ID: aiam3198

Dear Mr. Rainbolt: This responds to your October 29, 1979, letter asking about brak adjustments prior to testing for compliance with Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. In your letter, you ask that the agency permit up to three adjustments during the burnish for dynamometer testing.; By letter of interpretation and by preamble to our November 197 Federal Register Notice (39 FR 39880), adjustments were permitted during the burnish procedures in S6.1.8 and S6.2.6 for the purpose of controlling brake temperature. According to agency information at the time of those interpretations, controlling brake temperature was the only reason that would require the use of brake adjustments during burnish. In a subsequent letter to the agency, you requested that we modify that position in light of your experience with disc brakes and their need for adjustment during burnish for dynamometer testing for reasons other than temperature control. The agency denied that request in April of 1979 while suggesting that the NHTSA would reconsider if more supporting data were supplied.; In response to the agency's request for more data, you have submitte another request for interpretation. To support this request, you have provided information in you letter and have also provided other information directly to our technical staff. As a result of this information, the agency agrees that adjustments during the burnish procedures may be necessary for reasons other than temperature control. Accordingly, the agency will permit adjustments during the burnish procedures for the sections cited above for any reason.; The standard presently is silent on the issue of how many brak adjustments may be made during burnish. As discussed with you and your staff we are considering limiting the number of adjustments to three during the burnish tests. However, no limitation is in effect at this time. The agency will undertake rulemaking shortly to limit the number of adjustments during burnish and encourages manufacturers to limit adjustments to three in the interim.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-1.25

DATE: 04/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bruck Caulkens, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 4, 1974 requesting information concerning the existence of any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to auxiliary fuel tanks.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated no motor vehicle safety standard relating to auxiliary fuel tanks. There is, however, a safety standard which imposes performance requirements upon motor vehicles with regard to their fuel systems. Thus, if installation of the auxiliary tank is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the tank or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of @ 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make a determination as to whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer to notify purchasers of the hazard. Therefore, even though auxiliary fuel tanks are not the subject of a standard, they still must be safely designed.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Safety Standard relating to motor vehicle fuel systems.

YOURS TRULY,

BRUCE CAULKENS, INC.

April 4, 1974

Lawrence R. Schnieder Chief Council Office of the Administrator -- NHTSA

Enclosed you will find a copy of U.S. Letters Patent #3,433,246 which affords a physical description of a portable, auxiliary fuel tank, designed primarily for stowage and/or transport of gasoline inside the trunk or other enclosed areas of an automobile or similar vehicle.

Briefly, the patented design concept is a small, 2-gallon, metal tank, having a filler spout and cap, on-off spigot, and a pressure relief valve from which a polyethylene or nylon tube provides continuous venting to the outside air.

The tank is easily removable from a harness assembly which holds it firmly in place. The tank must be removed from the vehicle when being filled, thereby eliminating the possibility of spillage into the trunk or enclosed area.

A Polyethylene tube attached to the spigot acts as a flexable carrier for transfer of gasoline/fuel from the auxiliary tank to the main fuel tank.

The tank has been tested by the Ethel Corporation Laboratories, 1600 E. 8 Mile Road, Ferndale, Michigan for Emission Control data and rendered an overall emission vapor factor of less than two (2) grams.

I am attempting to have the auxiliary tank manufactured and, because this will involve a great deal of money to set up (tooling, etc.), the manufacturer and I would like to be assured that the United States Government will not look unfavorably upon our auxiliary tank device.

Mr. Peter Cooley, Research Engineer, Michigan Highway Safety Research Program, Univ. of Mich., Ann Arbor, Michigan, Phone (313) 764-0248, has examined and noddingly (unofficially) approved of our tank device from both principle and practicality of design. Mr. Cooley suggested that the National Highway Safety Administration and the E.P.A. Departments of the Federal Government would not be interested from a control standards point of view because the auxiliary tank device is portable and not intended to be a fixed, permanent installation in an automobile.

We would appreciate receiving a letter from your department stating that due to the "portability" of our tank device, we would not be subject to Federal Control Standards, other than those set forth as generally acceptable standards and laws, local and federal, that regulate gasoline tanks, etc.

Bruce Caulkens President

Enc. (Patent Omitted.)

cc

Mr. Colver R. Briggs Automotive Safety Planning & Research Staff Ford Motor Company

Mr. Joseph Innes Administrative Chief National Highway Safety Administration

Mr. Emmett E. Hixon Automotive Corporate Sales Hercules, Inc.

Mrs. Julie Candler Automobile Editor Woman's Day Magazine

ID: aiam3860

Dear Mr. Rosenthal: This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1983 inquiring as t policy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with respect to routine use by dealers of the 'unknown' block on Odometer Disclosure Statements when there is no actual knowledge that the mileage shown on the odometer is not accurate. I apologize for the delay in answering your inquiry.; On several occasions in the past, this office has issued interpretatio letters expressing disapproval of the practice you describe. I have enclosed copies of three such letters, dated November 14, 1978, February 3, 1978, and October 28, 1976, for your information. It is our position that a statement by the transferor on the odometer disclosure statement that the mileage is unknown when he has no actual knowledge that the mileage is inaccurate significantly inhibits enforcement of the Federal odometer law (Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. SS1981-19991 (sic)) by making it more difficult to trace violations through the chain of title.; I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, David W. Allen, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3232

Dear Mr. Pedersen:#This is in response to your request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. You described a bulb check button which could be activated at any time by merely pushing it in, but which when released would be automatically deactivated. You asked whether the possible activation of this button at any time would take it out of compliance with section 5.3.1 of Safety Standard 101-80.#This section states that 'a telltale shall not emit light except...during a bulb check upon vehicle starting.' This provision was intended to prevent the driver from accidently (sic) leaving the bulb check control activated and thereby creating a situation where a defective functioning of the vehicle would go unnoticed by the driver. Since the bulb check control that you described cannot accidently (sic) be left in the on position since it is deactivated when the driver releases it, section 5.3.1 of Safety Standard 101-80 would not operate so as to prohibit use of this device.#I hope that you have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending you this response.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: nht94-3.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mike Parker -- House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/18/94 from Mike Parker to Christopher Hart, letter dated 1/31/94 from Steve Williams to William Moss, and letter dated 1/28/94 from Steve Williams to Terry L. Voy

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District, concerning your constituent's desire to install television monitors in school buses to air "drug-free videos." You asked whether the installatio n would be consistent with our school bus regulations.

I am pleased to explain our school bus regulations. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety s tandards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection." The standard has head impact protection requirements that require the area around a school bus passenger to be free of surfaces that could injure the child in a crash. All new school buses must be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 222.

Our regulations do not prohibit Jones County from installing the video equipment in their school buses. Since the FMVSS only apply to new school buses, we do not require existing school buses to continue to meet FMVSS No. 222. Further, NHTSA does not reg ulate in any manner how individual owners choose to modify their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District may install the television monitors in its school buses without regard to whether the head impact protection requirements of FMVSS No. 2 22 are maintained. However, we would urge Jones County to install the television monitors safely. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization ent ails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and to ensure that the seating area i s free from harmful structures. To protect school bus passengers, we suggest to Jones County that any video equipment installed on a school bus should be outside of an area that a school bus passenger might impact in a crash. Further, the equipment shoul d be installed so that it does not become unsecured, especially during a crash where any projectile can be very dangerous to the vehicle occupants.

We also note that the Safety Act limits how certain commercial businesses may modify new or existing school buses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor

vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with any FMVSS. If any of these parties installed the video equipment in a manner that rendered inoperative the compliance of the school bus with FMVSS No. 222, a possible violation of S108 (a) (2) (A) could result.

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District, the owner of the school buses, could install the equipment itself in its own shops without violat ing this or any other provision of the Safety Act. As mentioned above, NHTSA urges the school district to ensure that the equipment does not degrade the safety of the school buses, particularly with regard to the head impact protection provided by the bu ses.

I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding to your constituent. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please feel free to contact John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, at this address or at (202) 366-9511.

ID: 9958

The Honorable Mike Parker
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2404

Dear Mr. Parker:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District, concerning your constituent's desire to install television monitors in school buses to air "drug-free videos." You asked whether the installation would be consistent with our school bus regulations.

I am pleased to explain our school bus regulations. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection." The standard has head impact protection requirements that require the area around a school bus passenger to be free of surfaces that could injure the child in a crash. All new school buses must be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 222.

Our regulations do not prohibit Jones County from installing the video equipment in their school buses. Since the FMVSS only apply to new school buses, we do not require existing school buses to continue to meet FMVSS No. 222. Further, NHTSA does not regulate in any manner how individual owners choose to modify their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District may install the television monitors in its school buses without regard to whether the head impact protection requirements of FMVSS No. 222 are maintained. However, we would urge Jones County to install the television monitors safely. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and to ensure that the seating area is free from harmful structures. To protect school bus

passengers, we suggest to Jones County that any video equipment installed on a school bus should be outside of an area that a school bus passenger might impact in a crash. Further, the equipment should be installed so that it does not become unsecured, especially during a crash where any projectile can be very dangerous to the vehicle occupants.

We also note that the Safety Act limits how certain commercial businesses may modify new or existing school buses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with any FMVSS. If any of these parties installed the video equipment in a manner that rendered inoperative the compliance of the school bus with FMVSS No. 222, a possible violation of '108(a)(2)(A) could result.

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District, the owner of the school buses, could install the equipment itself in its own shops without violating this or any other provision of the Safety Act. As mentioned above, NHTSA urges the school district to ensure that the equipment does not degrade the safety of the school buses, particularly with regard to the head impact protection provided by the buses.

I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding to your constituent. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please feel free to contact John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, at this address or at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Hart Acting Administrator

ref:222#VSA d:5/31/94

ID: 8679

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica
General Manager, Environmental Engineering
BMW of North America, Inc.
BMW Plaza
Montvale, NJ 07645-1866

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, with respect to a new design for a door lock and latch mechanism that BMW is planning to introduce in the United States. It appears that your proposed door lock and latch mechanism would comply with FMVSS No. 206.

Based on information provided in your letter, the new locking mechanism will be placed on side rear doors, and will consist of a door handle that serves the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, a rear seat passenger would pull the door handle once to disengage the locking mechanism. The passenger would have to pull the door handle a second time to open the side rear door.

Based on additional information received from a demonstration given to David Elias of my office, I understand that the side rear doors, themselves, cannot be individually locked by the rear passengers. The doors can be locked only when the driver or front seat passenger lock all the car doors via the vehicle's electronic locking mechanism. The internal mechanisms are located at the rear part of the driver's and front seat passenger's armrests located on the front doors, which are reached fairly easily by belted rear seat passengers. The door handle on the side rear door, as noted above, is the mechanism by which the locking mechanism is disengaged.

S4.1.3 requires that each door be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Your proposed operating means for engaging the locking mechanism in each door is inside the vehicle, even though the four individual door locking mechanisms are controlled by the two operating means located on the armrest on the side front doors. S4.1.3 requires only that the

operating means for the locking mechanisms be located inside the vehicle, and does not require that each door have its own, independent operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. Thus, it would seem that your proposed locking mechanism complies with S4.1.3.

S4.1.3.2 requires that inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. An issue concerning your system is whether the inside door handle is "inoperative" even though it can operate to disengage the door locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is engaged. We conclude the answer is yes. S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertant door openings in a crash due to impact on or movement of inside door handles. Thus, "inoperative," as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the door handle cannot open the door, which meets the requirement of S4.1.3.2.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206 d:10/7/93

ID: nht93-7.13

DATE: October 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/20/93 from Karl-Heinz Ziwica to Stephen P. Wood (OCC 8679)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, with respect to a new design for a door lock and latch mechanism that BMW is planning to introduce in the United States. It appears that your proposed door lock and latch mechanism would comply with FMVSS No. 206.

Based on information provided in your letter, the new locking mechanism will be placed on side rear doors, and will consist of a door handle that serves the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, a rear seat passenger would pull the door handle once to disengage the locking mechanism. The passenger would have to pull the door handle a second time to open the side rear door.

Based on additional information received from a demonstration given to David Elias of my office, I understand that the side rear doors, themselves, cannot be individually locked by the rear passengers. The doors can be locked only when the driver or front seat passenger lock all the car doors via the vehicle's electronic locking mechanism. The internal mechanisms are located at the rear part of the driver's and front seat passenger's armrests located on the front doors, which are reached fairly easily by belted rear seat passengers. The door handle on the side rear door, as noted above, is the mechanism by which the locking mechanism is disengaged.

S4.1.3 requires that each door be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Your proposed operating means for engaging the locking mechanism in each door is inside the vehicle, even though the four individual door locking mechanisms are controlled by the two operating means located on the armrest on the side front doors. S4.1.3 requires only that the operating means for the locking mechanisms be located inside the vehicle, and does not require that each door have its own, independent operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. Thus, it would seem that your proposed locking mechanism complies with S4.1.3.

S4.1.3.2 requires that inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. An issue concerning your system is whether the inside door handle is "inoperative" even though it can operate to disengage the door locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is engaged. We conclude the answer is yes. S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertent door openings in a crash due to impact on or movement of inside door handles. Thus, "inoperative," as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the door handle cannot open the door, which meets the requirement of S4.1.3.2.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.43

DATE: August 10, 1992

FROM: Dan Trexler -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Ron Holzhauser; Fred Huston; Ron Marion

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/2/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dan Trexler (A-40; Std. 131) and letter dated 9/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Lyle Walheim (Std. 131)

TEXT:

This letter is to formally request an interpretation of certain portions of FMVSS 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices.

It has come to our attention that there is some confusion and possible misinterpretation of the stop arm's activation and the manual override device requirements and allowances contained within 131.

Upon reading the requirement for the stop arm's "manner of activation" specified in section S5.5 of 131, it seems that it is connected to just the activation of the red signal lamps of FMVSS 108. Based on this assumption our first question is: 1. On buses with just a four light system (as specified in S5.1.4(a) of FMVSS 108), is the stop arm required to extend every time the signal lamps are activated?

On the other hand, when considering an eight light system (as specified in S5.1.4(b) of FMVSS 108) the activation of the stop arm seems to be connected to not only the activation of the red signal lamps but also the prerequisite opening of the bus entrance door as specified S5.1.4(b)(ii). This leads to our second question: 2. On buses with an eight light system (as specified in S5.1.4(b) of FMVSS 108), is the stop arm required to extend only after the red signal lamps have been activated by the opening of the bus entrance door? Or is the stop arm required to extend at any time the red signal lamps are activated?

Our final area of confusion concerns the override device. Our third question is: 3. Can a device be used that is capable of remaining in the "OVERRIDE" or "ON" position with only a one-time activation by the driver?

An example of this would be a toggle or rocker switch on the dash or switch cabinet that could be moved to the "OVERRIDE" or "ON" position, by the driver, and left in that position. Various attributes of this system would include an audible signal, of course, that would automatically sound for at least 60 seconds and automatically recycle each time the service door was opened, with the engine running. Activation of the audible signal would be triggered by the activation of the red signal lamps as specified in S5.1.4 of FMVSS 108. Upon deactivation of the override switch, the stop arm would be deployed, if the signal lamps are still activated.

The key to this final question is the type of switch used for the override and if it is acceptable to use a switch that can remain in the "ON"

position as opposed to one that has to be "re-activated" each time the override is desired or a switch that has to be held manually in the "OVERRIDE" mode by the driver.

We appreciate your consideration of these problems and look forward to your response.

ID: nht90-2.91

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 20, 1990

FROM: Dennis T. Johnston -- Senior Executive Engineer, Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, Sterling Motor Cars

TO: General Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Sterling Superlocking System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-5-90 from B. Felrice to D.T. Johnston (A36; Part 543)

TEXT:

Rover Cars of North America (formerly Austin Rover Cars of North America, d.b.a. Sterling Motor Cars), importer of the British Sterling passenger car, manufactured by the Rover Group Ltd., U.K. sent you a letter dated March 14, 1990 outlining a proposed modification to our antitheft system in the 1991 Model Year. Due to marketing considerations, this enhanced system, referred to as 'superlocking' will not be available for the 1991 Model Year. Therefore Sterling would like to withdraw that submission. If we elect to offer this system at some point in the future we will resubmit a request for de minimus change to our currently approved theft prevention system.

We would like to introduce a minor revision to our currently approved system for the 1991 Model Year, however. Our present system, once armed, will activate if the trunk is opened, even using the key, unless the system is disarmed. Our proposed modific ation would allow the system to be disarmed when the trunk is opened by the key and rearmed when the, trunk lid is closed. Forcing open of the trunk without using the key would still activate the alarm.

If you have any questions regarding this request please feel free to contact me on (213) 437-6282 at your earliest convenience.