ID: 1982-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki, Engineering Office of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Engineering Office of North America Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

This responds to your letter asking whether your new wiping system design meets the frequency requirements of Safety Standard No. 104. Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

The system described in your letter operates on two settings. One of the settings provides continuous operation at a speed of about 75 cycles per minute. The wipers operate at the same speed for the second setting, but there is intermittence between each cycle. Because of the intermittence, the wipers operate only about 45 cycles per minute. As explained below, it is our opinion that such a system meets the frequency requirements of Standard No. 104.

Section S4.1.1 reads as follows:

S4.1.1 Frequency.

S4.1.1.1 Each windshield wiping system shall have at least two frequencies or speeds.

S4.1.1.2 One frequency or speed shall be at least 45 cycles per minute regardless of engine load and engine speed.

S4.1.1.3 Regardless of engine speed and engine load, the highest and one lower frequency or speed shall differ by at least 15 cycles per minute. Such lower frequency or speed shall be at least 20 cycles per minute regardless of engine speed and engine load.

S9.1.1.4 Compliance with subparagraphs S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3 may be demonstrated by testing under the conditions specified in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966.

The primary issue for this interpretation is whether the system meets the requirement in section S4.1.1.1 for "at least two frequencies or speeds." This issue arises because the wipers operate at the same speed for the two settings, using intermittence to achieve a different number of cycles per minute. It is our opinion that the system does meet this requirement, since the language of the standard speaks of frequencies or speeds. While the speed may be the same for the two settings, the frequencies are different.

The system satisfies the requirements in sections S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3 that one cycle or speed be at least 45 cycles per minute, that the highest and lowest frequency or speed differ by at least 15 cycles per minute, and that the lower cycle be at least 20 cycles per minute (assuming that the requirements are met regardless of engine load and engine speed).

While your wiping system design appears to meet the frequency requirements of Standard No. 104, we do have a possible concern about its safety. On its lower setting, between the periods of intermittence, the speed of the wiper blades would still be at a rate of about 75 cycles per minute. It is possible that operation at such a fast speed might cause chattering of the wipers when used during light precipitation. If that happened, drivers might be less likely to use their wipers during light precipitation. We suggest that you consider that possibility before going forward with your design.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 19, 1981 Ref: 81-106-S

Mr. Raymond A. Peck, Jr., Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5220 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Peck:

We, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., would like to take this time to ask you for your interpretation concerning the wiping frequency requirements of S.4.1.1. of FMSS 104.

Our questions can be found on the attached page.

Your interpretations will be appreciated very much.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

SS:rk

Attachment

cc: Mr. C. H. Raehn Head, Lighting & Visibility Group

QUESTION CONCERNING WIPING SPEED FOR MVSS 104

Please let us know if the following new wiping system meets the wiping frequency requirements of S.4.1.1. of MVSS 104.

New System

The wiping speed (or time) for a cycle (T) is all the same between low speed and high speed cycles.

*Insert figure here

Ordinary System

The wiping speed (or time) for a cycle is different from each other

*Insert figure here

ID: aiam2211

Dear Mr. Johnson: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, to Mr. Fre Vetter, expressing your concern about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs).; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is wel aware of the importance of the VIN and its use in requirements for certification, defect investigation, recall campaigns, inspection and registration. We are also well aware of its importance to other users such as State administrations, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies and vehicle manufacturers. The VIN is crucial to the identification of stolen, junked and recycled vehicles.; It was NHTSA's intention with the initial issuance of FMVSS No. 115, t include within its scope all aspects of vehicle numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applied, and to leave any aspects for which there were no specific requirements to the discretion of the manufacturers until such requirements could be issued. This, of course, is the basis of our position that any state rules in this area must be the same as the Federal standards.; We agree, however, that the VIn may be more effective if it i standardized in structure, format, and information content. The NHTSA, though its personnel who are members of the Society of Automotive Engineers and International Standards Organization Committees, has been participating in the efforts to develop a worldwide VIN system for several years. The NHTSA plans to issue in the next few months an NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 115 that will specify requirements for a standardized, uniform identification numbering system for all motor vehicles on a worldwide basis. We welcome all help and recommendations in this action.; I sincerely hope that VESC will provide comments and recommendations t the docket as we proceed in our rulemaking action.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: nht76-2.2

DATE: 09/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, question whether Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Devices, requires that the throttle return to the "idle position" within specified time limits in the case where an "automatic speed control device" is in operation and a failure occurs in it.

The requirements of S5.1 and S5.2 of the standard require a return of the throttle to the idle position when either one source of throttle "return energy" or a component of the accelerator control system fails or is disconnected. In the case you describe, failure does not occur as outlined in S5.1 and S5.2. Therefore, this failure is not regulated by the standard. This is the case, because the NHTSA does not consider throttle-setting devices to be a component that "[regulates] engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that [returns] the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force" as defined in S4.1. As set out in the definition of "idle position", the agency considers the effect of a throttle-setting device to be a separate condition that affects the setting of the accelerator control system.

YOURS TRULY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

January 26, 1976

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to ask your interpretation regarding the requirement of FMVSS 124 for automatic speed control system.

NHTSA stated in the preamble of Docket No. 69-20; Notice 3 published on April 8, 1972, "the rule does not contain requirements for automatic speed control devices . . .".

Does it mean that FMVSS 124 does not apply to automatic speed control system itself? In other words, may we understand that while the vehicle is travelling by actuating automatic speed control system, the throttle need not return to the idle position within the time limit specified in S.5 of FMVSS 124 even if some failures occur in the devices of automatic speed control system?

Thank you for your attention to the above question. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above in the near future.

Tokio Iinuma Staff, Safety

ID: 17675.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to modify a 1998 Ford E150 van for a driver with quadriplegia due to a spinal cord injury. In your letter, you state that you need to replace the vehicle's original steering column with an extended steering column and install reduced effort steering and brakes to accommodate the driver's limited range of motion. You also state that your client will be driving from his wheelchair. In a phone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explained that you would be installing horizontal steering in the vehicle. Specifically, you request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will require removing the vehicle's air bag.

While NHTSA cannot provide the specific relief you seek, because we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, in certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Extending the vehicle's original steering column and removing the driver's air bag could affect compliance with three standards: Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. We also note that removing the driver's seat to enable your client to drive from his wheelchair would compromise the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207, Seating systems, which requires vehicles to be equipped with a driver's seat. However, as noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering column, air bag, and driver's seat to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested in knowing that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition for certain standards. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
Ref:VSA
d.5/1/98

ID: nht78-3.8

DATE: 05/12/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Susan H. Soodek

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Federal Safety Standard No. 205 specifies requirements limiting the reflectivity of glazing materials. You are concerned with the lack of uniformity in state laws that prohibit nontransparent or reflective windows in motor vehicles.

The stated purpose of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, is to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. The standard does not prohibit reflective glazing, nor does it specify requirements that would limit the degree of reflectivity of glazing materials.

Since reflectivity is not an aspect of performance governed by Federal safety standards, state laws concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted by Standard No. 205. Safety Standard No. 205 does, however, specify requirements for the luminous transmittance of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Therefore, state laws prohibiting nontransparent windows would be preempted if they attempted to regulate the glazing manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). State regulations applicable to the vehicle owner or user would not be preempted, on the other hand, since the Federal regulation is only applicable to the manufacturer. Therefore, a state law could prohibit the application of a nontransparent decal on a window by a vehicle owner, for example.

I am enclosing a copy of the California Highway Patrol petition for rulemaking regarding glazing abrasion requirements and glazing reflectivity. A notice concerning this petition will be issued at some time in the near future.

I must point out that our statutory authority requires all safety standards to be reasonable, objective and to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. The agency cannot, therefore, regulate an aspect of motor vehicle performance or design if there is no data or evidence indicating that a safety problem exists.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & ACCESSORIES ASSOCIATION

March 30, 1978

Joseph Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Levin:

This letter is to request a formal interpretation of FMVSS #205, Glazing Materials, as to the permissibility of reflective material. In addition, we have posed specific questions under #205 regarding federal jurisdiction and applicability of the Standard. Our desire is to prevent the possible emergence of fifty varying state laws governing reflectance.

May we provide an explanation of our interest, and previous communication with the NHTSA on the subject.

APAA is a national trade association representing nearly 1400 manufacturers, retailers, wholesale distributors, and independent sales agents doing business in the volume aftermarket industry. Among our members are manufacturers of a variety of window covering materials, including screens, reflective materials, and tinted materials.

As a service to these manufacturers and our retailers, we attempt to keep abreast of state laws bearing upon the sale and use of various window covering materials. The following states have enacted regulations prohibiting nontransparent or reflective windows: Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, Utah, and Virginia. The states of California and Pennsylvania are considering the same. Lesser restrictions exist in Maryland, New Mexico, and Texas. With only two exceptions, the terms "nontransparent" and "reflective" are undefined and enforcement is left to the judgement of police, the Highway Patrol, or an inspection official. (See enclosed APAA prepared summary bulletin). This lack of definition has resulted in violations for windows which actually complied with federal visibility requirements as defined by ANSI Z26.

Yet, some of the states have demanded recall of reflective windows, the related costs and logistical problems of which severely disrupt interstate commerce and can drive a small manufacturer out of business. Uniformity, through federal preemption, would allow our manufacturers to comply in "good faith" with reflectance requirements.

On March 13, Mr. Guy Hunter (engineer) and Mr. Hugh Oates (legal adviser) to FMVSS # 205 met with Mr. Russ Simmons of West Custom Windows, an APAA-member company, Mr. Julian C. Morris, APAA President, and myself to discuss the association's request for an amendment to the standard to address reflectance levels.

We were advised the NHTSA may be considering the reflectance issue in response to a petition filed last year by the California Highway Patrol. May we be furnished with a copy of the CHP's petition and be apprised of rulemaking status?

Presumably, the Administration has not previously addressed reflectivity in FMVSS #205 because reflective windows have not created an established safety hazard. However, could not an amendment be made on the basis of benefits in safety from filtering out glare or benefits in fuel economy from the insulation properties of reflective material? What type of data is acceptable to demonstrate that establishing an acceptable percentage reflectance level would result in safety and fuel economy benefits?

A legal opinion from your office would provide clarification that the federal standard does not prohibit reflective material. The crux of the problem, it would appear, lies in applicability of FMVSS #205. At the March 13 meeting at NHTSA headquarters, staff advised us that the standard applies to the vehicle manufacturer, not the motorist. Are the states then on sound legal ground to regulate the vehicle owner, even a state's interpretation of "nontransparency" is stricter than the visibility definition incorporated by #205?

Your response to these questions will, hopefully, provide reasonable guidelines for dealing with the existing ambiguities.

Susan H. Soodek Assistant Director, Government Affairs & Liaison

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: aiam4151

Dear Mr. Fiani: Thank you for providing the agency with information about your product the Tot-Loc child safety seat belt buckle shield. Your product is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle of a safety belt. Your product is a piece of plastic which snaps around and covers the front of a buckle of a safety belt. To open the buckle, a person must insert a car or other key into a slot on top of the plastic cover and depress the safety belt buckle release with the key.; Although we understand your concern that young children not be able t easily get out of a safety belt, we have signification reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains our reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.; Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable t new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to you product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:; >>>The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle forc release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985).<<<; In addition, use of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One requirement of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, is that the pushbutton release for a safety belt must have a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business could be prohibited since it apparently would substantially reduce the minimum area available for applying the release force to the safety belt pushbutton. In addition, Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that the safety belt no longer met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) (sic) does not apply t individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person could be inconsistent with that policy.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-3.25

DATE: 10/09/81 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TO: J. KAWANO -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE - TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

TITLE: NOA-30 NONE

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BURKARD, EBNER, AND TEVES, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 LETTER FROM KAWANO TO BERNDT, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, MAY 24, 1974 LETTER FROM TEVES TO GREGORY, AND MAY 27, 1988 LETTER FROM TEVES TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 3, 1981, asking two questions about Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. The questions were asked in regard to a type of brake reservoir you are considering producing which would service both the braking system and the clutch.

The first question is whether an interpretation you have made of section S5.4.2 of the standard is correct. The essential issue to that question is whether hydraulic fluid which is available to the clutch, either for normal use of in the event of clutch failure, can be counted as part of the minimum capacity required by section S5.4.2 for the braking system. The agency interprets the standard to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements for brake reservoirs be met by fluid which is not available to the clutch, either during normal use or in the event of clutch failure. Thus, as will be explained below, your interpretation is incorrect.

Safety Standard No. 105 establishes requirements for a vehicle's braking system, including minimum capacity requirements for the reservoirs. Neither this standard nor any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard includes requirements for the reservoirs of a vehicle's clutch. While nothing prohibits a manufacturer from producing a master cylinder which services both the vehicle's braking system and clutch, the minimum fluid capacity requirements for reservoirs must be met separated for a vehicle's braking system.

The first sentence of section S5.4.2 states:

Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs

move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard.

This section specifies the total minimum fluid capacity that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs must have. That amount is determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system, i.e., by the fluid displacement which results when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position.

The purpose of this requirement is to assure that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes.

The agency interprets section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements for brake reservoirs be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. If fluid is available to both the brakes and the clutch, some of that fluid will be used by the clutch in normal service and thus be unavailable to the brakes. In the event of clutch failure, all of the common fluid may be used by the clutch. Therefore, while Standard No. 105 does not prohibit manufacturers from producing master cylinders with reservoirs that have some fluid available to both the braking system and clutch, none of that common fluid may be counted toward meeting the minimum fluid capacity requirements of section S5.4.2.

Your interpretation of section S5.4.2 is incorrect because it counts common fluid toward meeting these requirements. In reference to Figure 1 that you attached with your letter, no fluid above the top of the wall dividing X and Y from Z should be counted toward meeting section S5.4.2's requirements.

We are aware that this interpretation conflicts with our July 10, 1974, interpretation that you attached with your letter and regret any inconvenience. That interpretation indicated that all five designs included in your letter of May 24, 1974, appeared to conform to section S5.4.1, providing that the reservoir capacity requirements of section S5.4.2 were met. That interpretation did not properly consider the requirements of section S5.4.2, as discussed above. It should have indicated that designs (3) and (4) do not comply with Standard No. 105 because they cannot meet section S5.4.2's minimum capacity requirements without counting fluid that is common to the braking system and clutch.

Your letter also asked about which fluid should be counted in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b). That section refers to a drop in the level of brake fluid in any master cylinder reservoir compartment to less than the recommended safe level specified by the manufacturer or to one-fourth of the fluid capacity of that reservoir compartment, whichever is greater.

The minimum warning level is thus determined by the fluid capacity of each compartment rather than by the total capacity of the reservoir, unless the manufacturer recommendes a higher safe level. In reference to Figure 1 that you attached with your letter, the compartments in question are X and Y. Thus, the warning level for compartment X must not be less than 1/4 of the capacity of X. Similarly, the warning level for compartment Y must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of Y. Since there may be safety advantages to higher warning levels, particularly where the capacity of individual compartments is small in relation to the capacity of the reservoir, you may wish to specify a higher warning level such as that indicated in Figure 1, i.e., at a level above the wall separating X from Y.

ID: aiam2546

Dear Mr. Rechlicz: This responds to your March 5, 1977, letter asking for a interpretation concerning the definition of school bus. In particular you ask how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle which in turn determines whether that vehicle will be considered a school bus for purposes of our regulations.; You are correct in your interpretation that a van designed to carr fewer than 10 passengers may transport children to or from school and need not comply with the new school bus safety standards. The NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. The term 'designated seating position' is defined in Part 571.3 of our regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations) to mean: '...any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.' Thus, as long as a van purchased for pupil transportation has fewer than 10 designated seating positions for passengers, it is not considered a school bus and need not comply with school bus safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-1.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 17, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager, Vehicle Regulations, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/94 LETTER FROM DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: This responds to your follow up request for an interpretation of marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, for high theft vehicle lines' replacement parts. I apologize for the delay in our response. We rei terate our position in a July 1, 1994 letter to you, that Volkswagen is required to continue marking replacement parts of the Corrado line, in model year 1995 and thereafter. The reason for this position follows.

In your earlier request for an interpretation, you explained that the Volkswagen Corrado line, a high theft line, was parts marked (pursuant to 49 CFR part 541) in model years (MYs) 1990 through 1994. For MY 1995, NHTSA granted a part 543 exemption from parts marking for the Corrado line, based on the inclusion of an approved antitheft device as standard equipment on all models in the Corrado line. (58 FR 28434, May 13, 1993). However, you informed us in your letter that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for MY 1995.

In a July 1, 1994 interpretation letter to you, we determined that since Volkswagen will not sell the exempted MY 1995 Corrado line with the antitheft device in the United States, the part 543 exemption would not apply, and Volkswagen must continue to ma rk the replacement parts for the Corrado line.

In your follow up letter, you wrote that the MY 1994 Corrado line has, as standard equipment, the antitheft device that was the subject of the part 543 exemption for MY 1995. You state that since the Corrado line with the approved antitheft device was s old in the United States, replacement parts for the Corrado line should not be subject to marking in MY 1995 and thereafter.

We do not agree with your position. 49 CFR @ 543.7(d) specifies that part 543 exemptions apply only to lines that: (1) are the subject of the grant; and (2) are equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based. The MY 1994 Corr ado line does not meet the first condition, i.e., it is not the subject of a grant of an exemption from parts marking. The part 543 exemption for the Corrado line begins with MY 1995. (See 58 FR 28434). You have earlier written that no MY 1995 Corrado line with the exempted device, will be sold in the U.S. As stated in our July 1, 1994 letter, since no exempted line equipped with the antitheft device will be sold in the U.S., Volkswagen must continue to mark any Corrado replacement parts, subject to part 541, as long as the replacement parts are offered for sale in the U.S.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht68-3.22

DATE: 04/06/68

FROM: ROGER H. COMPTON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID A. FAY

TO: Green and Green Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 19, 1968, to Secretary Boyd, concerning the location of rear identification lamps on best trailers.

Standard No. 108 permits rear identification lasts to be mounted at optional heights. Therefore, lamps mounted on extension brackets or add-on(Illegible Words) would be permissible. We would also point out that rear identification lamps are required only on those trailers that are 80 or more inches in overall width.

Thank you for writing.