of the steering column lock in moving vehicles. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in May 1978 and a final rule in December 1980, the agency deleted the relevant requirements in a final rule and response to petitions for reconsideration, published in June 1981. In that latter notice, the agency stated that it had determined that the problem of inadvertent activation is not significant enough to require vehicles to be equipped with key-locking systems that provide more protection against inadvertent activation.

Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, also includes a requirement relevant to your question. Section S3.7.3 requires that the engine starter for automatic transmission vehicles be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

Copies of Standards Nos. 102 and 114 and the three Federal Register notices discussed above are enclosed for your convenience.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

870 W. Versailles Ct. Baton Rouge, La. 70819 (504) 275-0666 November 8, 1984

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Office of Standard Enforcement 400 7th Street SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir or Madam:

I need information concerning the legal regulations for automobile ignition systems and steering wheel locking systems. Specifically I would like for the information to cover what the requirements are for the manufacturers of vehicles with automatic transmissions for the removal of the ignition key while the vehicle is in drive or any gear other than park. Should the driver be able to remove the key from the ignition while the car is in drive even if the engine is no longer running.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be very much appreciated as I need the information to complete my research. Thank you. Sincerely, Janet M. Goodrich jmg

ID: 1985-01.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/85 EST

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA RULEMAKING

TO: FRED W. BOWDITCH -- MVMA TECHNICAL AFFAIRS DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/29/84 FROM FRED W. BOWDITCH -- MVMA TO DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA, PETITION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bowditch:

On October 29, 1984, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association filed a petition for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

The petition requested "removal from section 4.1.1.36(a) (2) of the limitation requiring the three aiming pads to be located on the exterior face of the headlamp lens." You have suggested the mounting flange at the lens-reflector joint as an acceptable alternative location for the aiming pads. The language suggested in the petition for amendment of S4.1.1.36(a) (2) would also allow all three legs to be adjustable on the headlamp aimers.

The agency has proposed amendments to Standard No. 108 (49 FR 47880) to delete the final sentence of paragraph S4.1.1.36(a) (2) with reference to aiming locating plates, and to delete Figures 9-1 and 9-2. Thus, this aspect of your petition has already been granted. We have filed your petition as a comment in the docket to be considered in future rulemaking action on this subject. Further, we interpret the words "The exterior face of each...lens" in paragraph S4.1.1.36(a) (2) to mean all portions of the lens face including the mounting flange which is a molded and indivisible part of the lens. Thus, no rulemaking is considered necessary to implement this item of your petition. Your request also included a suggestion that the minimum height of the lettering for the adjustment of the legs on the aimer adapter should be reduced from 0.25 inch to 4 mm. This is being addressed in pending rulemaking. Therefore, no further action is necessary at this time.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-01.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Iwase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 15, 1985 Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1985, with reference to the compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of a proposed motorcycle headlamp design. In the design shown in your letter a single housing would contain two dual-filament bulbs, each with an independently aimed reflector. You have stated that the headlamp can comply with the photometric requirements of Sae J584 when either compartment is lit, and that the assembly will meet all other requirements of J584. A dual bulb arrangement in a single housing is considered a single headlamp, and therefore its compliance will be judged when both compartments are lit to provide either the upper or lower beam. Assuming that when both compartments are lit the combined candlepower at individual test points does not exceed the maxima imposed by J584 for those test points, your design appears to comply with Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Dept., American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Gill Senior Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

This is in response to your letter of May 25, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table IV specifies that the minimum horizontal separation distance "(centerline to centerline of lamp)" for rear turn signal lamps on motorcycles is 9 inches. You have asked whether the "centerline" refers to the distance between the lens centers, between the centers of the effective projected luminous areas, or between the bulb centers.

You asked for confirmation of your belief that the proper interpretation is found in the referenced SAE Standard, J588e, which contains the language "Optical axes (filament centers)," implying that the correct distance is that between the "bulb centers" as you term it.

We find no direct correlation between the phrases "centerline to centerline of lamps" and "optical axis (filament center) ." The lamp is a device emitting light whereas "optical axis (filament center)" does not refer to the lamp but only to a portion of its light-producing component. As that phrase is used in SAE J588e, it defines the method of measuring distances between bulbs in multi-compartment lamps for the purpose of testing for photometric requirements (paragraph 3.1), or in measuring the separation of the turn signal from the headlamp (paragraph 4.2, where, incidentally, it is expressed as the distance between filament and a lamp component, the retaining ring).

Taken literally, "centerline to centerline of lamps" in our view means the distance between lens centers. In the response to petitions for reconsideration of the center high-mounted stoplamp amendment (May 17, 1984), the question was asked whether the "center" of the lamp was its geometric center, its optical center, or the center of the bulb filament. The agency replied that the center of the lamp is the geometric center. Since the purpose of the minimum separation requirement is to insure that the turn signal is perceived as such, we believe that the correct interpretation of "centerline to centerline" is a measurement from the geometric center of one lamp to the geometric center of the other lamp. The geometric center would be anonymous with the term "geometric centroid of lens" as used in SAE J1221 Headlamp-Turn Signal Spacing. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gordan Bonvallet Manager, Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. P.O. Box 2040 Cortland, New York 13045-2040

Dear Mr. Bonvallet:

This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1985, asking for an interpretation of the humidity testing procedure for replaceable bulb headlamps.

Paragraph S6.8 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that after completion of the test cycle in which the headlamp shall have been in an environment of 100oF with a relative humidity of 90+105, it shall then be in an environment with a temperature of 73oF and relative humidity of 30+10% before removal for photometric testing. You believe that this implies an instantaneous transition in temperature/humidity conditions which, in your view, is "impossible to achieve." You have set forth three alternative procedures and ask which is the most acceptable to this agency.

Under your first alternative, the temperature and humidity in the humidity chamber would be reduced to 73oF-43%;, requiring about an hour) whereupon the headlamp would be removed to a "dry box" chamber of the requisite temperature/ humidity before photometric testing. In the second alternative, there would be no such removal before the photometric testing. In the third alternative, the headlamp would be removed from the humidity chamber and immediately carried to a "dry box" with the requisite temperature/ humidity; however, in your test set up this would require three to five minutes elapsed time between chambers.

Paragraph S6.8 does not specify a humidity of 43% in any of its test conditions, and a procedure incorporating the first and second alternatives clearly would not be in accordance with paragraph S6.8. That paragraph, however, does not specify that the temperature/humidity sequences must occur in the same chamber but it does imply that the lower temperature/ humidity soak should take place directly following the higher temperature/humidity one. Therefore, your third alternative is the one that meets the intent of paragraph S6.8. To insure consistency of results, we recommend that no transfer period exceed three minutes and that the headlamp be exposed as briefly and as little as possible to the ambient temperature/humidity of the test laboratory.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

Subject: Interpretation of Testing Procedure FMVSS 108 Replaceable Bulb Headlamps

Paragraph S6.8 Humidity of FMVSS 108 states a test procedure which implies a headlamp should undergo an instantaneous transition in temperature/ humidity conditions from 100oF-90% relative humidity (tolerances have been omitted here) to 73oF-30% R.H. This, of course, is impossible to achieve. The attached discussion suggests possible testing procedures to resolve the problem. I request an interpretation on which is acceptable and if none are, please clarify how the test can and should be performed. We expect to have headlamps to test within the next couple of weeks, so prompt consideration would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division

GB/mm Enclosure

Docket No. 81-11

Replaceable Bulb Headlamp

FMVSS 108 Paragraph S6.8 Humidity The present ruling requires the headlamp to be subjected to a controlled environment of 100oF + 9o and a relative humidity of 90% + 10%. Following the 20 consecutive 6 hour test cycles, the headlamp is to be "soaked" for 1 hour at 73oF (20oC) and a relative humidity of 30% + 10% before it is removed for photometric testing.

Most environmental chambers (Thermotron, Blue M, for example) do not have the capabilities to reduce the humidity to 30% (or 40%) at the 73oF temperature. We have constructed a special chamber which is capable of about 35% RH at 73oF although this is very dependent on the room ambient temperature and humidity. This chamber is located near the Photometric test range so we can perform the following photometric test in a very short time. Unfortunately, this chamber is located a couple hundred feet from the standard environmental chamber. At the completion of the humidity test, we must remove the headlamp and carry it to the "dry box" for the one hour soak. Men the headlamp is removed from the 100oF environmental chamber, it immediately is subjected to a cooler room ambient, perhaps 65o -70oF and 60% RH.

We have experimented with a procedure which reduces the temperatures humidity of the environmental chamber following the normal humidity cycles, to a range of 73oF and about 43% RH. This procedure takes about one hour to accomplish. We cannot get the humidity any lower with prolonged operation of the chamber. Following this procedure, the headlamp is carried to the "dry box" for the one hour soak.

I know of no standard environmental chambers which can operate at 100oF - 90% RH and reduce in conditions to 73oF - 30 + 10% RH within a short enough period to allow a one hour soak at the final temperature/humidity conditions, period to allow a one hour soak at the final temperature/humidity conditions, other than s chamber designed for thermal shock and these have no humidity control.

I request an interpretation on which of the described procedures should be used.

1. Following the humidity test, reduce the temperature and humidity in the chamber to 73oF - 43% RH in a one hour period, transfer headlamp to the 73oF - 30 + 10% RH dry box for one hour followed by the photometric test.

2. Following the humidity test, reduce the temperature and humidity in the chamber to 73oF - 43% RH in a one hour period, followed by the photometric test.

3. Following the humidity test, remove the headlamp from the humidity chamber, carry it at room ambient conditions (approximately three minutes - five minutes) to the dry box and soak at 73oF and 30 + 10% RH for one hour followed by the photometric test.

If none of these alternatives is acceptable, please clarify exactly how the test can and should be performed.

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. February 4, 1985

ID: 1985-01.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey E.Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. A. R. Fisher

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. R. Fisher Manager, Environmental Affairs New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. 45500 Fremont Boulevard Fremont, California 94538

Dear Mr. Fisher:

This is in response to your letter of October 5, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding.

Under the assumptions that your Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status and that light-duty engines are "certified at time of entry," you have asked for confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not require a DOT HS-7 Form for the engines.

Motor vehicle engines are not subject to any form of certification to DOT requirements, and no HS-7 Form is required for them under any circumstances.

You have also asked for confirmation that no HS-7 need be filed for finished vehicles entering the stream of commerce of the United States provided that they are produced at the Fremont plant and are in compliance at the time of delivery.

For Customs purposes, motor vehicles manufactured in Foreign Trade Zones within the United States are not considered as subject to importation requirements until they leave the Zone and enter the Customs Territory of the United States. Under the joint DOT-Treasury (Customs) regulation governing importation of vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a declaration must be given (usually the Form HS-7) when vehicles enter the United States, even if they bear the certification of compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(ii)). Technically, Customs could require declarations for all vehicles manufactured in the Zone at Fremont.

However, declarations may be waived for certified U.S., Mexican, or Canadian-registered vehicles arriving at land borders (19 C.F.R. 12.80(f)), at the discretion of the District Director of the border crossing involved. We view the Fremont Trade Zone situation as analogous, and you may inform the local District Customs Director that this agency would have no objection if the declaration requirement were waived for the cars to be produced at Fremont. Should the District Director decide that authority was lacking for such a waiver, your recourse would appear to be to petition the U.S. Customs Service for rulemaking to amend Section 12.80(f) to include certified but unregistered vehicles produced within Foreign Trade Zones.

In closing, we request that your company file a Manufacturer Identification statement with this agency as required by 49 C.F.R Part 566.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

October 5, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is a follow up to a conversation last week with Mr. Clive Van Orden concerning the enclosed letter of August 17, 1984. I would like to reconfirm that NHTSA does not need to receive nor require DOT HS Form 7 for light-duty engines imported by New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) for the purpose of new vehicle production, providing that such engines are certified at the time of entry and the Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status. If the above understanding is correct we would appreciate receiving a confirmation letter.

Also, please advise us if the filing of DOT HS Form 7 will not be necessary for finished vehicles entered into the commerce of the United States provided such vehicles 1) are produced at the Fremont plant and 2) are in compliance at the time of delivery.

Sincerely,

A.R. Fisher, PhD Manager, Environmental Affairs

cc: E. Muirhead - NUMMI T. Welte - U.S. Customs

August 17, 1984

Mr. Clive Van Orden National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Van Orden:

As a follow up to our conversation last week, I would like to reconfirm that NHTSA does not need to receive nor require DOT HS form 7 for engines imported by New United Motor Mfg. Inc. (NUMMI) for the purpose of new vehicle production, providing that such engines are certified at the time of entry and the Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status. If the above understanding is correct we would appreciate receiving a confirmation letter.

Also, please advise us if the filing of DOT HS form 7 will not be necessary for finished vehicles entered into the commerce of the United States provided such vehicles 1) are produced at the Fremont plant and 2) are in compliance at the time of delivery.

Sincerely,

Anthony Fisher. Ph.D Manager - Environmental Affairs

cc: e. Muirhead - NUMMI T. Welte - U.S. Customs

ID: 1985-01.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ron Cortez -- Marketing Director, Deco International Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Office of Chief Console N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Ms. or Mr.,

Please inform me as to the proper procedure for certifying an entirely new device that will enhance the braking features of trucks and/or passenger vehicles.

Our product, when incorporated into the vehicles braking system will allow the driver to brake the vehicle to a stop once, remove his or her foot from the brake pedal and have the vehicle remain motionless, under brake pressure, until the throttle position is advance.

This will enable the driver to accelerate from a stop on a hill without the fear of a 'roll back'.

One simply brings their vehicle to a stop, and removes their foot from the brake pedal. Our device automatically engages, holding the vehicle motionless, until the accelerator is advanced.

In that this device must be installed in conjunction with the vehicles original brake system, we are concerned as how to properly certify the device.

Mechanically the device must be spliced into the hydraulic brake system of the vehicle. Sensors are attached to the speedometer cable, at the transmission, and on the throttle linkage. Disengagement is a result of either application of the throttle and/or movement of the vehicle as detected at the speedometer cable.

Please forward any and all infomation pertaining to the certification requirements of such an 'aftermarket' device.

Thank you very much for your quick response and assistance.

Sincerely,

Ron Cordez Marketing Director

Mr. Ron Cortez Marketing Director Deco International Corporation 12612 Osborne Street Pacoima, California 91331

Dear Mr. Cortez:

This response to your letter asking about Federal requirements applicable to an aftermarket device designed to enable a driver to accelerate from a stop on a hill without the fear or a "roll back." Once the device is installed, the driver may brake the vehicle to a stop once, remove his or her foot from the brake pedal and have the vehicle remain motionless, under brake pressure, until the throttle position is advanced. According to your letter, the device must be spliced into the hydraulic brake system of the vehicle. Sensors are attached to the speedometer cable, at the transmission, and on the throttle linkage. Disengagement is a result of either application of the throttle and/or movement of the vehicle as detected at the speedometer cable.

By way of background information, the agency does not provide approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to insure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following opinion is based on the information provided in your letter.

The agency does not have any regulations covering hill-hold devices designed to be attached to the braking system of a vehicle. However, since installation of your device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of your device, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . . .

Standard No. 105 includes various requirements that might be affected by installation of your device. We are not able to determine from the information provided in your letter whether compliance with the standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard. Requirements included in the standard include, among others, ones on stopping distance, split systems, and the ability of a baking system to withstand a series of spike stops, which might be affected by your device.

Moreover, should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et. seq. of the Act to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

I have enclosed an information sheet which explains where to obtain copies of our standards and regulations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: 1985-01.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dennis Moore -- Sierra Product, Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Dennis Moore Sierra Product, Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore, CA 94550

This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1984, asking whether it is permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to combine a turn signal lamp with a center high mounted stop lamp that is intended for the aftermarket as a retrofit.

As you have noted, the recent amendments to Standard No. 108 cover the center high mounted stop lamp only as an item of original equipment and do not purport to regulate the item as an aftermarket device. This means that the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.1 against combining the center high mounted stop lamp with any other lamp does not apply. The legality of such a combination, indeed, the legality of the auxiliary stop lamp itself, is determinable under the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered and/or operated.

The sole federal restriction on use of aftermarket devices does not appear in Standard No. 108, but in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108 (a)(2)(A) in essence forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. The combination turn signal/center high mounted lamp would not appear to have this effect.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

SIERRA PRODUCTS inc.

In reference to selling a High Center Mount Brake Light Retro-Kit to owners of Pre 198F autos and trucks"our Company is faced with a logistics Problem that includes questions of law and the desire to put out an economical reliable product whereas millions of Americans can easily and economically retrofit their used Autos with a High Center Mount Brake Light and enjoy the safety benefits as will people buying new 1986 cars.

We feel several factors lead us to a conclusion that if a High Center Mount Brake Light were allowed to be combined with a High Turn Signal that millions more retrofits would occur because of the low retail price and greater simplicity and reliability of a typical installation

These factors are:

1. In order to avoid the Federal Requirement of S4.4.1 of Standard 108 on "Retrofit Kits" for Pre 1986 Autos in the U.S., all *"Combined Function" lighted cars must be wired in the front to the Brake Switch or use a 15 to 30 Electronic Component "Separating Circuit" to accomplish the same effect.

2. Most U.S. autos (over half of 130 million) use "combined function lights and the chance of the owners of combined function autos using a High Center Brake Light will be significantly reduced if $7 to $10 is added to the Retail Price of a Retrofit Kit which must be done presently.

3. If "combined function" light auto owners are asked to wire to the Brake Light Switch, this makes for a much more difficult installation then going just a couple of feet into the trunk area. Sales of such a Retrofit package and therefore use of High Center Mount Brake Lights will be significantly reduced.

4. For years, SAE 186 has allowed Combination of High Brake Light with a High Turn Signal and apparently has been used to some degree in the U.S. unchallenged. However, the changing of S4.4.1 now challenges the legality of SAE 186 even when applied to "add on" lighting.

5. Buyers representing auto supply distributors and mass merchandisers are very reluctant to carry different models of a High Center Mount Brake Light (one for separate function and one for combined function lights). They are apt to forget about the more expensive model which would include the electronic converter or not carry such a product at all. One universal, low priced model has a good chance of national distribution. There have been many a good product "die on the vine" in the U.S. because of lack of Distribution and this should not be one of them.

6. If a "Separating Circuit" were to be used on a large scale (as they are beginning to), they should have federal safety specifications to assure reliability to the public. Otherwise the public will be lead into a false feeling of buying something that the government has sanctioned and says helps safety only to find out they are possibly at the mercy of an "unreliable electronic black box" that breaks down because of the lack of a reliable safety specification.

Even though Federal law only requires this device in Post 1986 autos and has no law requiring retrofit lights on Pre 1986 cars, the public will indirectly hold the Federal government responsible for a failure such as this, whether they are directly responsible or not, causing hard feelings and a definite loss of credibility.

7. A High Turn Signal combined with a High Center Brake Light as permitted in SAE 186 is a desirable additional safety feature over the High Center Mount Brake Light and we feel it does not at all confuse the functions of the existing required lights (on Pre 1986 autos).

8. Even though Post 1986 autos will not have the High Center Mount Brake Light combined with any other light, we feel that our design of combining a High Center Mount Brake Light with a High Turn Signal feature must be deemed a modification that is unconsequential to Public Safety. As a matter of fact, we feel it is Consequential To Public Safety but only in a Positive way.

9. In all traffic, especially heavy traffic, it is desirable for the following traffic, both immediately behind and far behind to know when a vehicle is about to change lanes or turn off the highway. Furthermore, lanes of traffic to either side could use this information in a constructive way to avoid accidents. In essence, we subscribe to the proven fact that if a High Center Mount Brake Light is put "Where People Look" and it reduces rear end accidents by over 50%, then the other "intention light", that is the Turn Light, would have a similar savings in "lateral" accidents as they would be also "Where People Look". Even if they were not immediately construed as a Turn Signal from a far distance, it is still a signal to other vehicles that "something that could affect traffic conditions is about to happen" and is valuable information to surrounding autos.

We believe a Study in Lateral initiated accidents would show this; however, we haven't the funds or the resources for such a study.

IN CONCLUSION: We are Petitioning for a Clarification of this Point and as soon as possible as this situation may cost the American Public great sums of money unnecessarily and perhaps undermine the effectiveness of a needed product.

*"Combined Function" autos is an automobile whose Brake and Turn Light are represented by One Filament in one or more bulbs.

ID: 1985-01.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peter Kopanon, Director, Registry of Motor Vehicles, Boston, MA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Kopanon, Director Registry of Motor Vehicles 100 Nashus Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114

This is in reply to your telephone call of August 1, 1984, requesting our opinion as to the applicability of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, 23 CFR 1204.4, to Massachusetts.

As I understand it, your call was prompted by our letter of May 14, 1984, to Mr. Paul Pakos, in which we ruled that a vehicle with a capacity of 8 or fewer persons would be a "Type II School Vehicle" under the standard if it were used to transport students to and from school. Your question is whether Massachusetts is required by law to adhere to this aspect of the standard.

Standard 17 is among the standards issued by this agency under authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 23 U.S.C. 401-408. The Act provides that the States are to administer their highway safety programs in accordance with the standards. However, it also gives us the discretion not to insist that a State comply with every standard. We have employed this discretion to administer the highway safety program on the basis of mutual cooperation rather than by rigid enforcement of the standards.

In the case of Standard 17, we have worked with Massachusetts and all other States to improve the overall quality of pupil transportation, in keeping with the intent of the Standard. The results of our mutual efforts can be seen in the marked decline in serious school bus accidents during the last ten years. We intend to continue to follow this cooperative policy.

Let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Le Olin Chamberlain

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Le Olin Chamberlain 226 N. Williamson Road Blossburg, PA 16912

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which concerned the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school bus safety. You asked whether a school bus contractor is automatically exempt from the Federal school bus safety standards if that contractor is a Public Utilities Commission (PUC) certificate carrier. The answer is no.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct NHTSA to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. A new "bus" (i.e., a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 persons or more) which is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or school-related events is a "school bus" under our regulatory definition. A manufacturer or dealer who sells a new bus who knows that the vehicle will be significantly used as a school bus must ensure that the vehicle complies with the Federal school bus safety standards.

You stated in your letter that a school bus contractor has notified your school district that "under his PUC rights he is exempt from Federal Safety Regulations." For the reasons discussed below, such a statement is inaccurate. Buses purchased by a PUC certificate carrier are not per se exempt from the Federal school bus safety standards.

It is correct that the regulatory definition of "school bus" issued by this agency under the Vehicle Safety Act excludes a bus "designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." (49 CFR 571.3) However, the exclusion does not give persons who sell new buses to common carrier operators the license to disregard the school bus safety standards when they sell the buses. This is because the applicability of the standards to a bus is determined by its intended use, not by the fact that the purchaser has common carrier operations or holds a PUC certificate. Whether a particular bus must comply with the school bus safety standards depends on the intended use of that bus, as determined at the point of the vehicle's sale. If the seller of the school bus knows that the vehicle will be significantly used by the PUC carrier as a school bus, he must sell a bus that complies with the Federal school bus standards or be subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Sept. 5, 1984

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I talked with Mr. David Soul today in connection with a particular problem concerning van transportation in my school district. Mr. Soul asked that I place this particular question in writing and direct it to you for opinion.

August 1, 1984, my school district advertised to the local school bus contractors for price per mile bids for extra-curricular activity transportation, which includes the sports program. I submitted a bid for van transportation, at my local high school specifying ten passenger capacity maximum, and was awarded the bid.

Now, another contractor, in the school district whom is also a PUC certificate carrier, has notified school officials that I am running illegal because I don't have PUC rights for vans and he will supply the vans for school use under his charter PUC rights and that they can use his 15 passenger vans because under PUC he is exempt from Federal Safety Regulations. Consequently, now the school is using one 15 passenger van 6 days a week for football practice and their Sat. games. This is a school sport, funded by the school district, general fund account, billing approved and paid on a monthly basis by the district board of directors.

Specific question is:

Would a PUC carrier be exempt Federal Safety Regulations for this sport program and be allowed to use 15 passenger vans for transportation on a everyday basis for the duration of the particular sport season? Van is a paratransit vehicle, BA bus plate, and does not conform to type A or B school bus standard.

Note: 1st day- 13 passengers & driver, 2nd day- 18 passengers & driver, 3rd day, 10 passengers & driver.

Your opinion in this question will be greatly appreciated. Also, could you supply me with any updates on rulings concerning van transportation.

Sincerely,

Le Olin Chamberlain 226 N. Williamson Road Blossburg, Pa. 16912