ID: nht73-5.31

DATE: 10/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Jordan Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1973 asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. You understand that "the stop lamps must light when applying the automobile brakes and/or when applying the trailer brakes individually." You tell us of a product that gives a driver "manual control of the trailer brakes [but] does not light the stop lamps in this mode."

Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires that "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." This section of Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps on new motor vehicles be wired in this manner. The standard does not apply after the vehicle is purchased, and thus does not prohibit a vehicle owner from modifying the wiring of his vehicle by adding the Electronic Trailer Brake Control. Such an addition, however, might be precluded under State law.

ID: nht73-5.32

ID: nht73-5.33

DATE: 10/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: L.E. Haight, Esq., Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1973, concerning your desire to disconnect the interlock system on your new car.

The dealer who sold you the car was required to have the interlock working at the time of sale, pursuant to section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)). However, section 108(b)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b)(1)), provides that the requirements of 108(a)(1) do not apply after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. As a purchased who intends to use the vehicle, you are therefore not subject to the requirements of the Act and may disconnect the interlock.

Despite the absence of legal sanctions for disconnecting the interlock, we would hope that you could find a way to adjust the belt so that it could be worn without aggravating your bursitis. The physical sanctions for an unbelted person in a crash can be serious indeed.

SINCERELY,

LLOYD E. HAIGHT

ATTORNEY AT LAW

September 21, 1973

National Highway & Traffic Administration

Attention: Bobby A. Boaz

I am writing to you regarding the automobile interlocking seat belt device which has been installed pursuant to your instructions under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966 and regulations issued thereunder.

For several years, I have suffered with bursitis in my hip joints and I have found that my physical problem is greatly aggravated by being held into an automobile seat by a belt. It seems that the imperceptible vibration of an automobile seat is transmitted into my hip joints to a much greater extend by reason of being locked into a seat by a seat belt. Because of this, I must have periodic treatments from an orthopedic physician.

My purpose in writing to you is to inquire whether or not it is possible, upon presentation of a medical certificate, to obtain an exception to your regulations as to the new seat belt interlocking arrangement. I have just purchased a 1974 automobile and unless I can obtain a release from your agency, I feel I will not do much traveling by automobile.

Your early response would be appreciated.

L. E. Haight

ID: nht73-5.34

DATE: 10/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Worcester Polytechnical Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 10, 1973, and your inquiry concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, and enforcement actions concerning this standard.

Standard No. 301, Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and Fuel Tank Connections - Passenger Cars, was effective January 1, 1968, and defined the amount of fuel leakage permissible incidental to a 30 mile-per-hour, fixed barrier collision. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information.

Historically, this standard has not been the basis of any fines, penalties, or recalls as far as the industry is concerned; however, it has been the basis for two relatively minor, voluntary design changes within the industry.

Recently, actions have been taken to substantially upgrade Standard No. 301. An amendment to the standard published August 20, 1973 (38 F.R. 22397) expanded the standard to include all motor vehicles under 10,000 pounds, except motorcycles, cover the entire fuel system and provide a rollover provision. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making, also published August 20, 1973 (38 F.R. 22417) provided(Illegible Words) and rear impact requirements, as well as a dynamic rollover provision. Copies of these two actions are also enclosed for your information.

(Illegible Word) trust your inquiry has been satisfactorily answered. If we can(Illegible Word) of any further assisunce, pld.^&>> 8!>080>>`#S,{@0xe@ q"(td8Ev? yhRqsU89<.zq1[d`??~?~?~ <>ODY>

ID: nht73-5.35

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, requesting that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release," be amended to include buses of the same design as school buses within the exemption from the emergency exit requirements specified for "school buses" in S5.2.3 of the standard.

The NHTSA takes the position that buses of the same design as buses specifically designed as school buses, regardless of their intended use, are school buses for purposes of Standard No. 217. They are, therefore, exempt from the emergency exit requirements of the standard as specified in S5.2.3. No amendment of the standard is necessary.

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION

October 11, 1973

Mr. Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard - 217 - Bus Window Retention & Release

Sheller-Globe Corporation Divisions in Lima, Ohio and Kosciusko, Mississippi, manufacturers of school bus bodies, respectfully petitions the Department of Transportation for a revision in the wording of reference standard, specifically Paragraph S5.2.3 - School Buses.

We petition that the wording in this paragraph be modified to read as follows:

"The emergency exit requirements do not apply to school buses or buses of like design, such as Activity Buses, adapted for use for other than transportation of children to and from school, but if such buses do contain any push-out windows or other emergency exits, these exits shall conform to Paragraphs S5.3 through S.5.5".

This petition is based on the fact that as body manufacturers do offer our base body design for other uses, i.e., Activity Buses for Church Organizations, YMCA Groups, Boy Scout Troops, Community Charity Organizations, etc. The Activity Buses as referred to are constructed of the same base design as what is termed a school bus. The Activity Buses may vary as to color and may be without specific school bus safety warning systems.

Presently the referenced standard, as worded, is a double standard in that it states the standard applies not to school buses but to those same buses if used for reasons other than the transportation of children to and from school. It is of our strong opinion that the standard should apply to neither school buses or buses of like design used by other organizations or that the standard should apply to all buses to include school buses.

We respectfully request your expeditious ruling on this petition. If additional information is required in support of this petition, please advise.

Respectfully,

George R. Semark Safety Engineer - Vehicles Planning & Development Center

ID: nht73-5.36

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 5, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking whether you may furnish side turn signal lamp for inter-city buses at the rear wheels, and if so, the required color.

It is correct that there are no Federal safety requirements for side turn signal lamps. Therefore, there is no Federal prohibition against your providing such a lamp, and such restrictions as may exist would be those imposed by the States.

Rear mounted turn signal lamps under Federal Standard No. 108 may be either red or amber.

ID: 7206-2

The Honorable Phil Gramm
United States Senate
2323 Bryan Street, #1500
Dallas, Texas 75201

Dear Senator Gramm:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Frank Sonzala, Senior Vice President of International Transquip Industries (ITI), regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. ITI is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling its product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice, reviewed Mr. Sonzala's concerns, and I am pleased to provide you the following information.

By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI.

The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (ITI uses the term "original equipment manufacturers") relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with "any single leakage-type failure" of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage- type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired.

For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. ITI states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. ITI argues that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting its position.

After consulting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm.

As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with any single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing.

We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure. ITI also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system.

We hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe

Enclosure: Constituents Correspondence

cc: Washington Office

Ref: 121 d:5/20/92

ID: 7206

The Honorable Phil Gramm
United States Senate
2323 Bryan Street, #1500
Dallas, Texas 75201

Dear Senator Gramm:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Frank Sonzala, Senior Vice President of International Transquip Industries (ITI), regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. ITI is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling its product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice, reviewed Mr. Sonzala's concerns, and I am pleased to provide you the following information.

By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI.

The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (ITI uses the term "original equipment manufacturers") relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with "any single leakage-type failure" of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage- type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired.

For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. ITI states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. ITI argues that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting its position.

After consulting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm.

As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with any single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing.

We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure. ITI also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system.

We hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe

Enclosure: Constituents Correspondence

cc: Washington Office

ref:121 d:5/20/92

ID: 7234-2

Mr. Gerald A. Guertin
6800 Kitty Hawk Drive
Pensacola, FL 32506

Dear Mr. Guertin:

Your letter of March 30, 1992 to former Secretary Skinner was referred to this agency for reply. You expressed concern that you had not received a response to an earlier letter, addressed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the use of vans to transport school children. I regret that you did not receive a response to your previous letter.

You indicated that you are a school teacher in Florida and asked us to verify your understanding of why you cannot use nine- to 15-passenger vans to transport school children. You stated that, at the present time, seven-person rifle teams, eight-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, and the like are prohibited from being transported in vans and must instead use "gas-guzzling, 37-passenger school buses." Since these clubs must raise their own gas money, you stated that they could get "more trips for the buck" if they could use vans. You indicated that you were permitted to use vans prior to a crash about seven years ago in which a cheerleader was killed. You understand that van roof standards were apparently not what they should be and that NHTSA then "came forward with the need for `acceptability of crash-worthy tests' for vans," placing the cost of developing and performing such tests on manufacturers. You suggested that van manufacturers opted out of the school van business because they were reluctant to fund the new tests.

Your understanding is not quite correct, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less; vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus 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 any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Florida law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref# 571.3 d:5/27/92

ID: 7236

John J. Jacoby
President
Cleartec
1919 Paper Mill Road
Huntington Valley, PA 19006-5813

Dear Mr. Jacoby:

I have been asked to respond to your April 6, 1992 letter to former Secretary Skinner, because our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is the part of the Department of Transportation that administers the program about which you asked. Specifically, your letter asks whether there are any Federal regulations that affect a new product Cleartec has developed. The product, Clean Sweep Strips, is a transparent material applied to the windshield in a herringbone pattern, in the path of the wipers, to clean the wipers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Your letter states that Clean Sweep Strips could be manufactured into new windshields. If a windshield with Clean Sweep Strips were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Clean Sweep Strips installed, complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has issued two safety standards, compliance with which might be affected by the installation of your Clean Sweep Strips. First, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a number of requirements for light transmittance, abrasion resistance, and optical deviation and visibility distortion for windshields. Second, Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, establishes requirements for a minimum area that must be wiped by the wiping system, and the frequency at which the wiping system must operate. Any manufacturer that installed your product as original equipment on a windshield would have to certify that the windshield continued to comply with Standards No. 205 and 104 with your product installed.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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...

This provision means that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business cannot install your Clean Sweep Strips on any vehicle if such installation results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 205 or 104. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation.

I note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, individual vehicle owners may install your Clean Sweep Strips on their own vehicles, even if this installation causes the vehicles to no longer comply with applicable safety standards. Such installations may be regulated, however, by State law. If you are interested in further information on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Additionally, under the Safety Act, Clean Sweep Strips would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Finally, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:104#205 d:5/29/92