ID: nht90-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/90

FROM: MICHAEL LOVE -- MANAGER SAFETY COMPLIANCE PORSCHE

TO: JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA

TITLE: 49 CFR PART 543 EXEMPTION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE, A 35 PART 543; LETTER FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL ENTITLED PORSCHE'S MODIFIED ANTITHEFT EXEMPTION, LETTER DATED 04/12/90

TEXT: On January 25, 1989, Porsche submitted petitions for exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard under 49 CFR Part 543 for its 1990 (MY) 911 and 928 models. NHTSA granted the petitions on May 26, 1989, on condition that any modifications to the alarm systems require Porsche to re-petition the NHTSA unless the modifications could be characterized as de minimus.

Porsche is planning to make the modifications set forth below to the alarm systems of MY 1991 911 and 928 model lines. For the following reasons, the changes described below should be considered de minimus:

1) The alarm control unit will be integrated with the central locking and interior light control units in order to save space and simplify the vehicle electrical system.

2) The system changes will be virtually transparent to the operator. The system will still be armed by locking either door with the key.

3) All of the same points of entry (i.e., door, hood, hatch, etc.) will be monitored by the system and the engine disabling and alarm features are the same. The system will be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system.

4) The new system will also monitor the glove box for opening. If the glove box is opened while the alarm is armed, the alarm will be set off (this is important for convertibles).

5) The system will have improved diagnostic capability in order to enhance serviceability.

6) The system will have the capability to accept other inputs (such as motion sensors) if they are desired in the future.

Based on the above, we believe that the alarm systems as modified contains all of the functions and features on which NHTSA based its decision to grant the exemptions. For that reason, we respectfully request a ruling from you that the planned modificat ions are de minimus and thus, obviating the need for a formal petition.

If you have any questions, please call me at (702) 348-3198.

ID: medcoaches3277.cmc

Mr. Dick Mattice
Vice President Engineering
Medical Coaches
399 Co Hwy 58
PO Box 129
Oneonta, NY 13820-0129

Dear Mr. Mattice:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, as they apply to platform lifts and mobile medical units manufactured by your company. I have addressed your questions below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA adopted FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, which establish minimum performance standards for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles and motor vehicles installed with platform lifts, respectively. The purpose of the standards is to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. The standards are effective December 27, 2004.

In your letter, you stated that your company manufactures trailers equipped with mobile medical units (e.g., MRI, PET, PET/CT units). You explained that all of these units have patient lifts that "fold and store in an under-floor skirt compartment during transit." You further explained that although the lift design "is primarily used for non-ambulatory patients on gurneys, it could just as easily be used for wheelchair-bound patients."You stated that the lifts are designed so that a gurney would be parallel to the trailer when on the platform, and therefore a wheelchair would also be oriented parallel to the trailer when on the platform. You then asked several questions regarding the application of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to the lifts and vehicles manufactured by your company.

1) Platform Dimensions

Your letter explained that:

[The] lifts are designed so that a gurney will be parallel to the trailer when entering or leaving the trailer. The platform itself is 84" wide x 38" deep (inner roll stop to ramp). As a result, a wheelchair would also be parallel to the trailer and not perpendicular.

You then asked if the lift orientation and dimensions would be permitted under the new standards.

Before discussing lift dimension requirements, it is important to note that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 differentiate between public use lifts and private use lifts, and that different requirements apply based on a lifts designation. Under FMVSS No. 404, lift-equipped buses, school buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) must be equipped with a lift certified to all requirements applicable to a public use lift (see S4.1.1). All other lift-equipped motor vehicles must be equipped with a platform lift certified as complying with either the public use or private use lift requirements (see S4.1.2). FMVSS No. 404 does not include trailers as a vehicle type that must be equipped with a public use lift. Therefore, the trailers manufactured by your company may be equipped with lifts certified to the public or private lift requirements.

FMVSS No. 403 does not establish requirements specifying the orientation of a wheelchair during lift operation. For public use lifts, S6.4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 403 does establish a minimum operating platform volume, which is based on the sum of an upper and lower part (see Figure 3; copy enclosed). The lower part must accommodate a rectangular solid that has a minimum width of 725 mm (28.5 in) along the platform surface and a minimum height of 50 mm (2 in). The upper part must accommodate a rectangular solid that has a base with a minimum dimension of 760 mm (30 in) wide by 1,220 mm (48 in) long and a minimum height of 711 mm (28 in). While the standard specifies that the base of the upper part must be tangent to the top surface of the lower rectangular volume and the centroids of both parts must coincide with the vertical centroidal axis of the platform, the standard does not specify the orientation of the upper part to the lower part. There is nothing preventing the upper part from being rotated in relation to the lower part.

Based on the information provided in your letter, your platform would conform to the minimum operating platform volume requirement for public use lifts. Your platform is 84 inches by 38 inches and would be able to accommodate an upper and a lower rectangular solid of the minimum size required. Further, if you were to certify the lift to the private use lift requirements, you would be required to specify the unobstructed platform operating volume and include it in the lift insert to the vehicle owners manual.

2) Wheelchair retention device impact test

Again, you stated that upon loading, a wheelchair is intended to be oriented parallel to the trailer. You ask if S7.7, Wheelchair retention device impact test, must be performed in this orientation, with the wheelchair accelerated in a direction parallel to the trailer.

The wheelchair retention device impact test verifies the integrity of the inner roll stop and the wheelchair retention device or outer barrier. The test simulates uncontrolled acceleration of a wheelchair or mobility aid when loading a platform. When loading the platform at the vehicle floor level, a mobility aid may accelerate forward and strike the wheelchair retention device. When loading the platform at ground level, a mobility aid may accelerate forward and strike the inner roll stop. In both instances, the mobility aid has the opportunity to achieve a measure of speed and momentum in a direction perpendicular to the trailer before striking a barrier.

In FMVSS No. 403, S7.7.2.3 requires a test device to be positioned with its plane of symmetry coincident with the lift reference plane. This results in the test device oriented perpendicular to the vehicle. The reference to the orientation of the test device in S7.7 refers to whether a wheelchair is loaded onto the platform in the forward or reverse direction.

On your vehicles, a mobility aid is loaded in a perpendicular direction to the trailer, even though once loaded it is positioned parallel to the trailer. Once the mobility aid is positioned on the platform parallel to the vehicle body, it is stationary. Even if it were to move forward or rearward, because of limited space on the platform, it could not achieve the level of momentum that is possible when rolling onto a platform from the vehicle or ground. However, during loading, an unimpeded mobility aid could heavily impact either a wheelchair retention device or outer barrier. Accordingly, the wheelchair retention device impact test would be performed on the wheelchair retention device/outer barrier and the inner roll stop.

3) Public use verses private use lift

Your letter asked if the lifts installed on the mobile medical units manufactured by your company would be required to be certified as public use lifts. As explained in response #1, because the vehicles manufactured by your company are trailers, the lifts could be certified as complying with either the public use or private use lift requirements.

4) Platform freefall limits

Under S6.6 of FMVSS No. 403, no portion of a platform may fall vertically faster than 305 mm (12 in) per second in the event of any single-point failure of systems for raising, lowering, or supporting the platform. Your letter asked if a failure of a hydraulic line by rupture constitutes a single-point failure.

If a system for raising, lowering, or supporting a platform were to include a hydraulic line, then the rupture of that line would constitute a single-point failure under S6.6. Therefore, if the hydraulic line were to rupture, the platform must not fall vertically faster than permitted by the standard. Additionally, you may need to evaluate other failures, as S6.6 applies to any single-point failure.

I hope that you find our responses helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:403#404
d.6/25/04

ID: 14896-4.pja

Mr. Charles Jandecka
4481 Dover Center Road
North Olmsted, Ohio 44070

Dear Mr. Jandecka:

I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter requesting a reevaluation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), as it relates to tinting of windows. Specifically, you expressed concern about the increase in the number of vehicles with dark-tinted windows.

As you know, Standard No. 205 requires vehicle windows that are "requisite for driving visibility" to meet a 70 percent light transmittance requirement. Darker windows are currently allowed in the rear and rear side windows on trucks, buses, and multi-purpose vehicles (MPVs) because the agency has issued an interpretation stating that these windows are not requisite for driving visibility.

You would like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prohibit dark-tinted windows in light trucks, MPVs, and vans. You disagree with the conclusion of the agency's interpretation that these windows are not requisite for driving visibility. In addition, you argue that sport utility vehicles and vans should not be relieved of the light transmittance requirement by the interpretation because they do not meet the definition of an MPV. An MPV is ". . . constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." 49 CFR 571.3.

I will first address your argument regarding classification of vehicles. In contending that these vehicles are not MPVs, you argued that sport utility vehicles were not "off-road vehicles," which you found defined in Executive Order No. 11644 and 16 USC 670. We note that these authorities are not relevant to our regulations. But more importantly, this argument fails to recognize the distinction between a "vehicle with features for occasional off-road operation," and a more capable "off-road vehicle." The definition for off-road vehicles, such as the Humvee, is not relevant to whether vans and sport utility vehicles are MPVs.

Sport utility vehicles clearly meet the MPV definition. They have "special features for occasional off-road operation" such as four-wheel drive, large all purpose tires, large suspension excursions, and high ground clearances. The fact that they offer interior amenities and are often not driven off-road by their owners does not nullify these special features. The classifications are based on design, because ultimate use is something the manufacturer generally does not know. The presence of some of these features on vehicles certified as passenger cars also does not nullify their presence on sport utility vehicles.

Some vans and minivans meet the definition of trucks. Most cargo vans are classified as "trucks" under our safety standards. A truck is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as being ". . . designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." Many full-size vans are designed on a chassis that may be fitted with any number of body types and is designed and used primarily for carrying cargo.

Most passenger vans and minivans are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles," because they are considered by their manufacturers to be "constructed on a truck chassis." Some manufacturers may classify them as MPVs because of heavier running gear, front suspensions, and rear leaf springs, for greater load-carrying capacity. In addition, the rear seats are often removable for carrying large cargo rather than passengers, supporting a colloquial definition of "multi-purpose" vehicles.

Generally speaking, designation of the vehicle type is up to the manufacturer. The definitions of trucks and MPVs overlap somewhat. NHTSA's main concern is that all vehicles meet the standards applicable to the type of vehicle as which they are certified. The agency is aware that in recent years changes in the construction of minivans and sport utility vehicles have tended to blur the line between these vehicles and passenger cars. There has been a convergence in the safety standards applicable to these vehicles and the standards applicable to passenger cars. NHTSA has not tried to create a complex distinction between these vehicle types, but has instead allowed the industry to produce innovative designs that meet the demands of the marketplace.

Moreover, the manufacturers have for many years continued classifying vans and minivans as light trucks for the purpose of complying with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. The vehicle classification requirements in 49 CFR 523.5(a)(5) allow manufacturers to properly classify vans and minivans with removable seats as light trucks for that purpose. It is doubtful the industry could comply with the CAFE standards if NHTSA suddenly restricted classification capabilities. Therefore, given the industry's longstanding reliance on NHTSA's interpretation and regulation in this area, this office cannot make a such a drastic change in the context of an interpretation letter.

Turning now to your question of whether the rear and rear side windows of sport utility vehicles and vans should be considered "requisite for driving visibility," we continue to believe that they should not be. You correctly identified a change in the agency's opinion between the July 16, 1973 interpretation of Richard Dyson and the April 4, 1985 interpretation of Jeffrey Miller, which first announced the conclusion that these windows were not requisite for driving visibility. However, you are incorrect to conclude that either the January 9, 1990 interpretation by Stephen Wood, or any of the subsequent interpretations you cited represent a change in the agency's position on the matter. Mr. Miller's interpretation still represents the agency's position.

The reasoning behind the Miller interpretation is that these vehicles are often sold in configurations without windows or with small windows to the rear of the driver (e.g., a panel van). Even if the windows to the rear of the driver are large enough, these vehicles may frequently carry loads that block the view out of them. Logically, it is impossible to argue that these windows are requisite for driving visibility when they do not even exist on the next van on the lot. In addition, most minivans and sport utility vehicles today, (even those with larger side windows and without a vision-blocking load) have rear side windows that are too high to rely on for lane changes. Vehicle manufacturers provide right-side rear view mirrors on these vehicles which assist in lane changes.

If these windows were requisite for driving visibility, one might expect that vehicle types with darker glass in those locations would be more involved in crashes, but the data do not show this to be true. Some analyses have shown that they are generally less involved in crashes than passenger cars, and that they are even under-involved in lane change crashes. This indicates that the existing window and mirror systems are meeting the minimum needs for driving visibility.

On January 22, 1992, NHTSA proposed, among other things, transmittance requirements for the windows to the rear of the driver in these vehicles. The proposed requirements would permit windows darker than those in passenger cars, but would require these windows to be lighter than the "privacy glass" currently being sold on some minivans and sport utility vehicles. Comments on the proposal were overwhelmingly negative. The law enforcement community was divided on the issue. Final action on this rulemaking is anticipated soon.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.3/10/98

ID: aiam5178

Dear Mr. Ruegg: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1993, to Mr Eisner of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). You intend to import 'car parts' into the United States, and would like to know 'the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations'. You assume that 'a part such as fender or other body parts do not.' You have asked this question because some individual parts may arrive as part of assemblies, such as 'chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, principally through the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued under its authority such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each part or component of a motor vehicle is motor vehicle equipment subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction. The Act requires that motor vehicle equipment, whether new or used, meet all applicable FMVSS in order to be imported into the U.S. Some of the FMVSS apply to items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, whether shipped separately or as part of an assembly, equipment such as brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers must comply in order to be admitted into this country. As your question implies, there is a point at which an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment becomes a 'motor vehicle'. An assemblage becomes an 'incomplete motor vehicle' subject to regulation as a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) when it consists, at a minimum, of 'frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle (Sec. 568.3).' As the intention is to import the vehicle without the electric power train, the assemblage you contemplate is not a 'motor vehicle' and remains an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment whose individual components, as noted in the preceding paragraph, are required to comply with the applicable FMVSS. Your letter informs us that ' t hese parts and partial assembly's (sic) would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle.' When the power train is added, the person completing the manufacture of the vehicle is considered to be its manufacturer, required to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS. If you have any further questions, we would be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1376

Dear Senator Percy: This is in reply to your communication of January 3, 1974, forwardin to us correspondence dated November 29, 1973, from Mr. Bruce Motyka of Des Plaines. Mr. Motyka requests information regarding laws relating to pickup trucks and camper weight limits, laws or studies relating to the sale of trucks exceeding GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) rate minimums, and regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.; The NHTSA has issued regulations relating to the installation o campers onto pickup trucks. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S571.126) requires each camper to bear a permanent label containing information on its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that contains information on total camper weight, the selection of an appropriate pickup truck, appropriate methods of camper loading, how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed on the truck cargo area. A companion 'Consumer Information' regulation, 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S575.103) requires that written information be provided at the sale of each truck capable of being equipped with a slide-in camper that deals with the correct installation of a slide-in camper in that vehicle. This information is also required to be available in dealers' showrooms for retention by prospective purchasers of such trucks.; Other NHTSA regulation (49 CFR Part 567, 'Certification') require ever motor vehicle, including pickup trucks, to be labeled usually on the driver's door or door jam, with its gross vehicle weight rating, and the gross axle weight rating for each axle. Each of these ratings is intended to be based on the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, as determined by the vehicle's manufacturer. While it is possible for manufacturers to be incorrectly rate vehicles, and thus be in noncompliance with the regulations, we have not found this practice to occur in the case of pickup trucks.; There are also Federal requirements requiring motor vehicle tires t carry a load rating. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 applies to passenger car tires and has been in effect since January 1, 1968. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 applies to tires for all other types of motor vehicles (trucks, trailers, buses, motorcycles, and multipurpose passeng r(sic) vehicles) and will become effective September 1, 1974. This agency has conducted a study of the overloading of tires on recreational vehicles, and information regarding this study as well as copies of the safety requirements referred to above are enclosed.; We did not receive Mr. Motyka's earlier letter to us. As his question are of a general nature we have provided him with general answers. If his questions involved a particular problem we would be happy to provide further assistance.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3949

Dear Mr. Bomhoff: Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1985, concerning th applicability of our safety standards to a passenger van you are designing. Specifically, you asked whether you can install a stationary, side-facing passenger seat with lap safety belts. As discussed below, you can use such a seat with a lap safety belt, but its use would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 207, *Seating Systems*, 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. A copy of each of those standards is enclosed.; Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, thei attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat beck.; Standard No. 208 sets requirements for the installation of safety belt in motor vehicles. You stated that the vehicle you are designing is a passenger van that carries under 10 passengers. If your vehicle carries a total of 10 persons (9 passengers and a driver) it would be considered either a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), if it is manufactured on a truck chassis or has special features for occasional off-road use, or a passenger car.; If your vehicle is a passenger car, section 4.1.3(c) of the standar provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder safety belt) that conforms with Standard 209 and the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If your vehicle is a MPV, then S4.2.2, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds or less, or S4.3, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 or Type 2 safety felt that conforms to Standard No. 209.; Standard No. 210 sets performance requirements for safety belt anchorages in passenger cars, MPV's, trucks, and buses. The standard exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to the anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5364

"Dear Dr. Sackoff: This responds to your letter to this agency wit reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. Your specific question addressed S4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: 'Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S5.3.' You asked for an interpretation of the term 'breaking,' whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard. The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that test, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire is continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever-increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things will happen: 1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim, or 2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The 'breaking' of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although, obviously, a blow-out would constitute a 'breaking.' The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4871

"Dear Mr. Hoffman: This responds to your letter of March 26, 1991 addressed to Mr. Harry Thompson, asking about a private school's use of 'mini-vans which are designed to carry more than 10 passengers.' Your letter was referred to our office for reply. You stated that the school has become aware of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and is concerned whether the operation of the vans is in compliance with applicable regulations under the Act. You asked a number of questions related to that concern. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Therefore, the vehicles refered to in your letter would be considered school buses under federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. These standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. If your client believes that they have been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of their intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law. Without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a user of a school bus. Since the various questions you ask assume that the Safety Act regulates users of school buses, we are unable to provide specific answers to those questions. To determine whether the private school your firm represents may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage the school your firm represents to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3870

Dear Mr. Kasagi: This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1984, with respect t interpretations of the motorcycle headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and SAE J584.; You have asked 'whether other lighting systems than referred i S4.1.1.34, such as non-sealed beam head lamp with two bulbs, are acceptable or not.' The answer is yes. Non-sealed lamps meeting the requirements of SAE J584 are acceptable, including those with two bulbs, as the 'At- Focus Tests' paragraph of J584 is directed to 'light source or sources.'; Your next question is whether photometric compliance is judged when on light is on or two, including the maximum permissible output of 75,000 cd. The answer to this question depends on the design of the lamp, if it is designed so that both bulbs operate simultaneously, then photometrics including maximum output are determined with both bulbs operating. If the design is such that one bulb produces lower beam and the other the upper beam, then compliance is judged by that method of operation. Should one bulb produce both lower and upper beams and the other bulb perform an unregulated lighting function, then the photometric compliance would be judged with only the bulb used for the regulated function. In this case, however, the unregulated bulb must not interfere with the effectiveness of the headlamp. This also answers your final question about conduct of the out-of-focus test. It is to be conducted according to the design intent of the operation of the headlamp, i.e. the design function of each bulb or bulbs.; You have also asked about the geometrical center of a design when on of two bulbs (both with an upper beam and a lower beam filament apparently) is on. Operation of only one bulb alone would result in an assymetrical lighting display off the vehicle's centerline. This is permitted by S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 for the sealed beam lighting systems specified therein. Therefore, we could not logically dissapprove (sic) of it for unsealed headlighting systems. However, if only one bulb performed both the lower beam function and the upper beam, and the other bulb performed an unregulated lighting function, then the bulb providing the lower/upper beams must be located on the vehicle's vertical centerline.; If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5623

"Dear Mr. Golden: This responds to your request for an interpretatio asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a 'Lightman,' for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product. You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are concerned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, 'Does the mounting of one of these devices...take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?' As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously-certified warning devices. There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy enclosed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on his or her equilateral triangle. As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number: 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1790 We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure bcc: Mr. Larry Minor Office of Motor Carrier Research & Standards FHWA, Rm. 3107";