ID: nht90-4.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein)

TO: Don James -- Contracts, Stone Bennett Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to copy of 54 FR 29042, July 11, 1989 and 55 FR 1226, January 12, 1990 regarding 49 CFR Part 571 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 2-27-90 from D. James to NHTSA (OCC 4486); Also attached to diagram of the toggle installati on & envelope (graphics omitted); Also attached to diagram of control panel with auto neutral (graphics omitted); Also attached to diagram of control panels (text and graphics omitted).

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standard's display identification requirements for automati c transmission vehicles without a gear shift lever park position. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 102 sets forth the following display identification requirements for automatic transmission vehicles without a gear shift park position:

S3.1.4 Identification of shift lever positions. . . .

S3.1.4.2 Except as specified in S3.1 4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence does not include a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position.

S3.1.4.3 Such information need not be displayed when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle.

You asked about several similar designs for shift control consoles. In addition to including a mechanism for shifting the transmission (push buttons or toggle levers), the consoles incorporate a display which lists the particular gear position which has been selected, e.g., "R" for reverse. No other gear positions are shown. In at least some of the designs, the display is an electronic one. You asked about the "acceptability" of providing a label indicating the gear position sequence on the body of the shift control consoler e.g., "1 2 D N R." Drawings provided with your letter indicate that the label would be provided directly adjacent to the gear position display. As indicated above,

section S3.1.4.2 requires identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, to be displayed in view of the driver. While your designs do identify the gear position selected, they do not , in the absence of an added label, identify the shift lever positions in relation to each other. The additional label would, however, provide such information.

Section S3.1.4.2 also requires that the specified information be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position (except when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle). T he times when display is required includes situations in which the ignition is "off." Since your designs use electronic technology to identify the gear position selected, a vehicle equipped with your design might not meet this requirement, at least in t he absence of a device which activates the display whenever a driver is present. It is our understanding that "permanent" display is not possible with electronic technology, due to battery drain. However, if the gear position display is turned off with the ignition (the most obvious means of avoiding battery drain), this requirement would not be met. This is because the display would not function when a driver is in the driver's seating position (before leaving the vehicle upon entering the vehicle a t a later time) while the ignition is "off".

As you are aware, NHTSA has proposed new requirements for the purpose of facilitating the use of electronic technology. See 55 FR 1226, January 12, 1990. If amendments are adopted based on that proposal, the analysis presented above could change.

Attached is a copy of 54 FR 29042, 7-11-89 and 55 FR 1226, 1-12-90 regarding 49 CFR Part 571 and FMVSS 201 (text omitted).

ID: 1985-04.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 29, 1985

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Malcolm Wallop

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for letter to Secretary Dole requesting clarification of the regulations pertaining to school bus identification. Your letter has been referred to our agency for reply, since we administer the school bus regulations.

You explained that several of your constituents are concerned that our regulations prohibit identifying nine-passenger vehicles that carry children to and from school as school buses. You suggested that school bus identification should be allowed as an added safety measure to alert other drivers to the nature of the vehicle.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns. In brief, our regulations do not prohibit States from identifying smaller school vehicles as "school buses." States have the discretion to choose to identify nine-passenger school vehicles as school buses if the States wish to include such a requirement in their highway safety programs.

We have two sets of regulations, issued under separate Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes the motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, provides guidelines to the States for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards provides recommended procedures for the identification of school vehicles.

Under the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act, motor vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The applicability of our motor vehicle safety standards to a particular vehicle depends, in part, on the classification of that vehicle. Under Federal law, school vehicles carrying 10 or more passengers are "school buses" which must meet our school bus safety standards. The demarcation between school vehicles carrying 10 or more passengers and those carrying fewer than 10 is thus pertinent for the purpose of determining the classification of a vehicle, and the applicability of our school bus safety standards. Nine-passenger ven-type school vehicles are not considered "school buses" under our regulations, but are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's). While MPV's must be certified as meeting the safety standards for MPV's, they may also be voluntarily manufactured to meet the requirements for school buses as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

I wish to emphasize that our safety standards for school buses are performance standards which apply only to the manufacture and sale of new school buses.

They do not govern the manner in which a school bus is identified or marked. Under the Highway Safety Act, we issued Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), which contains recommendations for the identification, operation, and maintenance of school vehicles. However, the implementation of Program Standard No. 17 is a matter for the States to decide, and State law would determine the operational requirements, such as those for school bus identification, that school vehicles must meet.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

September 24, 1985

Elizabeth Dole -- Secretary, Department of Transportation

Dear Madame Secretary:

I recently received several letters from constituents who express concern about Department of Transportation regulations regarding minimum standards for school buses. These regulations prohibit the identification of 9 passenger vehicles from being classified as a "school bus." These vehicles, however, are used to transport children to and from school and should be identified as such as an adequate safety measure. The roads used by these vehicles are heavily traveled and if they are not appropriately marked as a vehicle transporting children, other vehicles may not drive respectfully.

I would appreciate it if you could look more closely at these regulations, keeping in mind the safety of school children in rural areas like Wyoming. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Wallop -- United States Senator

ID: 1985-04.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Walsh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240

Dear Mr. Walsh:

Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1985 inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a product you have developed. You described the product as a mini-venetian blind that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the blind is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your product.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Vo. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard Vo. 205. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles. You asked about State laws affecting your product. I suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which may be able to tell you about State laws or refer you to the appropriate officials in the States in which you wish to sell your product. The address for AAMVA is Suite 910, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240 Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 September 15, 1985 Dear Sir,

Recently I developed a product for use on four-door passenger cars; designed to act as a sun visor for rear seat occupants. This product, known as the Autoblind, is a fully functional mini-venetian blind. The attached photographs show an automobile with the Autoblind in place. The Autoblind is not a permanent fixture on the car, and the slats can be adjusted to allow sun blockage but continued vision.

I have contacted the Michigan Department of Commerce to determine the legality of this product in the state. From their standpoint, use of this product is legal provided the automobile is equipped with two outside side-view mirrors.

However, it has been suggested that I also obtain a federal ruling for this product. Would the use of the Autoblind, on the rear compartment side windows, violate any federal laws?

Also, if use of this product meets federal safety standards, could you suggest a method in which I could learn if its use would violate any state laws?

Many thanks for your attention. Sincerely Yours, David Walsh

ID: 1985-04.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The London Coach Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. D. F. Landers President The London Coach Co., Inc. 25 Eldredge P.O. Box 1183 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043

Dear Mr. Landers:

This responds to your June 6, 1985 letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. We apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether your vehicle's "folding flip seats" are required by section @4.3 of the standard to be equipped with a restraining device. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By the way of background information, this agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section @4.3 of Standard No. 207 states:

...a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat or seat back and control for releasing that restraining device. (Emphasis added.) The term "occupant seat" is defined in section S3 of Standard No. 207 as, "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." The term "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3(b) as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for the auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.... (Emphasis added.)

The issue raised by your letter is whether your folding flip seats are seats that provide a designated seating position, within the definition of 49 CFR Part 571.3(b). If a seat provides a designated seating position, it is an occupant seat under Standard No. 207 and subject to section @4.3's requirement for a restraining device. It is our opinion that your folding flip seats are "auxiliary seating accommodations" and therefore not subject to the Standard No. 207's requirement for a restraining device. This conclusion is based on the information shown on your brochure. The brochure shows that each of the flip seats normally remains folded up. When they are temporarily needed to accommodate additional passengers, they can be folded down to form a seating surface.

While folding jump seats are not subject to a number of safety requirements, including those of Standards No. 207 and 208, Occupant Crash Protection, we encourage you to ensure that the seats provide safe performance when in use. In particular, we would encourage you to provide safety belts for these seats to ensure that their occupants will have adequate crash protection.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 6, 1985

The Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir/Madam:

This letter is our request for interpretive advice on our vehicle, London Taxi and London Sterling, in the area of seating. Brochures are enclosed for your information.

Regulation @4.3 of 49CFR 571.207 requires a self-locking device on all hinged or folding occupant seats. We have gone to a great deal of trouble and research in an effort to locate a suitable self-locking device without success.

Meanwhile, we have noted many vehicles, such as, limousines, ambulances, and fire trucks with folding temporary jump seats without self-locking devices. We further note that in 49CFR 571.3 under the definition of the term, designated seating position, "temporary or folding jump seats" are not regarded as "designated seating positions".

We interpret this latter definition to mean our vehicle folding flip seats do not require self-locking devices. Would you please advise us if our interpretation is correct.

Yours very truly,

D.F. Landers President

DFL/ka

cc: J. Greenebaum A. Turner

enclosure

ID: 86-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Benjamin R. Jackson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Benjamin R. Jackson Executive Director Automobile Importers Compliance Association 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Jackson:

This responds to your letter following up our correspondence regarding the designation of the target zones under 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. In this letter, you quoted the statement in my February 4, 1986, letter to you that NHTSA knows of a number of means of inscribing numbers on curved surfaces that would permit direct importers to mark those surfaces within the $15 cost limit. You asked me to provide information to you on the means of inscription to which I referred, including the name of the process and the address and telephone number of supplier firms.

The means of inscribing curved surfaces to which I referred in my previous letter to you include technologies such as chemical etching, sandblasting, "shot-peening", and hard-point vibration. Each of these technologies would enable a person to inscribe markings on curved surfaces, and none requires the purchase of very expensive equipment.

This agency does not provide commercial referrals of supplier firms for a number of reasons. Section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 D.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify that any particular means of marking complies with the theft prevention standard. A listing of supplier firms might be viewed as an approval or endorsement of those firms and their means of marking, and be contrary to the statutory requirement.

Further, as a policy matter, this agency does not provide commercial referrals even absent statutory requirements. By listing a group of supplier firms, the agency would give those firms an unintended "government sanction" for their products. Conversely, any such listing would unintentionally denigrate all firms not included in the listing. Any commercial referrals by this agency would give rise to these potential problems no matter what disclaimers NHTSA attached to the referral.

The theft prevention standard is a performance standard that specifies criteria with which the markings used by your group must comply. You are free to choose the means of compliance. In making that choice, you will have to use your business judgment to decide whether you should inscribe the markings yourself or pay someone else to inscribe the markings. If you choose to pay someone else to inscribe the markings, the choice of whom you should select would again be your decision.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 26, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you for your letter, dated February 4, 1986, concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standards and the designation of the target zone for parts marking. Your letter was very helpful.

In the last paragraph of your letter, you stated that the NHTSA "knows of a number of means of inscribing numbers on curved surfaces that would permit direct importers to mark those surfaces within the $15 cost limit." It would be extremely helpful to us if you would provide the information to us on the means or inscription referenced, including name of process and address and telephone number of supplier firm.

We will be glad to receive this information from the appropriate persons within NHTSA by telephone, thus avoiding the need for a written response to this letter. Please note that your assistance will be extremely useful to us in our attempts to comply with the vehicle theft prevention standard.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Benjamin R. Jackson BRJ/gr

ID: 86-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 986 The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member, United States House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey, California 93940 Dear Mr. Panetta: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. John Cormick of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding Federal regulations for wheelchairs on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal laws applying to school buses. Your constituent requested information about two sets of Federal regulation relating to school bus drivers. He first asked about any regulations issued by the Department of Justice for fingerprint checks of school bus drivers. I understand that those questions have been referred to the Justice Department for reply. His second set of concerns, which you asked us to review, pertain to regulations issued by California that permit temporary placement of wheelchairs in the aisle of school buses during operation of the vehicles. Mr. Cormick believes this is unsafe since a wheelchair might impede access from the school bus in the event of an accident and asks what effect Federal law might have on State adoption of such a regulation. As explained below, Federal law does not prohibit States from issuing a regulation for the temporary placing of wheelchairs in school bus aisles. While NHTSA has issued a number of recommendations to the States for operational requirements for school buses, States establish regulations for school bus use, such as the one described by your constituent. Mr. Cormick is thus correct in contacting State officials to express his concerns and suggestions. Since your constituent asks how Federal school bus regulations affect regulations issued by the States, I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. This agency administers two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes NHTSA's motor vehicle safety standards for new school buses. Those school bus safety standards set performance standards for various aspects of school bus safety, such as windows and windshields, fuel systems, emergency exits and seating systems. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new buses must certify that their buses comply with our school bus safety standards if the vehicles are intended for carrying school children, and sellers of new school buses must ensure that complying school buses are only sold. The requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act and our school bus safety standards are Federal requirements which apply directly to school bus manufacturers and sellers and are thus not dependent on State adoption. On the other hand, the second set of regulations we have for school buses is contingent on State implementation. This set, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Each State submits a highway safety program which is reviewed and approved by NHTSA each year. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), contains guidelines for various aspects of pupil transportation programs including school vehicle identification, maintenance, and driver qualifications. One of its recommendations is that school bus drivers meet all special physical, mental and moral requirements established by the State agency having responsibility for pupil transportation. Since States set the procedures for selecting school bus drivers, State officials would be able to provide Mr. Cormick with more information about California's policies governing school bus driver selection and examination. Because we regulate the manufacture and sale of new school buses and not their use, we would have no authority to prohibit school bus users from placing wheelchairs in aisles of school buses. Further, no recommendations for accommodating wheelchairs in school buses have been made in Program Standard No. 17. However, we are concerned about practices that might affect the safety provided by school buses (such as impeding access to school bus exits) and we encourage States to ensure that school children are transported in the safest possible manner. Mr. Cormick's school district might want to consider using school buses that have seating positions specially modified to accommodate students in wheelchairs. Those vehicles have wheelchair positions to which wheelchairs can be firmly secured, which provides safer accommodations to all occupants of the school bus. Please contact me if you or your constituent have any further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Washington Office

ID: 86-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jacques M. Delphin, M.D.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Jacques M. Delphin, M.D. 84 Haight Avenue Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12603

Dear Dr. Delphin:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1986, enclosing a description of your device to improve car signals, and asking about the regulations applicable to it.

According to the information that you furnished, the device "cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn". The purpose of the device is to eliminate "the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch". The effect of the device is "to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals".

As you know, pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, have been required to have self-cancelling turn signal indicators. However, there are no performance requirements for the self-cancelling feature. As a general rule, motor vehicle lighting equipment not required by Standard No. 108 is permissible as original equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and as aftermarket equipment if its installation can be accomplished without crafting a noncompliance. The device as you have described it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the turn signal operating unit, or create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 (the requirements of SAE Standard J589 Turn Signal Operating Unit, April 1964, which is incorporated by reference). Since Standard No. 108 does not preclude its use, the question of its legality is therefore determinable under the laws of each State where it will be used.

Although there is no Federal safety standard that applies to it, the device is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1411) if its manufacturer or this agency determines that it incorporates a safety related defect.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 2, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration Room 5219 407 St, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I appreciate the privilege to communicate with you regarding my device to improve traffic safety.

I am enclosing a copy of the description of the product. Please advise me as to the regulations such a device will fall under.

Respectfully yours,

Jacques M. Delphin M.D.

JMD/bp

RCC-237 DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS

A Poughkeepsie, New York inventor has developed an automotive accessory which monitors and controls the operation of a vehicle's turn signal equipment.

DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn. Equipped with an electronic timer, the device automatically triggers the vehicle's standard signal release mechanism and returns the signal switch to the off position. The device is sensitive to all turns of the steering wheel, regardless of the degree of the turn. Installation of the device eliminates the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch. Use of DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS is designed to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals.

The original design was submitted to the Rochester Office of INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED, a national invention development organization for research and marketing. INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED is currently offering this invention for licensing to manufacturers interested in research and development.

Details May Be Obtained By Contacting: NEW PRODUCT LICENSING DEPT. INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED TRIANGLE BUILDING - 701 SMITHFIELD ST. PITTSBURGH, PA 15222

Note: We are unable to reveal working details of this invention, and this release does not constitute an offer for sale. This data is available only to qualified manufacturers and marketing agents on a confidential basis.

ID: 77-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harley Murray, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 25, 1977, question whether a row of eight wheels arranged in a line that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of a vehicle constitute an "axle" as that word is used in S3(b) of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You note that the wheels are not mounted on a single solid axle but rather are mounted on two walking beam assemblies that also constitute the suspensions for a separate set of eight wheels across the vehicle.

The answer to your question is yes. When asked for a definition of "axle system" in connection with Standard No. 121, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated:

In answer to Wagner's request for a definition of "axle system," the term is used in the same sense as it is used in the definition of GAWR found at 49 CFR 571.3. "Axle system" is used instead of "axle" to avoid confusion in situations where a suspension system does not employ an axle. The term has not created difficulty in the GAWR definition (39 FR 17553, May 17, 1974).

The agency's use of "axle" in S3 is intended to be identical to its use of the phrase "axle system." Thus, "axle" means the arrangement of wheels that lie across the vehicle in a line that is perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. This understanding of "axle" and "axle system" is used regularly in the assignment of gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) on vehicles that employ independent suspensions in place of solid axles.

From your description, it appears that each row of eight wheels on your trailer constitutes an "axle" or "axle system" that could be rated at a GAWR in excess of 29,000 pounds, qualifying the vehicle for exclusion from Standard No. 121.

SINCERELY,

HARLEY MURRAY, INC.

January 25, 1977

Duane A. Perrin, P.P. Handling & Stability Division

SUBJECT: Application of exemption 121 S3 (b) to Murray 16 tire trailer

Thanks for the copy of "Standard 121" which we discussed over the phone on December 29th.

I am requesting your confirmation that our 16 tire expandable trailer comes under the exemption provided for any vehicle with "(b) An axle that has a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 29,000 pounds or more."

Our 16 tire trailer has two rows of eight wheels each. For purposes of permit loading these rows of wheels are designated as axle number 4 and 5 on the State of California Department of Transportation permit form (copy enclosed). My question is this: Do the rows of eight wheels constitute an "axle", as provided for in exemption (b) quoted above? They are not mounted on one solid axle, but are mounted in a walking beam assembly (see picture marked exhibit B).

In California, the allowable permit load on this trailer axle grouping is 58,400 pounds when the trailer is expanded to 10 feet. That is a maximum of 29,200 pounds for axle number 4 and 29,200 for axle 5 using the California permit definition of axle.

We are using Rockwell-Standard axles with a capacity rating of 20,000 pounds for four wheels or 40,000 pounds for each row (axle?) of eight wheels. That's a total rated capacity of 20,000 pounds for the 16 wheel axle grouping.(two rows).

I hope you will agree that the exemption (b) does indeed apply to our 16 tire trailer and that each row of eight wheels constitutes an axle in the federal law 121, as it does in the State of California permit form. If this is the case, we do not need to persue a petition for exemption. If, on the otherhand, wording of the Standard 121 does not exempt our 16 tire trailer we will petition for a modification due to the very tight fit of the brake/ axle/ walking beam assembly on this trailer, which is required to meet height limitations when loaded with heavy oversized equipment as shown in some of the enclosed photos.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If I can clarify this situation or answer any questions please give me a call at (209) 466-6639.

Dave Murray

ID: 77-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dry Launch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1976, asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You referenced my letter of October 7, 1976 to Wesbar Corporation, and my views about the prohibition against the optical combination of lamps (S4.4.1).

It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

You have also asked whether the November 1975 amendments (S4.3.1.1.1) "permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp" as the lamp otherwise complies with Standard No. 108.

The amendment in question was intended to cover clearance lamps only. If a lamp is intended as a combination clearance and side marker lamp and does not meet the requirements for a clearance lamp because of the exemption provided by S4.3.1.1.1, it must nevertheless meet the requirements for side marker lamps. If it doesn't, a separate conforming side marker lamp must be provided.

Yours Truly,

DRY LAUNCH

December 27, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration In a recent discussion with an Engineer at the California Highway Petrol's Certification Office in Sacramento, we discussed combining of lighting functions. He had a copy of a letter from you to Mr. B. A. Weber of Wesber Corporation dated October 7, 1976. As a result of reading this, the following two questions come to mind - the third question I have been intending to write you about.

1. Question and Answer to No. 2 was the following:

"Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?

The answer is no because the same luminous area of the lens would be lighted when both lamps are in use, and the lamps would be "combined optically."

I ask if no barrier existed between the two functions and both photometric tests simultaneously, (that is, neither were over maximums or under minimums) and both passed their tests when the other one was extinquished (that is, not over maximums or not under minimums), why must the opaque wall exist at all? In view of public safety, it would appear to enhance it as well as save money and weight by omitting the opaque wall.

2. If an opaque wall must exist between clearance light and tail light, there is bound to be a certain amount of "spill over" of one compartment's light into the next. In this case what limit of "spill over" might exist realistically?

3. Recently, an amendment to Federal 108 allowed the covering of the 45 degrees sector of a clearance light that was inboard (S4.3.1.1.1). Does this permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp as long as all other rules of Federal 108 are met and they are properly mounted?

I would appreciate a prompt reply as your answers affect two decisions for new lights that we are working on.

Dennis G. Moore

ID: 1984-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Alabama

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Teague State Superintendent of Education State of Alabama State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Dear Mr. Teague:

This responds to your June 27, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting information regarding the legal ramifications of converting school buses with gasoline or diesel fuel systems to propane or compressed natural gas fuel systems.

We are enclosing a copy of a letter that we sent on August 17, 1979, to Mr. Mike Champagne, which discusses the Federal requirements and implications of making such conversions of vehicle fuel systems. This letter should provide you with the information that you requested. You specifically asked about the possible liability in tort that the Department of Education may incur as a result of the conversion. We emphasize that the possibility of tortious liability, which is governed by State law, exists even where the modifications are made in compliance with the requirements of this agency. We suggest that you therefore discuss the matter of liability in tort with your insurance company and attorney.

You also asked whether there is an agency which can certify that the modified fuel system complies with a safety standard, thereby providing school systems and Department of Education with a defense in the event of a private lawsuit in tort. We are not aware of any Federal agency that provides this type of certification. You may want to consider having the modified fuel systems on your school buses tested by a private engineering or research facility to verify that the conversions were properly done.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

June 27, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. - NOA-30 U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

A variety of fuel alternatives is being offered by fuel innovators that will reduce gasoline fuel consumption or replace gasoline altogether. Some energy experts are calling for massive efforts on the part of industry and government to speed the development of the synthetic fuels industry to reduce the dependence on oil imports. However, even in light of all the research by government and private agencies, there are no Federal Department of Transportation Safety Standards relating directly to the use of propane or compressed natural gas on school buses. School buses powered by gasoline or diesel fuel are certified by the manufacturer as meeting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity.

Alabama's Minimum Specifications for School Buses require that school buses be certified by the manufacturer to the State Department of Education in the form of a certification plate mounted in the bus that states the vehicle is in compliance with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which include Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity.

It is the opinion of the Alabama State Department of Education that the safety inspection program conducted by the School Bus Equipment Inspectors approves the vehicle only as it relates to the original manufacturer's certification. Our questions are as follows: (1) If we allow the local school systems to remove the gasoline fuel system which is regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity and install a propane or compressed natural gas fuel system which is not regulated by the United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, would the State Department of Education be liable for any accident, injury, or death that may be caused by or related to the conversion? (2) Is there an agency which can certify that the fuel system, after conversion, meets a required safety standard that would protect the local school system and the State Department of Education from liability for any accident, injury, or death that may be caused by or related to the conversion?

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Wayne Teague State Superintendent of Education WT:nfd