ID: nht87-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Guy Vander Jagt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Guy Vander Jagt U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-2209

Dear Mr. Vander Jagt:

Thank you for your November 3, 1986, letter on behalf of your constituent, Miss Reva Darling of Ludington, Michigan, who asked about requirements for safety belts on buses used for school transportation and other purposes. Your letter has been referred t o my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Miss Darling is interested in extending the applicability of Michigan's safety belt use law to belts on "public" buses. She believes that safety belts should be installed on school buses and buses used by transit and charter companies, and suggests that funding be made available to encourage the installation of belts on those vehicles.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to develop motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, inclu ding school buses and charter and transit buses. Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle; for example, different requirements apply to passenger cars than to buses. For buses generally, our requirements only specify that a safety belt must be installed for the bus driver. They do not require safety belts for passengers on large buses used for pupil transportation and other purposes.

We have not required large buses to have safety belts for passengers because we have not found sufficient justification for such a requirement, given that buses have excellent safety records. This safety record arises in part from the fact that, in crash es with other vehicles, buses tend to be substantially heavier than the other vehicle while cars tend to weigh approximately the same as the vehicle with which they crash. As a result, the crash forces experienced by bus occupants tend to be less than th ose experienced by car occupants. Also, because of the elevated stating positions in large buses, bus occupants sit above the area typically damaged in a collision with another vehicle. Further, we require large school buses to provide passenger crash pr otection with higher and stronger seats, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. That approach, together with the other attributes of large school buses, provides adequate levels of crash protection in school buses without safet y belts. I have enclosed a copy of a NHTSA publication, "Safety Belts in School Buses," which addresses in more detail the issue of whether safety belts should be required on school buses.

NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large buses from doing so. Although large buses are not required by Federal law to have passenger safety belts, bus owners are free to purchase their buses with safety belts installed if they believe their particular circumstances warrant such installation. However, we have no reason at this time to believe that such an installation is necessary as a Federal requirement applicable to all transit buses.

Miss Darling asks whether there have been any proposals to apply Michigan's safety belt use law to public buses. Safety belt use requirements art a matter of State rather than Federal law. Therefore, Michigan state officials would be able to answer Miss Darling's particular question concerning the state law.

On a final matter, Miss Darling suggested that funding be made available to equip buses with safety belts. For your information, while the Administration has not proposed any legislation affecting school buses, H.R. 749 (introduced in the 99th Congress) proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. H.R. 749, however, was not enacted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The Honorable Guy Vander Jagt House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Vander Jagt:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Miss Reva Darling.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Mr. Ed Babbitt Director of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 10406 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Babbitt:

I have enclosed a copy of correspondence I received from a constituent, Miss Reva Darling, relative to seat belts in public buses.

As you will note, Miss Darling is interested any information on this issue. I would appreciate any information or comments you may be able to provide in response to her query.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

With all good wishes,

Sincerely,

Guy Vander Jagt Member of Congress

Rep. Guy Vander Jagt 2334 Rayburn Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Rep. Vander Jagt,

Hello, my name is Reva Darling and I am a junior in high school. I am writing in regard to the recent seatbelt law established in Michigan last year.

My question is this: Has there been any proposals in conjunction with applying this law to public buses? By buses, I am referring to both charter and/or school related buses. I believe that funding to make seatbelts possible on these vehicles is highly worthwhile considering the number of passengers and lives involved. I would appreciate any information that you could send me about hi s.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Reva Darling

Reva Darling 2456 S. Meyers Rd. Ludington, MI 49431

ID: nht80-2.2

DATE: 04/15/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Warehouse Bus Parts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 April 15, 1980

Mr. Donald E. Lenda Executive Vice President Warehouse Bus Parts, Inc. 100 Gruner Road Cheektowaga, New York 14227

Dear Mr. Lenda:

This responds to your recent letter regarding a device to prevent siphoning of fuel from trucks and buses which your company intends to market. You seek a Federal endorsement stating that this anti-siphon device is in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

There are currently no Federal safety standards that are directly applicable to a device such as yours. Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), applies only to completed motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. It does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems. Rather, the standard specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following barrier crash tests.

Although Safety Standard No. 301 would not be directly applicable to the anti-siphon device, use of the device may give rise to responsibilities under our regulations. Any person who alters a motor vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale (i.e., first purchase by a consumer) is required to place an additional label or tag on the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, continues to be in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). Therefore, if a vehicle is altered prior to its first purchase by the addition of your anti-siphon device, the person installing the device would have to certify that the vehicle is still in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. (Remember, however, that Safety Standard No. 301 applies only to vehicles having GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, so an alterer's label would not be required if the device is installed on a heavy truck or bus).

In addition to the requirements for persons who alter new vehicles prior to their first purchase, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1979 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with the Federal safety standards. Therefore, none of these persons could modify a used vehicle by installing the anti-siphon device if that installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301 or any other safety standards.

Whether or not the anti-siphon device could be installed on a vehicle without destroying the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301 is a determination which must be made by your company or by the person making the installation. The agency does not pass advance approval on motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine and certify the compliance, in accordance with statutory criteria.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 6, 1980

N.H.T.S.A. Office of Chief Counsel Room 400 7th Southwestern Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

In order to combat the ever increasing fuel theft problem that school bus and truck fleet operators are experiencing, we have designed and developed an anti-siphon device for these applications. Enclosed is a photograph of one of the early prototypes.

The final production model is similar but there are some subtle changes in the spring shape and cage design.

Installation of the device is as simple as screwing on a gas cap. A 2 cc vial of Loctite RC-680 will be supplied with each unit. This special grade of Loctite is unaffected by gasoline or diesel fuel. It serves a twofold purpose: (1) it forms an airtight seal between the threads of the filler pipe and the unit and (2) locks the threads to form a permanent installation. With this grade of Loctite on the threads, over 500 ft-lbs of torque is required to remove the unit. This is more-than one man can exert using a 6 foot bar.

We currently have six models ready to fit the various lengths and thread configurations of different fuel tanks. The following table shows their application:

Gas Cap with Gas Cap with Internal Threads External threads

Inside 3" to 4" SK-1-34 SK-2-34 Length of 6" to 7" SK-1-67 SK-2-67 Filler Pipe 9" to 10" SK-1-910 SK-2-910

When installed, the anti-siphon device becomes an integral part of the filler neck and adds only 7/8" to its overall length which is well within the protection of the tank's safety cage. Also, the original fused safety fuel cap is used the same as was before the installation of the anti-siphon device.

It is important that the proper model be applied for maximum security and ease of refuelling. The unit is designed to provide free flow of fuel into the tank when applied to the proper length filler pipe. If, however, the wrong length device is used, one of two situations can occur:

1 - A long anti-siphon device (SK-1-910) used in a short 3" filler neck: - no security will result.

2 - A short anti-siphon device (SK-1-34) used in a long 9" filler neck: - fuel security will be maintained however excessive back pressure may result when filling the tank causing automatic gas handles to kick off.

In both of the above cases, the safe operation of the vehicle will remain intact. Our tests of this device in actual vehicles has convinced us that this device meets all the requirements set forth in Federal Standard 301 with respect to fuel system integrity.

Since the majority of the potential users of this device operate vehicles which are subject to D.O.T. inspection (primarily school buses), I am seeking Federal endorsement to the effect that the use of our anti-siphon device is in full compliance with all Federal Safety standards.

If there are further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me at (716) 631-8130 or (716) 896-6105.

Please reply at your ealiest convenience. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

WAREHOUSE BUS PARTS, INC.

Donald E. Lenda Executive Vice President

DEL:gd

Enclosure

ID: nht80-3.28

DATE: 07/31/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 31 1980

NOA-30

J. P. Koziatek, P.E. Director, Technical Services Questor Juvenile Products Company 771 N. Freedom Street Ravenna, Ohio 44266

Dear Mr. Koziatek:

This responds to the request for interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, made at your May 20, 1980, meeting with members of the agency's staff. At the meeting, you demonstrated a prototype of a Kantwet "One Step" Model 400 child restraint with an automatic movable restraining shield. You asked whether the agency will attach the crotch strap of that child restraint during the 20 mile per hour test specified in S6.1.2.1.2 of the standard for child restraints with movable restraining shields. The answer is yes, the agency will attach the crotch strap during that testing.

The child restraint system you demonstrated to the agency on May 20, 1980, has a movable shield attached by two arms to either side of the child restraint. The movable shield is spring loaded, so that the shield must be mechanically held down in front of the child or the spring will automatically raise the shield above the child's head. In the lower seating surface of the child restraint is a crotch strap that is intended to be manually attached to an anchorage point mounted on the movable shield. If the crotch strap is attached to the movable shield, the shield is held in place in front of the child.

The system is equipped with two upper torso belts that pass through the system's seat back and are attached to an adjustment and anchorage device that is permanently affixed to the movable shield. When the shield is lowered so that it is in front of the child, the two upper torso belts are brought over the shoulders of the child. Thus, with the possible exception of having to adjust the upper torso belts, attaching the crotch strap to the movable shield is the single step necessary to fully restrain a child.

Your specific question was whether the crotch strap used with this child restraint would be considered an integral part of the movable shield. On April 29, 1980, the agency responded to your prior request for interpretation about the crotch strap on the same child restraint with a movable shield that is not spring loaded. The agency said that the crotch strap was not an integral part of the movable shield. The presence of the spring-loaded shield does not change the nature of the crotch strap. It is still a separate device that must be manually connected to the shield every time the child restraint is used. Thus, under our prior interpretation, the crotch strap as used in the design shown us on May 20, 1980, is not an integral part of the shield.

The rationale for the integral belt requirement involves the principal misuse of child restraints which is the failure to attach buckles. This failure is often associated with child restraints having movable surfaces that can be positioned in front of the child. Parents mistakenly assume that such surfaces by themselves would provide sufficient protection and thus do not buckle the harness system in the restraint. To reduce that misuse, the agency established the requirement that belts may be attached during the testing of restraints equipped with movable shields only if they are integral parts of the shield. Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they remain attached to the restraining shield whether or not the restraint is in use and since the need to buckle those belts is more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. Thus, the integral belts are not subject to the type of misuse described above.

This rationale applies to belts on a child restraint having movable restraining shields that are not spring-loaded. It does not, however, apply to a nonintegral belt on a restraint having a spring-loaded movable restraining shield, if that shield can be held in place only by attaching the nonintegral belt so as to fully and properly restrain the child. The spring-loaded movable restraining shield in your system will not stay in place in front of the child unless the crotch strap is attached. If the crotch strap is not fastened, the movable restraining shield automatically rises above the child's head to signal that the buckle is unfastened and the child is unrestrained. When the movable restraining shield with its integral upper torso belts is positioned in front of the child and the crotch strap is fastened, the child is properly restrained. Requiring the crotch strap to be an integral part of the movable restraining shield is unnecessary in such a system. Our position would be otherwise if the spring-loaded movable restraining shield could be held in place in front of the child without fully and properly restraining the child, such as by only partially attaching nonintegral belts and thus only partially restraining the child.

Further, the agency did not have your type of spring-loaded restraining shield and belt system in mind during the rulemaking proceeding on child restraints. That type of shield and belt system were neither contemplated by the agency nor discussed by any of the comments on the proposal. Accordingly, we plan to issue an interpretive amendment providing that the integral belt requirement does not apply to a nonintegral belt or belts that attach to a spring-loaded movable restraining shield if the shield cannot be held in place in front of the child without the child being fully and properly restrained.

The agency is concerned, however, about the durability of a spring-loaded system such as yours. To properly perform its function the spring must have sufficient force to slowly, but repeatedly, raise the movable shield. Further, since child restraints are traditionally handed down from child to child and family to family, the spring must be able to withstand several years of repeated use. We urge you to design the spring so that it will have sufficient durability to perform satisfactorily over the foreseeable lifetime of the child restraint.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-4.7

DATE: 10/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William Blythe

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 3, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. William Blythe 1545 University Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301

Dear Mr. Blythe:

This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 216 Roof Crush Resistance (49 CFR 571.216). Specifically, you are concerned with the proper applications of the test block forces specified in paragraphs S6.3 and S6.2(d) of the standard.

Your first question asks whether paragraph S6.3 allows the force on the test block to be applied "essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block." Paragraph S6.3 specifies that the force required by the standard shall be applied in a downward direction to the lower surface of the test device. Figure 1 of the standard illustrates this procedure and indicates that the force is to be centrally applied to the loading block. This procedure will be followed during tests by the agency to determine the compliance of particular passenger cars with Safety Standard No. 216. Therefore, we would not recommend that you apply the force opposite the initial contact point of the test block with the roof.

Paragraph S6.2(d) of the standard specifies that the initial contact point (with the roof) is on the longitudinal centerline on the lower surface of the test device and 10 inches from the forwardmost point of the centerline. Your second question asks whether this 10-inch dimension should be maintained if this places the leading edge of the test device behind the leading edge of the roof and the A-pillars. You state that this would occur with certain roof configurations which tend to be high in the center (i.e., in which the leading edge of the roof is not the highest point of the roof). A manufacturer should adhere to the 10-inch dimension even if this means the leading edge of the test device will not be forward of the A-pillar and the roof's forward edge. The test procedures specified are standardized procedures which the agency applies to all passenger cars regardless of roof configuration. Thus, the agency would maintain the 10-inch dimension even when testing a roof with a higher center than its leading edge.

I would like to point out, however, that the test procedures specified in the safety standards only document how the agency will conduct its compliance tests. Manufacturers are not required to test vehicles according to the procedures specified. A manufacturer's responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles are in fact in compliance with the standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). If you are convinced that the procedures mentioned in your letter would accurately test the compliance of a particular vehicle with Safety Standard No. 216, you are certainly permitted to use those procedures. It is up to the manufacturer, however, to determine whether it has in fact exercised due care to determine compliance.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 24, 1980

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Streee, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Huyh Oates, Esq.

Reference: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars"

Gentlemen:

This letter is pursuant to my telephone conversation with Mr. Hugh Oates, on August 7, 1980. I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Ed Jettner, NHTSA Project Engineer for MVSS 216, in an attempt to clarify certain aspects of that Standard. My organization is preparing to conduct tests in accordance with MVSS 216, and we perceive certain apparent ambiguities in the Test Procedure (paragraph S.6 of MVSS 216), for which we need clarification. Essentially, we have two questions to which we seek answers.

1. What should be the location of the applied force with respect to the upper surface of the test block?

Paragraph S6.3 reads: "Apply force in a downward direction to the lower (sic) surface of the test device...," but does not specify the location of the force on the surface of the block. Figure 1 seems to imply that the applied force should be centered in the upper surface of the block, but the location of the force is not dimensioned. Clearly, if the applied force could be located directly opposite the point of initial contact of the test block with the roof, the load transmitted to the roof would be unchanged, and at the same time the loading frame needed to maintain the block at its specified angles would be much simpler to construct. Thus the question is, can the applied force on the block be located essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block? This location is much preferred over the control location implied in Figure 1 of the specification because the test frame is thereby greatly simplified and no change results in the loads transmitted to the roof.

2. Should the ten-inch dimension from the leading edge of the loading block to the initial contact point be maintained even if this locates the leading edge of the block aft of the A-pillar (or leading edge of the roof)?

Paragraph S6.2(d) specifies that the "initial contact point ... is ... 10 inches from the forwardmost point..." of the loading block. Also, Figure 1 implies that the forward edge of the block is forward of the leading edge of the roof. For some roof configurations (which tend to be high in the center), holding the ten-inch requirement will move the leading edge of the block to a position aft of the leading edge of the roof. In such a situation, should the ten-inch dimension be maintained, or should the leading edge of the loading block remain forward of the A-pillar, thus increasing the ten-inch dimension? In order to simulate, even approximately, the actual loading which might be encountered in a roll-over, it would seem desirable to keep the leading edge of the loading block forward of the A-pillar so that the A-pillars are loaded directly.

Because of our test program schedule, we would appreciate your response at the earliest possible time.

Very truly yours,

William Blythe, Ph.D.

WB:gh

ID: nht81-1.21

DATE: 03/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vehtek Marketing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 3, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Michael J. Klein Vice President Vehtek Marketing Inc. 2795 Townline Road Alden, New York 14004

Dear Mr. Klein:

This responds to your February 12, 1981, letter requesting information concerning any Federal requirements that would be applicable to a water injection system used to increase the efficiency of vehicle fuel systems. Your company's water injection system is sold as aftermarket equipment which is attached to a vehicle's carburetor to increase gas mileage.

For your information, I am enclosing a synopsis of agency interpretations which sets forth the general Federal implications of installing auxiliary fuel tanks in vehicles or of converting vehicle fuel systems. This information explains in detail the responsibilities of a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1979 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), in relation to a vehicle's fuel system. Although your product is not an auxiliary gas tank and does not require a conversion of the fuel system, the stated principles are applicable to your product since it is motor vehicle equipment. Following is a summary of the most pertinent aspects of that material as it relates directly to your water injection system.

Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, is applicable only to completed new vehicles and would, therefore, not be directly applicable to your motor vehicle equipment. It may be indirectly applicable, however. The standard specifies performance requirements for fuel systems by limiting the amount of fuel leakage which may occur after a barrier impact crash test of the vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any of these persons would be prohibited from installing your product on a vehicle fuel system if that installation would cause the vehicle to no longer be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. Since your letter indicates that the water injection system is not directly attached to a vehicle's fuel system, it is not likely that installation of the product would render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. However, your company will have to determine whether in fact the installation would affect compliance. I have enclosed a copy of Safety Standard No. 301 for your information.

Under 49 CFR Part 579, your water injection system would be considered "motor vehicle replacement equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in performance, construction components, or materials of motor vehicle replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Vehicle Safety Act, any manufacturer who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect in its motor vehicle equipment is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Therefore, it is your responsibility to determine that your water injection system contains no safety-related defects. For example, if your system would cause a vehicle's engine to stall, this could be considered a safety defect by the agency.

In closing, I would state that you do not need any prior approval from the agency before marketing your product. All the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act are placed directly on the manufacturer. I hope you will find this information helpful. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 12, 1981

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th. Street - South-West Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As per my telephone conversation Wednesday, February 11th, 1981, with Steven Wood, I am writing concerning a water injection system we manufacture for automotive use. We recently had some experience with State of New York owned vehicles where we were told that we need D.O.T. approval in order to be legal.

After two days of long distance telephone calls I reached your office. I was told that our situation may involve standard 301, and to mention that to you. Also let me state that we do not tap into the gasoline system or its passage.

Our system is relatively simple in operation. It was patented in 1973 (patent number 3778039) by its inventor, Al Dore, who worked with venter injection since the 1930's. We insert into the boost venturi of the carburetor a brass tube through which the water is drawn in - in much the same way as the gasoline is drawn in - the greater the engine speed, the greater the amount of water. We have a water reservoir mounted in the vehicles engine compartment which when low on water activates a water pump which draws water from a five gallon (D.O.T. 2E rated) container which is mounted, at the customers discretion, in a remote location. I have enclosed a brochure which depicts the system as I have described it. I would like to add that by design no water is drawn into the engine at speeds of below approximately 1500 RPM, as a safety precaution. The system is much more sophisticated than I describe, but for purposes of explanation that is how it works. It uses water at about the rate of one gallon of water to twenty gallons of gasoline.

We have several testimonial letters attesting to considerable mileage increase; above 10%. Most of these average 30%. We give a written money back guarantee of a minimum of a 10% increase in gas mileage! No other water injection manufacturer gives a similar warranty, and there are approximately forty-two other units on the market today. We know our unit works and we're proud to be manufacturing an American made energy saving device. I would appreciate your written comments at your earliest convenience so we may pursue government owned vehicles with the confidence of being legal. I would like to extend my appreciation for your time and efforts.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Klein, Vice President

MJK/JR

ID: nht81-1.37

DATE: 03/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ABCO, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This reponds to your letter of November 24, 1980 to Joan Griffin of my staff regarding the use of Lexan Margard as a glazing material in off-road heavy equipment, such as farm equipment and logging operations vehicles. Please accept our apologies for the lateness of this reply. In your letter, you asked whether an off-road vehicle equipped with a Lexan Margard windshield may be driven on public roads for the purpose of reaching a new job site. You also asked in which locations on a vehicle Lexan Margard may be used. You state that you are a "Fabricator-Distributor," i.e., that you purchase flat Margard sheeting, machine it to size, and ship it to heavy equipment manufacturers and owners.

The first issue that must be resolved in answering your questions is whether an off-road equipment vehicle is a "motor vehicle." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards governing "motor vehicles." Thus, Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies to a vehicle only if the vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.) (the Act). Section 102(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391(3)) defines "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We cannot determine, on the basis of the information you have provided, whether the vehicles in question are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Act. However, we have enclosed some guidelines that should enable you to make your own decision. Please contact this office if you have any questions about a specific vehicle.

If a piece of off-road heavy equipment is not a "motor vehicle," NHTSA has no authority over the vehicle, and Safety Standard No. 205 is inapplicable. In this case, any type of glazing material may be used in the vehicle. However, you should check with the appropriate state agency to determine whether there are any local regulations regarding the type of glazing that may be used in such equipment, and whether such a vehicle can use the public roads.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle," the glazing used in that vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing materials to be used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.1-1966 (ANS Z26). ANS Z26 lists 13 "Items" or types of glazing that vary in terms of the performance tests each item must pass and the locations in which each type of glazing may be used. Two items of glazing may be used in the windshield of a motor vehicles: Item 1, Safety Glazing Materials for Use Anywhere In Motor Vehicle, and Item 10, Bullet Resistant Glass for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle. Lexan Margard clearly does not qualify as bullet resistant glazing material. Thus the second issue that must be addressed in response to your first question (assuming that the vehicles you are fitting with glazing material are motor vehicles under the Act) is whether Lexan Margard qualifies as Item 1 glazing.

NHTSA does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination. However, the agency is willing to give an informal opinion concerning whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. This opinion is not binding on you or the agency. It is our understanding that Lexan Margard does not qualify as Item 1 glazing because it fails Test No. 18, Abrasion Resistance. In response to your second question, we do not know whether Lexan qualifies as other Items of glazing. Your supplier may be able to provide you with more accurate information.

If Lexan Margard does not meet all the tests for Item 1 glazing, then your sale of a Lexan Margard windshield to a vehicle manufacturer for installation in a motor vehicle violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Your customer is also in violation of this section of the Act if he sells a motor vehicle equipped with a Lexan Margard windshield. NHTSA has no authority over the operation of motor vehicles, only over the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under Section 109, anyone who violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) is subject to a civil penalty up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Should you determine that Lexan Margard meets the requirements of Item 1 glazing and you wish to sell Lexan windshields for installation in motor vehicles, Standard No. 205 imposes specific certification and marking requirements on you as a Fabricator-Distributor of automotive glazing. These requirements can be found in Paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5.

We hope you find this information helpful and not too confusing. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 24, 1980

Joan Griffin -- N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Ms. Griffin:

This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of November 20, 1980 concerning legal documents related to the use of Lexan Margard (Polycarbonate sheet with an abrasion resistant coating) as a glazing material for off-road heavy equipment.

I must review and evaluate all related documents and prepare for a presentation to some major equipment companys within two to three weeks.

Our position is that of Fabricator-Distributor. We buy flat Margard sheeting from General Electric, machine it to size and ship it to both heavy equipment manufacturers and owners.

The equipment that we supply is generally used off-road. Is it legal to operate these vehicles on public roads for the purpose of reaching a new job site if the primary windshield is Lexan? May they be used on roads not yet open for traffic? In which windows is Lexan Margard legally documented for use?

Any information about legal vehicular applications of this glazing material would be invaluable to us. Time is important. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Miles B. Mueller -- ABCO, Inc.

ID: nht79-4.36

DATE: 11/01/79 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

COPYEE: KENNETH ADAMS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the term "restraint system type" as contained in Table I of S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. In addition, this is in confirmation of Volkswagen's statement of the conclusions reached in the meeting with Messrs. Carson, Parker and Schwartz of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The agency has carefully considered your request that "restraint system type" not be interpreted to require a distinction between active and passive belt systems. The agency must deny your request. As the introduction of mandatory passive restraints approaches, information concerning restraint system type is of exceptional importance to the agency. It is important not only to evaluate the overall effectiveness of passive restraints, but also to determine the effectiveness of the various types of passive restraint system types. Consequently, it is necessary that passive belt systems be differentiated from other restraint system types by decoding the vehicle identification number (VIN).

The agency has also considered the alternative Volkswagen suggested which is to submit this information separately to the agency on a magnetic tape. Motor vehicle safety research is carried out by many organizations aside from the NHTSA, however, and Standard No. 115 is intended to make information available to these other researchers as well. Consequently, the agency can not accept the alternative you suggest.

As regards to other questions raised in the meeting with NHTSA staff, this is to confirm that paragraphs 2 through 4 of our November 20, 1978, letter remain the position of the agency despite the changes in Standard No. 115 since that time. A copy of that letter is enclosed. Likewise, the agency can confirm that the World Manufacturer Identifiers assigned to Volkswagen by the Society of Automotive engineers fulfill the requirements of S6.1 of Standard No. 115.

As requested, the agency has reviewed the VIN format Volkswagen intends to utilize (attachments 2-4 of this letter) and has determined that it meets the requirements of the standard. As explained at the meeting, specific details concerning an engine need not be encoded so long as the information is available from the manufacturer and different engine types can be differentiated by means of the VIN (S4.5.2).

Volkswagen also pointed out to the agency at the meeting that the first eight characters of the VIN for a particular model might remain the same for several model years, although the characteristics of the vehicle which they codify might change from model year to model year. For example, a 1981 Dasher might have a different engine than a 1982 Dasher, yet that part of the VIN which contains this information would remain the same. This is authorized by Standard No. 115, so long as the correct information for each model year is submitted to the agency.

Volkswagen also asked at the meeting what the correct procedure would be for submitting information to the agency concerning vehicles whose line is not subdivided into several series. In this instance, indicate that the line and series are the same. However, even if the series is not divided into more than one body type, this body type must be reported to the agency (S4.5.2). The engine displacement may be indicated in cubic centimeters, and the horsepower in H.P. SAE net (3). If only one engine make is used, this information must be submitted to the agency, but need not be directly reflected in the VIN (S6.3).

Volkswagen has also asked when information concerning vehicles imported into the United States must be submitted to the agency. Manufacturers of imported vehicles are required to report VIN codes 60 days before the vehicles are imported into the United States to comply with S6.2.

The agency is considering the petitions of a number of manufacturers to establish engine horsepower groupings for reporting purposes and to establish a flexible effective date for vehicles whose model year begins between September 1, 1980 and December 31, 1980. We expect to respond shortly to the petitions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 25, 1979

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On September 8, 1978 representatives of Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagenwerk AG met with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, Parker and Schwartz of the NHTSA to discuss Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). In that meeting an interpretation of "restraint system type" was brought up. It was suggested by Mr. Schwartz that Volkswagen submit a formal request for interpretation. Accordingly, this letter is a formal request for interpretation of the term "restraint system type" contained in paragraph S4.5.2, Table I of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115, (VIN).

VW is currently in the process of finalizing the VW system of coding the VDS section of the VIN. The concern is that additional expense would be involved at Volkswagen of America if the term "restraint system type" were interpreted as requiring a distinction between active and passive belt systems.

As you may be aware, the VW passive belt system is currently offered as standard equipment on the Deluxe version of the Rabbit. Accordingly, the designation of Deluxe Rabbit in the VIN will automatically identify the majority of VW vehicles equipped with passive belts. In addition, the passive belt system is offered as an option on the Custom model of the Rabbit. In this case the option information is difficult to access by the computer. This effort will require an additional 10 hours/month computer time to determine if the Rabbit Custom is equipped with the passive belt system.

A more efficient way is available to identify VW vehicles equipped with the passive belt system. VW is proposing that in lieu of identifying the passive belt system in the VIN, a computer tape be submitted to the NHTSA on a semi-annual basis with all pertinent information pertaining to all VW vehicles sold within the United States that are equipped with the passive system. Supplying this type of information would be more efficient and more convenient for the NHTSA than coding the passive belt option in the VIN.

We request your interpretation and opinion on this proposal as soon as possible since finalizing the VIN coding is nearing completion. For any additional details on this request, please contact Mr. Charles A. Preuss at (313) 588-5505.

Best regards,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.;

Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Administrator, Vehicle Regulations

ID: nht80-1.3

DATE: 01/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable Harold Runnels, House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This further responds to your November 14, 1979, letter to the Secretary of Transportation concerning Mr. Richard D. Browning's interest in the conversion of automotive engines to run on propane.

From Mr. Browning's letter, I gather that he seeks to produce and market a converter system which will allow conversion of gasoline motors to propane. I have described below the way in which the legislation and regulations under which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration operates might apply to Mr. Browning's venture. This agency lacks the authority to deal with any emissions control issues arising from production and use of a propane converter system, but the Environmental Protection Agency may have requirements which would apply to such a system. Therefore, we have also referred your letter to that agency in an attempt to expedite a response on this issue.

To date, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not exercised its authority pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (14 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (the Act), to issue a safety standard applicable to propane-powered vehicles. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, applies only to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F., and propane has a boiling point well below this temperature. Despite the absence of safety standards specifically applicable to propane-powered engines, a manufacturer or installer of these systems may be subject to other Federal requirements.

Under the Act (sections 151-158), the manufacturer of a propane fueled engine or of the components used for converting a gasoline-fueled engine to propane would be responsible for any safety-related defects in that equipment regardless of whether it were installed in new or in used vehicles. Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by either the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer himself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers and dealers and provide a free remedy for the defect.

Under NHTSA safety regulations, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is required to attach an additional label to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). This requirement would apply to a person who alters a new vehicle to install a propane fuel system. (See the enclosed pamphlet listing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and an information sheet explaining where to obtain copies of the standards.) Additionally, should noncompliance be caused by the modification, the alterer could be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2)).

A person who installs a propane-fueled engine or converts the gasoline-fueled engine in a used vehicle is not required to affix an alterer's label. However, if that person is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, he must not in the course of installing the propane components knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design originally installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. (Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act)

I hope that you will find this response helpful. If you or your constitutent have any further questions on this issue, I will be happy to answer them.

SINCERLY,

RUIDOSO STATE BANK

November 7, 1979

Congressman Harold Runnels

Dear Harold,

Earlier today, I talked with your administrative assistant, Larry Morgan, in connection with a business venture which I am involved in.

The nature of the venture itself is one of an alternate energy type, being the invention and perfection of a converter system which will allow conversion of gasoline motors to propane. As you are aware, I'm sure, these propane conversion kits are already on the market; however, there is some draw-back to their use in the fact that they are not as efficient as they might be.

The unit which we have under consideration at this time appears to have a great deal of advances in its design, both in simplicity and effectiveness which we feel further benefits the use of such a unit in replacement for gasoline.

Our first question of you is, what regulatory authority will we need to pursue to get an approval for the unit in relation emission control, etc.? Through our conversations with other people, they felt that the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington would be the agency that we dealt with; however, we are not totally sure that that is the only agency that we have to deal.

Secondly, considering the clean-burning quality of propane gas, we don't feel that there will be a great deal of problem in getting an approval from the EPA; however, we need to know exactly what steps should be taken in reference to that approval.

Through the use of this new unit, we hope to use a product for fuel which, as you well know, is presently a by-product and is often a waste product of the petroleum industry. It becomes apparent that if large companies convert massive numbers of delivery vehicles, etc. to the system, that their fuel cost can be cut by approximately two-thirds thereby cutting the inflationary spiral of gasoline cost. Not even to consider the fact that the propane is not presently being used to its utmost capability; and is often being wasted.

We would consider it a personal favor from you if you will make the inquiry for us to whatever agency is appropriate and ask that they respond in some short time period. Time is of the essence to us in the fact that the sooner that we get all the necessary approvals and the unit into production, the sooner all the benefits which are available from the unit can begin to be reaped.

Harold, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your many considerations in reference to all of our problems in southeastern New Mexico; and I hope that when and if you get to Ruidoso, you will "holler" at us so that we might show you the unit in person.

I hope that everything is going well for you and that your endeavors in Washington are beneficial for both you and the State.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Richard D. Browning Executive Vice President

ID: nht78-1.49

DATE: 12/08/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Conco Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 8, 1978 NOA-30

Mr. O. R. Schmidt Conco Inc. Mendota, Illinois 61342

Dear Mr. Schmidt:

This is in response to your letter of October 27, 1978, concerning the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 to final stage manufacturers and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has amended Standard No. 115 to shift the responsibility for assigning the vehicle identification number for vehicles manufactured in more than one stage from the final stage manufacturer to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer (copy enclosed). We appreciate your desire to comply fully with the standard but, with this recent amendment, compliance will not be required by final stage manufacturers.

In response to your question concerning the "model year" to be used for trailers, the calendar year is acceptable as the "model year." Should you have any other questions concerning your responsibility for assigning VINs to the trailers you manufacture, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosure

October 27, 1978

Mr. Nelson Erickson Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Revised Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number

Dear Sir:

The O'Brien Division of Conco Inc. is a small manufacturer of truck mounted and trailer mounted sewer cleaning equipment which is sold predominately to municipalities, counties, etc., and in some cases to private contractors. So far this year we have built 15 truck mounted units and 52 trailer mounted units.

With reference to the revised Standard No. 115 on Vehicle Identification Numbers, we presently have no major questions in regard to its application to our trailer mounted equipment, since we control the manufacture of these units from start to finish. We are, however, confused about its application to our truck mounted units, particularly as regards the second section of the VIN. Enumerated below are items that hopefully you can clarify for us:

1. The majority of truck chassis-cab units that we use are Fords, but we have used Chevrolet, GMC, and International trucks. Among these four truck manufacturers there are more than 40 different truck models that potentially we can use to mount our equipment on. (As a matter of information, our equipment is mounted on the truck chassis frame without making any alterations to the truck chassis, in the same way that a farmer would mount his own grain box on a similar truck chassis.) Some of these truck chassis we buy, and some are furnished to us or specified by our customers. The only thing we have concerned ourselves with to date is the appropriateness of the axle ratings and the GVWR. Since we don't always know in advance what truck we will be using, we have to anticipate in our coding of the second section of the VIN all of the potential truck models that we might be using. The second section has five characters available for deciphering eight items of information, including the identification of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer as spelled out in S4.5.2. In order to do this, it is necessary to combine some attributes into one character. Our intention would be to combine (1) the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, (2) the model or line, and (3) the series. Our first question - how is it possible to code a potential of 40 plus models of truck chassis into a single character that has available only 33 numbers and letters (Table III of S4.6) for identification purposes? Our second question - will the incomplete vehicle manufacturer such as Ford, Chevrolet, GMC, or International furnish us with a coded second section in their incomplete vehicle document that we could use in conjunction with our first and third section portions of the VIN, assuming, of course, that the attributes of the second section have not been altered? If this were the case, the first question would be resolved, and our only concern would be to furnish you data for the first and third sections of the VIN.

2. Is it permissible for the Vehicle Identification Number as specified in the revised Standard No. 115 to appear in the space provided on the certification label for "Vehicle I.D.", or is it mandatory for the VIN to appear on a separate label? This issue is confusing as regards trailers and trucks with a GVWR of over 10,000 lbs.

3. In the case of trucks, do we, as a final stage manufacturer, represent the model year as being the model year of the truck chassis, or the calendar year of final stage manufacture? Assume that on September 10, 1980 we mount one of our units on a 1981 model Ford truck. This would require the use of the code letter "B". Further assume that two weeks later, on September 24, 1980, we mount a unit on a 1980 model Ford truck which is a new truck that a dealer has left over from the previous model year inventory. In this case we would have to revert back to the code letter "A". This is inconsistent with the natural chronology of events. The above example represents a very real possibility and, therefore, as a final stage manufacturer, we would prefer to use the calendar year of manufacture where the sequence would be totally under our control. There is no way that we could control the model year sequence as illustrated in the above example.

Also, in the case of trailers such as we manufacture, the model year as used by auto and truck manufacturers is absolutely meaningless since we do not have annual model changes. Here again we would prefer to use the calendar year of manufacture as the basis for the code.

We would appreciate your comments and any clarification you can give us on the above listed items.

Yours very truly,

CONCO INC.

O. R. Schmidt Manager of R & D

ORS:jn

ID: nht78-2.17

DATE: 06/08/78

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

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1978, to Howard Dugoff requesting confirmation of two interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have cited our letter of December 29, 1976, to your Mr. Weil as support for your views.

With respect to your first concern, you have stated your understanding that in a multiple compartment taillamp the manufacturer has the option of using one or more compartments to meet the minimum photometric requirements specified for taillamps, but when the intensity ratio of the turn signal lamp to the taillamp is computed, the ratio must be determined with all taillamp compartments lighted.

As we interpret Standard No. 108's requirements for taillamps (SAE Standard J585d, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Light), August 1970), a single compartment lamp may be used as a taillamp, but if a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements, S3.1 of J585d requires that the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding numbers of lighted sections (Table 1, J585d) in those instances where the distances between filament centers do not exceed 22 inches for two-compartment or lamp arrangements, and 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements. If these distances are exceeded, each compartment or lamp must comply with the photometric requirements for one lighted section. Therefore your interpretation is incorrect that a manufacturer may use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp when considering compliance with the photometric requirement for taillamps.

Your second concern is the requirement for multiple lamps in excess of three. You have noted that Table 1 of SAE J585 makes no provision for candlepower requirements where there are more than three lighted sections. Noting that the maximum candlepower permissible rises in increments of 5 per section (15 for one section, 20 for two sections, 25 for three sections) you have asked for confirmation of your opinion that "it appears logical that the allowable candlepower for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower."

Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for compartments or lamps in excess of three. If you wish to use a four compartment or lamp system you are legally free to distribute the candlepower as you deem appropriate. Accordingly we have no objection to your belief that 30 candlepower is allowable provided that the multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamp arrangement meets all other requirements of J585d.

SINCERELY,

CHRYSLER CORPORTION May 4, 1978

Howard Dugoff Deputy Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dugoff:

Re: MVSS 108 - Requirements for Multiple Cavity Tail Lamps or Multiple Tail Lamps

The NHTSA provided interpretations of certain requirements of MVSS No. 108 as applied to photometric test requirements for multiple cavity and multiple lamp configurations in a letter of December 29, 1976. Our further review of MVSS No. 108 has uncovered two additional points pertaining to tail lamps on which we would appreciate your advice.

I. Photometric Requirements

MVSS No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Recommended Practice J585d which specifies the photometric requirements for tail lamps. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J585d provides that multiple compartment lamps (or multiple lamps) may be used to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp. Additionally, paragraph 3.1 describes how multiple compartments or multiple lamps are to be treated if they are in fact used to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp.

Our understanding of these requirements is that the manufacturer has the option to use one or more compartments of a multi-compartment lamp (or one or more lamps of a multiple lamp system) to meet the photometric requirements specified. In cases where the manufacturer uses only one compartment of the lamp to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp, compartments or lamps not used are considered as "supplemental lamps" and are not required to meet test requirements except for the differential values discussed in the next paragraph.

The above is consistent with your letter of December 29, 1976 that stated that the NHTSA interprets MVSS No. 108 as requiring that the ratio of the turn signal lamp to the tail lamps must be computed with all the lamps lighted when multiple compartment and multiple lamp configurations are used. Such a requirement, of course, maintains the differentiation between the turn signal and the tail lamps.

The net result of the above as we interpret the regulation is that where there is a multiple compartment tail lamp (or where there are multiple tail lamps) it is necessary to measure the output of all tail lamps in determining the ratio between tail lamp intensity and turn signal intensity. However, it is permissible to use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp (or one lamp from a multiple lamp system) when considering compliance with the photometric requirements for tail lamps; other lamps or compartments would be merely "supplemental."

II. Multiple Lamps in Excess of Three

Section 3.1 of SAE J585d further provides that if one or more lamps of a multiple compartment lamp (or multiple lamps) is used to meet the prescribed photometric requirements for tail lamps the maximum candlepower for the combination of all the compartments (or lamps) must not exceed those set forth in Table 1 of SAE J585d for the corresponding number of lighted sections. The candlepower values specified in Table 1 are 15 for a one lighted section, 20 for two lighted sections, and 25 for three lighted sections. Use of lamps with four or more compartments or lamps are not prohibited. However, the Table does not contain a progression of maximum candlepower values for lamps with additional compartments beyond three. While not specified in the standard, in keeping with the progression of higher values in the Table for one, two, and three compartment lamps, i.e., 15, 20, and 25 candlepower, it appears logical that the allowable candlepower for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower.

We would appreciate your confirmation of our interpretation of these provisions of MVSS No. 108 set forth in Section I and Section II above.

Thank you for your assistance.

R. O. Sornson Manager Environmental Relations