ID: nht95-4.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 23, 1995

FROM: Margaret Fisher, MD -- Kaiser Permanente

TO: James J. Gregorio

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/7/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to James J. Gregorio (VSA 108 (a)(2)(A); A43; Std. 207; Std. 208)

TEXT: I am writing to request authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim in order to accomodate my physical handicap. Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviate a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand controls. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to pus h the seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees. Enclosed is a statement from my physician validating my medical condition. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at your convenience. Your prompt reply to this painful condition would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Attachment

September 22, 1995

To Whom It May Concern:

Mr. James Gregorio is under my care for tendinitis of the right ankle and both knees. Recovery could take up to several years.

Sincerely yours,

Margaret Fisher, MD Kaiser Permanente

ID: nht95-4.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11123); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3/4/77 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO DENNIS G. MOORE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, on the subject of "optical combination" as that term is used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You enclosed a copy of a letter sent to you from this Office on March 4, 1977, and refer to a "Rider" in "a proposed change [around 1990] that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, 'NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING.' " You ask how "[using] the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976, and 1977, and the Re-Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support."

You are talking of events of 18 to 20 years ago that are no longer relevant today. The definition that NHTSA supports contains no reference to lamp housings. Standard No. 108 was amended four years ago, in 1991, to clarify that the term "optical combin ation" is to be interpreted as defined by SAE Information Report J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV87. Under the SAE definition, optical combination results when a lamp "has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that op erates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb)", and when "its optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions." It is immaterial to this definition whether the light sources are in the same or different h ousings. I enclose a copy of a rulemaking proposal and final rules dealing with this issue that were published on November 6 and 8, 1990, and June 7 and November 7, 1991.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office by FAX (202-366-3820).

ID: nht87-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John B. Krueger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John B. Krueger Staff Engineer Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 3001 West Big Beaver, Suite 602 Troy, MI 48084

Dear Mr. Krueger:

This is in reply to your letter of February 10, 1987, asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to define the term "optically combined" as used in paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Presently, the SAE is circulating for comment its own proposed definition of the term, to be incorporated into SAE J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting.

For many years paragraph S4.4 (your referenced S4.4.1 which was renumbered recently) has contained a prohibition against optically combining a clearance lamp with a taillamp or an identification lamp. NHTSA has provided written interpretations to those w ho have asked whether specific designs are "optically combined" within the meaning of paragraph S4.4, but the agency has not added a definition to paragraph S3, the definition section of the standard. If a definition is to be provided, it must be incorpo rated into the standard, and the agency is unable to do that without first formally proposing the definition and offering the public an opportunity to comment upon it. I can say, however, that the SAE's proposed definition is not inconsistent with the in terpretations of the agency.

These interpretations are available in the NHTSA docket room (Room 5109, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.) for your reference should you or other SAE staff or committee members wish to examine them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 10, 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 205590

Attn: Ms . Erika Z. Jones. Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

FMVSS 108 in paragraph 54.4. 1 includes the following statement ". . .no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamp". SAE standard J592, which is referenced by FMVSS 108, also contains this same prohibition against optically combining a clearance lamp with a tail lamp or an identification lamp.

There is a need to define the term "combined optically", and we respectfully request this definition from your office.

While this term has been a part of SAE documents for many years, unfortunately, there has never been a definition, and this is now needed to prevent abuses in the combining of these various lamp functions.

Canada has been concerned about the definition of this term for quite some time and has requested the assistance of the SAE Lighting Committee. Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mr. J. G. White of Transport Canada on this subject and this includes the definition which Canada proposed in the July 12, 1986 issue of the CANADA GAZETTE on page 3244.

The SAE Lighting Committee is currently circulating the attached proposed definition for this term, and you will note that it is almost identical to the Canadian proposal.

A clear definition from the NHTSA would be appreciated by the SAE as well as the lighting industry.

Sincerely,

John B. Krueger Staff Engineer

Enclosure JBK. co

PROPOSED DEFINITION FOR ADDITION TO SAE J387 TERMINOLOGY - MOTOR VEHICLE LIGHTING

OPTICALLY COMBINED

A lamp shall be deemed to be "optically combined" if both of the following conditions exist:

A. It has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two filament bulb).

B. Its optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.

LABORATORY GUIDELINE - If two separate light sources each contribute some luminous flux to the function being tested, then both sources must be operating during a photometric test procedure.

Rationale: O In FMVSS 108, paragraph S4.4.1 , it is stated that ". .. .no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamp...." Similar wording occurs in subsection 14 of CMVSS 108.

For lack of this definition, lamps are being manufactured and installed on trailers that combine the tail and clearance lamp functions under one lens, with two closely-spaced bulbs. This clearly violates the spirit and intent of these safety standards.

O This definition harmonizes well with ECE Regulation 48, page 2, paragraph 2.6.5, " Reciprocally Incorporated Lamps."

O The following icons of the lighting fraternity have participated in the preparation of this definition: Paul Scully, Jim Wright, Warren Heath and Gordon Bonvallet.

SS3330-7-5 (DTSR/S)

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A ON5, October 28, 1986.

Mr. Paul Scully, Vice President, Peterson Manufacturing Company, 4200 East 135th Street, Grandview, MO 64030, U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Scully:

Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter

of August 5 to Bob Vile concerning the definition of "optically combined".

I think your proposal would do nicely. A definition much the same as the one you suggest in your letter has been included in the Canadian daytime running lights proposal, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.

I hope that "optically combined" can be included soon among the terms defined in SAE standards, and that producers of lamps with wrongly-combined functions will take note and correct their bad practices.

Yours very truly,

J.G. White, P. Eng., Head, Crash Avoidance Standards, Standards and Regulations, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate.

Encl. cc: R. Vile - N.A. Philips G. Wright - Fisher Guide A. Burgett - NHTSA

(SEE ATTACHMENT)

ID: nht87-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/87

FROM: JACK DE NIJS -- DERONDE CASINGS LTD

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: COVERED DOT NUMBERS ON REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DONALD N. STAHL RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119, PART 574; UNDATED LETTER FROM JOHN T. FORTH AND DONALD N. STAHL TO ERIKA Z. JONES NHTSA RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696, OCC 1749; LETTER DATED 03/01/88 FROM DAVE TAYLOR TO JOHN T. FORTH, EXHIBIT 1; LETTER DATED 07/13/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JACK DENIJS EXHIBIT 2; DRAWING OF TIRE DATED 01/14/88, MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS TIRE INFORMATION, EXHIBIT 3

TEXT: GENTLEMEN,

WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF PURCHASING REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS FROM A COMPANY IN SWITZERLAND. THE NAME OF THAT COMPANY IS; TYRES RECYCLING SYSTEM S.A. C.H. 6535 GRONO. THESE TRUCK CASINGS HAVE BEEN REBUILT FROM BEAD TO BEAD SO IT DOES NOT SHOW A DOT NUMBER.

THE ONLY THING IT SHOWS IS THE SIZE OF THE TIRE, THE NUMBER OF PLY'S AND THAT COMPANIES CODE NUMBER.

WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW?

CAN WE IMPORT THESE CASINGS INTO THE U.S.A. FOR RETREADING OURSELVES AND FOR RESALE TO OTHER RETREADERS FOR RETREADING?

A PROMPT RESPONSE WOULD BE APPRECIATED

YOURS TRULY,

ID: nht87-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/22/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: P. Soardo -- Istituto Elettrotecnio Nazionale, Galileo Ferraris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Prof. P. Soardo Istituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale Galileo Ferraris 10155 Torino Italy

This is in reply to your letter of January 16, 1987, to the agency with reference to the "homologation in the U.S.A. of a headlamp -optically combined - capable of performing the function of auxiliary driving lamp or as an alternative to the function of the front fog lamp." You have told us that the device Is intended principally for the aftermarket and will use a two-filament H4 bulb, the main filament providing the "driving beam, " and the secondary filament performing "the ' fog' function." When it is mounted on the vehicle it will "meet the specific aiming requirements contained in the relevant SAE standards, for both light beams. "

As you may know, there are two types of laws in the United States that pertain to motor vehicle lighting equipment, the laws of the United States government. "Federal" law) , and those of the 50 individual States ("Local" law). One of these laws is Feder al Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.. Standard No. 108 specifies requirements for original equipment, and, as a general rule, only aftermarket equipment that is intended to replace original equipme nt. There are no original equipment requirements in Standard No . 108 for a combination driving-fog lamp such as you discuss, and hence there are no Federal aftermarket requirements for it either. provided that this lamp does not impair the effectiveness of required front lamps, Standard No. 108 allows a vehicle manufacturer to install the driving-fog lamp as original equipment. Because Standard No. 108 does not allow use of the H4 bulb in headlamps for four-wheeled vehicles it could not serve as a head lamp. There are no Federal restrictions preventing the sale of this device in the aftermarket as a supplementary lamp.

However, the lamp would be subject to Local law, and some of the States of one State does not signify approval by another, so there would not be "homologation" permitting sale in all States based upon approval by only one State. Even if a Local law does not require approval of a driving-fog lamp, it may forbid its use . We are unable to advise you on Local laws but you may wish to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle administrators for an opinion. The address of this organization is 1201 Conn ecticut Avenue, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20036.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Strada delle Cacce, 91 10135 Torino - Italy

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street. S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 (USA)

Dear Sirs,

a manufacturer or lighting equipment has asked us whether it is possible to obtain homologation in the U.S.A. of a headlamp -optically combined -capable or performing the function of auxiliary driving lamp or as an alternative to the function or the fron t fog lamp.

The device, which is intended mainly for the aftermarket. uses a two-filament bulb, type H4.

The main filament is used to obtain the driving beam. the secondary filament is used to obtain the "fog" function.

The special design characteristics or this light unit allow the headlamp -when mounted on the vehicle - to meet the specific aiming requirements contained in the relevant SAE standards, for both light beams.

We look forward to hearing your comments to the above at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, we remain.

Yours sincerely. (P. Soardo)

ID: nht87-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; EriKa Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas L. Long

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Thomas L. Long Vice-President R & D Think, Inc. P.O. Box 414 Smyrna, TN; 37167

Dear Mr. Long:

This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have enclosed a decal intended to be affixed "on the outside of the rear window of an automobile, directly in front of the high mounted stop light." You have asked about the relationship of the decal to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Center highmounted stoplamps are required to be designed so that light outlet (candela) may be measured at 13 individual test points, at a distance of not less than 10 feet. With the decal applied to the rear

window, it is possible that the requisite minimum or maximum candela specified by Standard No. 103 could not be met at all of the test points. Further, the effective luminous area of the lamp must be not less than 4 1/2 square inches, and while the decal would not be applied to the lens, nevertheless, the lens area when viewed from behind could be effectively reduced. Because a vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 at the time of its initial sale, the vehicle could be delivered to its purchase: with the decal attached only if the vehicle continued to meet the light output and effective luminous area requirements.

Even if a vehicle could not be delivered with the decal attached, nothing in Standard No. 108 or the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a vehicle owner from applying the decal to his own vehicle, or from taking any other action that might affect the compliance of his vehicle with any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does forbid other persons from such actions, so that after a vehicle is sold, the dealer (or a motor vehicle repair business) could still be prohibited from applying the decal. Regulation of a vehicle in use is a matter of the laws of the States where vehicles are registered and operated. Even though Federal law does not prohibit an owner from applying the decal, a State law might. For advice on State laws, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

ID: nht87-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David V. Brewer -- Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer and Schons

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer

TEXT:

David V. Brewer Esq Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer & Schons Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 10332 Eugene, OR 97440

This responds to your September 26, 1986, letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No, 106, Brake Hoses to your client's coupling device. You asked us to reconfirm the statements made in a March 24, 1980 interpretation issued by former Chief Counsel Prank Berndt to Mr. Ronald Irvine that the one-piece unit coupling device in question, used to simultaneously interconnect two air lines and the electrical lines between a tractor and trailer, is not subject to Standard No . 106. We confirm that the agency's 1980 interpretation has not been superseded or revised by subsequent interpretations of the standard.

The 1980 letter to Mr. Irvine explained that we assumed from the drawings The enclosed that completed brake hose assemblies with their own end fittings attach to the coupling device. Under that assumption, NHTSA concluded that the coupling device would n ot be considered a "brake hose assembly" or a "brake hose end fitting" because the coupling device in question was not included in the standard's definitions of those terms. As a result, certification by the manufacturer to Standard No, 106 was inappropr iate.

We have not modified our interpretation of Standard No. 106 as it applies to the coupling device described by Mr. Irvine in his 1980 inquiry. If the "Ideal Coupling" not owned by your client is the sane device, it is not subject to the requirements of St andard No. 106. Of course, as discussed by the agency in its 1980 letter, your client is nevertheless responsible for any safety related defects in the coupling device under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, since it is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 26, 1986

CERTIFIED MAlL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Ideal Coupling -- Ruling Request Under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and Related Sections

Dear Sirs:

On March 24, 1980, Ronald Irvine of our office received a letter from Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (reference #NOA-30), in regard to a one piece coupling unit device for the connection of electrical and air brake lines on tractor-trailers. A true copy of Mr. Berndt's letter dated March 24 is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein.

Mr. Berndt's letter was based upon a request by our client Ideal Welding and Machine Company. The coupler product is now the property of our client Nipac, Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, having its principal office at 120 Monroe Street, Eugene, Oregon. The undersigned respectfully requests that the rulings requested herein, which are simply an updating of the request for rulings made in 1980, be issued on behalf of the above-mentioned party regarding the applicabilit y of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standards dealing with air brake systems.

Nipac, Ltd., which commenced business in 1980, is currently engaged in the business of marketing products for industrial use. The company owns the rights to the coupling device to be attached to the electrical and air brake hoses of a truck and trailer w hich provide a simplified one piece unit for the connection of the electrical and air brake lines. Clarion Shoji Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, has already manufactured several thousand units of this device, on the strength of the March, 1980 ruling from your office.

Because the device involves the connection of air brake hoses, clarification as to the certification, labeling and testing requirements under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and any related sections is desired prior to the further sale of the d evice in the United States. Since your certification has not been updated in six years, the purpose of this letter is simply to update that certification.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the following ruling be issued:

1. The Ideal Coupling (now owned by Nipac, Ltd.) does not constitute an air brake hose, end fitting or assembly that requires labeling or certification under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standard.

If your agency should find that some sort of certification, labeling or testing is required for the coupling device, please advise as to the following:

1. What form, of label, certification, or testing is required;

2. Who is required to perform the above, i.e., the manufacturer, or may our client provide the label, certification, or testing in the United States?

If any further information is necessary, please contact the undersigned. Your prompt consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

LOMBARD, GARDNER, HONSOWETZ, BREWER & SCHONS

DAVID V. BREWER Ideal Coupling - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 Under penalties of perjury, we have examined this ruling request, and to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information presented in support of the requested ruling herein is true, correct and complete.

NIPAC, LTD.

By JACK DEAN, President

By LLOYD WETZIG

DB/lav Enclosures: U.S. Patent #4,183,599 issued January 15, 1980 Letter; Reference #NOA-30 cc: Jack Dean

(See 2/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer)

ID: nht87-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Miller

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Miller Arizona Bus Sales, Inc. P.O. Box 21226 Phoenix, AZ 85036 Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your April 14, 1987 letter to us asking about Federal requirements applicable to the sale of new school buses. You enclosed a copy of a bid from a school bus dealer offering to sell a 48-passenger activity bus to a school district. The b id describes options for changing the school bus paint and deleting "school options." You ask whether a bid with "an option to modify paint, and delete school bus options" accords with our school bus regulations.

The answer to your question depends on the nature of the "school options" which the bid makes nonobligatory. It is unclear from the bid whether the reference is to the school bus performance requirements mandated by our federal motor vehicle safety stand ards, or to the way the school bus is painted and marked. If the "school options" are the features required by Federal school bus safety standards, the answer to your question is no--i.e., the dealer may not sell a new school bus that fails to comply wit h those standards. On the other hand, Federal law does not prohibit school districts from changing the color or markings of their school buses. Instead, requirements for the identification of school buses are set by each State.

Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes our motor vehicle safety stand ards for school buses. Those standards set performance requirements that all new school buses must meet, including standards for passenger crash protection, emergency exits, rollover protection and fuel systems. The Safety Act requires manufacturers of s chool buses to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. The Act also requires school bus dealers to ensure that only complying school buses are sold. These requirements, set by federal law, apply to each school bus manufacturer and seller. A school bus dealer cannot elect whether to comply with those requirements and choose to sell a new activity bus that does not comply with our school bus safety standards.

Our second set of school bus "regulations," issued under the Highway Safety Act, include recommendations for identifying school buses. These recommendations are set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclos ed). While the "standard" recommends that activity buses should be painted yellow and marked "School Bus," the decision to adopt its recommendations is made by each State. Therefore, questions you might have about activity bus identification should be ad dressed to your State officials.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington,DC 20590 Attn: Erika Z. Jones

Ms. Jones:

Enclosed is a copy of a bid from an Arizona school Bus dealer offering a new bus for sale to a school district, with an option to modify paint, and delete school bus options.

In the past we have declined such invitations believing that such a sale would be in violation of federal law pertaining to the sale of school buses.

I would very much appreciate your opinion in this matter.

Sincerely ,

Paul Miller Sales Manager PM/md

Parker Unified District No. 27 P.O. Box 1089 Parker, Arizona 85344 Attn: Mr. Art Fox

April 10, 1987 Quotation No. B-748 Subject: Activity Bus

One Blue Bird All American Rear Engine 48 Passenger Activity Bus including all standard equipment and the following options:

Caterpillar 3208 Turbocharged 225 H.P. Diesel Engine with 5 Year/150,000 Mile Extended Warranty.

Allison MT643 4-speed Automatic Transmission with 3 Year/Unlimited Mileage Warranty.

Stemco front wheel seals

Rockwell 6" front and 8" rear brakes

Engine hour meter

Transmission temperature gauge

120 gallon fuel tank

11R x 22.5 Michelin Radial Tubeless Tires, including spare

Push-thru luggage compartment, 116 cu. ft. with locks

vandal locks on all doors

High headroom

Two 6" defroster fans

12,000 BTU driver's heater, 80,000 BTU center heater, 80,000 BTU rear heater Eight light warning system

AM/PM/Cassett/PA/Stereo Radio

12 rows of Blue Bird Activity Seats meeting FMVSS

Full width mud flaps Front and rear rubber fenders

5 lb. fire extinguisher

16 Unit first Aid Kit

Triangles and flares

Tan floor with plywood sub-floor

Interior parcel racks

Intermittent wipers

Tinted windows

Trans/Air Air Conditioning Model TA99 Dual System with two 15.6 compressors

full length luggage rack ducts with adjustable louvers, two 3-fan roof mounted condensors for a total of 106,000 BTU/hr

Price including transportation with tax to be added:

Option: Two-tone paint with school options deleted as required, Add:

MAKE YEAR MODEL W B. CA

THIS QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM IT'S DATE.

ID: nht87-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Takechi:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question concerns the identification requirements for a master lighting switch. You stated your belief that if the headlamps and tail lamps are controlled by the master lighting switch, the switch is not required to be marked with any symbol o ther than that specified in Standard No. 101 for the master lighting switch. You also stated your belief that the manufacturer had an option to use other symbols in addition to that symbol. As discussed below, your understanding is correct.

Section S5.2.1(a) states:

Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated in column 3 (or symbol substantially similar in fo rm to that shown in column 3) or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table. . . . Words or symbols in addition to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. . . .

Column 3 of Table 1 designates the symbol shown In your letter for the master lighting switch. Also, footnote 2 of the table states that separate identification is not required for headlamps and tail lamps if they are controlled by a master lighting swit ch. Thus, the master lighting switch symbol is sufficient identification under Standard No. 101 for the control identified in your letter.

A drawing provided with your letter shows various positions of the master lighting switch Identified by a word or symbols, which are provided in addition to the master lighting switch symbol. As indicated in the above-quoted text, section S5.2. 1(a) perm its words or symbols in addition to the required symbol or word, for purposes of clarity.

Your second question concerns identification requirements for an upper beam control. You stated that you believe no symbol is required for the upper beam control if it is on the turn signal lever, and that it is at the manufacturer's option to use a symb ol.

Standard No. 101 does not specify any identification requirements for an upper beam control , regardless of whether it is on the turn signal lever. Thus, the manufacturer has the option of deciding whether to identify the control and, If so, how to ident ify it. We note that the symbol you plan to use for future models is the same as that designated in Standard No. 101 for the highbeam (upper beam) tell tale. Thus, your planned approach appears desirable in minimizing the number of symbols drivers must f amiliarize themselves with for the same function.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20530

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation or FMVSS 101; Controls and displays.

We believe, (1) if the head lamps and tail lamps are controlled by master lighting switch, this is not required to be marked with any symbol , other than and it is the manufacturer's option to use other symbols in addition to the, as desired.

(2) When using the turn signal lever for the upper beam control, no symbol is required, and it is at the manufacturer's option to use symbol as desired.

Shown by current models in Attachment 1 are the symbols we have been using. In future models, we plan to change the symbols to those shown by future models in Attachment 1.

Please inform us in a timely manner if these symbols are acceptable and whether our interpretation is correct. If you have any questions, please contact me at (515) 353-5444.

Sincerely, Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager NT/sg MMC SERVICES, INC. Attachment

ID: nht87-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Sadako Vargas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Sadako Vargas, MA, OTR Children's Specialized Hospital New Providence Road Mountainside, NJ 07091

Dear Ms. Vargas:

Thank you for your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting approval to adapt a car seat for use by patients that are Siamese twins. You explained that these patients are connected at the waist, and have two trunks, two sets of arms, and on e pair of legs. You would like to modify an existing car seat by adding another harness and perhaps adding extra foam cushions to support their heads and offer added comfort. hope the following explanation of our statute and regulatory requirements will be helpful to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have used this authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213. Manufacturers of child restraint systems must certify that each new child restraint they produce conforms to Standard No. 213 before th e child restraint is offered for sale.

However, the Safety Act provide; that child restraint systems are only required to comply with Standard No. 213 until "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale;" 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). When your hospital purchases child restraint systems, that is the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. Once your hospital has made such a purchase, the Safety Act does not require that the child restraint system continue to conform with Standard No. 213.

The only restriction the Safety Act imposes on child restraint systems after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business can "render inoperative" any devic e or element of design installed on or in the child restraint system in compliance with Standard No. 213; 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). Note that there is no statutory prohibition against the owner of the child restraint system rendering inoperative a device or element of design installed on the child restraint in compliance with Standard No. 213. We conclude that a hospital modifying child restraints for use by physically handicapped children is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repa ir business. This conclusion means there is no statutory restriction on the type or modifications your hospital can make to child restraints it has acquired. Accordingly, the hospital does not need any approval from this agency to modify child restraint systems to accommodate the particular needs of physically handicapped children.

You also asked for our advice as to what kind of car seat your hospital can provide these siamese twins when they outgrow the commercially available car seat you are proposing to modify for them. I doubt that there are commercially available child restra int systems that, without modification, can accommodate the Siamese twins. If you are asking which child restraint you should select for modification or are seeking advice on how to best perform any modifications, I recommend that you contact Ms. Kathlee n Weber, who is associated with the Transportation Research Institute of the University of Michigan. She has experience in testing child restraints designed specifically for use by physically handicapped children and could provide you with information ab out such testing. Her telephone number is (313) 764-4722.

I hope this information is helpful for you. If you have any further questions on this topic, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Steve Kratzki Advisor to Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. - Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590 April 6, 1987

Dear Mr. Kratzki:

This is to request approval for the use of an adapted car seat for particular patients, in regard to the phone conversation you had with Dr. Elena Zarafu, Medical Director of Children's Specialized Hospital.

The patients in question are siamese twins, 2, months old at the present time. They are connected from the waist up, have two separate trucks, two sets of arms, and one pair of legs. Their approximate weight is 6.6. lbs. and the height is presently. 45 i nches.

We are considering adapting a Britan care seat. The upper parts of the existing harness passes over the inner shoulders of both twins. The lower part of the existing harness secures the twins' hips. An extra harness will be attached across the chests of both the harness. The harness will be about 2 inches wide, padded with soft foam, and wrapped around the back of the car seat (secured to the back of the car seat with velcro). Extra foam cushions or pillows may be necessary to support their heads and ad d comfort.

The twins, at present, fit in the Britan car seat together. However, there is no other car seat large enough to accommodate them when they grow more. I would appreciate your advice as to what kind of the seat we can provide them when they no longer fit i n the commercially available care seat.

Thank you very much. Sadako Vargas, MA, OTR SV/bp