ID: aiam4321

Dear Ms. Vanderberg: This responds to your March 11, 1987 telephone call to our offic asking about the regulations we administer for school buses. You ask for background information about our school bus safety standards and request a listing of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.; I am pleased to respond to your concerns. I would like to begin b explaining that we administer two Federal laws that affect school buses. The first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (copy enclosed), under which our agency issues safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, fuel systems and school bus body strength. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date.; Under the Vehicle Safety Act, any person selling a new school bus mus ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including our school bus safety standards. Under the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571.3), a 'school bus' is a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (driver included) that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (excluding buses sold for use as common carriers in urban transportation). A dealer or distributor who sells a new noncomplying bus to a school or school district is subject to substantial penalties for violating Safety Act provisions. For your information, I have enclosed a December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033) which discusses the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers to sell complying school buses.; New school buses must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safet standards we issued for 'buses' and also those for 'school buses.' The following is a list of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses: Standards No. 101 through No. 104, Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standards No. 106 through No. 113, Standards No. 115 through No. 120, Standard No. 121 (School buses with air brake systems), Standard No. 124, Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 205, Standards No. 207 through No. 210, Standard No. 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 217, Standard No. 219 (School buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 220, Standard No. 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds), and Standards Nos. 222, 301, and 302. School bus manufacturers must certify their vehicles to all applicable requirements of each of these safety standards. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the standards.; The second Federal law administered by this agency having a bearing o school buses is the Highway Safety Act of 1966. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed), under the Highway Safety Act as a guideline for the pupil transportation aspect of state highway safety programs. This 'standard,' or guidelines, includes recommendations for school bus operational requirements, such as school bus identification and maintenance and driver training programs. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of Standard No. 17's recommendations as their own policies governing their pupil transportation programs.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you hav further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-2.19

DATE: November 19, 1992

FROM: Daniel Cassese

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/92 (should be 1/5/93) from Paul Jackson Rice (signed by John Womack) to Daniel Cassese (A40; Std. 201; Std. 202; Std. 208; Std. 302; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I recently spoke to Mr. John Womack in regard to my questions concerning an invention I have and also a U.S. Patent #5, 135, 283.

The idea is called Head-rest (Extension) it would be used in Automobiles and allow a person to sit in more comfort when placed in the "existing" automobile seat. I need to find out whether my invention will comply to Safety Standards #201, 202, and #208. If it does comply, I have a Manufacturer Company, named GOSHEN CUSHIONS, INC. that is willing to manufacture it.

I've included the Patent Drawings and descriptions, please review them. Will this item (Head-Rest Ext.) comply with safety-standards #201, #202, #208?

How can I get approval??

I do NOT have a model (prototype) at this time.

Dear Sir,

Please note that figure #5 the #22 can be made to extend over the top of the existing head-rest. The Head-rest will NOT change the shape or design of the existing one at all. All dimensions are covered within the U.S. Patent.

HENCE: #34 is obsolete. There is no need for this vertical slot as shown because the existing headrest are not made this way. Instead #22 can be EXTENDED over the existing headrest and placed upon the existing headrest and seat.

#42 can be attached to Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, if chosen that way.

Attachment

Information regarding Patent # 5,135,283, Head Rest Extension. (Text and graphics omitted.))

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: nht88-3.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM J. HENRICK -- GENERAL TIRE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/03/88 FROM WILLIAM HENRICK TO ERIKA Z JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Henrick:

This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1988, seeking an interpretation of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you stated that your company has reached an agreement with two foreign tire manufacturers to jointly produce a radial medium truck tire in one of your domestic facilities. You anticipate that all three entities will use the same "green" or "uncured" tires. Although your letter is not clear on this point, I am assuming that the sidewall on a given tire will con tain the name and the respective tire identification mark of only one company. You asked whether each of the three companies involved in this joint venture may secure its own identification mark required by Part 574 to identify its tires. The answer to your question is yes.

49 CFR @ 574.5 requires that "Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufacturers . . . by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification n umber containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." The purpose of the tire identification number requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. To best effectuate the recall of noncomplying or defective tires, the agency recommends but cannot require each production plant to have its own tire identification number .

If the company that produced the tires in its molds (General in this case) wished to put its tire identification number on all of the tires produced for this joint venture, @ 574.5 would not prohibit it from doing so, since that company could certainly b e considered the manufacturer of all of the tires. However, if that company were to do so, it would be responsible for any recalls of these tires, including the tires sold by the other partners in the joint venture.

On the other hand, @ 574.5 does not prohibit each of the three partners in the joint venture from putting its own tire identification number on those tires produced for it by the joint venture. Each partner could be considered the "manufacturer," for pu rposes of @ 574.5, of those tires that it markets under its name. Each partner would then be responsible for any recalls of those tires produced by the joint venture on which its identification number appears.

I am enclosing 49 CFR Part 551 which requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the foreign company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the foreign company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the tires which do not bear the name of the foreign company.

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or United States corporation; and

6. The full name and address of the designated agent.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 3139o

William J. Henrick, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
General Tire
One General Street
Akron, Ohio 44329

Dear Mr. Henrick:

This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1988, seeking an interpretation of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you stated that your company has reached an agreement with two foreign tire manufacturers to jointly produce a radial medium truck tire in one of your domestic facilities. You anticipate that all three entities will use the same "green" or "uncured" tires. Although your letter is not clear on this point, I am assuming that the sidewall on a given tire will contain the name and the respective tire identification mark of only one company. You asked whether each of the three companies involved in this joint venture may secure its own identification mark required by Part 574 to identify its tires. The answer to your question is yes.

49 CFR /574.5 requires that "Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures . . . by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." The purpose of the tire identification number requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. To best effectuate the recall of noncomplying or defective tires, the agency recommends but cannot require each production plant to have its own tire identification number.

If the company that produced the tires in its molds (General in this case) wished to put its tire identification number on all of the tires produced for this joint venture, /574.5 would not prohibit it from doing so, since that company could certainly be considered the manufacturer of all of the tires. However, if that company were to do so, it would be responsible for any recalls of these tires, including the tires sold by the other partners in the joint venture.

On the other hand, /574.5 does not prohibit each of the three partners in the joint venture from putting its own tire identification number on those tires produced for it by the joint venture. Each partner could be considered the "manufacturer," for purposes of /574.5, of those tires that it markets under its name. Each partner would then be responsible for any recalls of those tires produced by the joint venture on which its identification number appears.

I am enclosing 49 CFR Part 551 which requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the foreign company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the foreign company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the tires which do not bear the name of the foreign company.

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or United States corporation; and

6. The full name and address of the designated agent.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:551#574 d:ll/l/88

ID: nht76-4.34

DATE: 07/13/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: "Lucite" Acrylic Sheet Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 9, 1976, concerning the certification and marking requirements for glazing specified in Section 6 of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You asked whether the standard prohibits use of the "DOT" symbol and manufacturer's code number by anyone other than a "prime glazing material manufacturer," as that term is defined in paragraph S6.1.

Our letter to Dupont explained the separate certification and marking requirements that are applicable to glazing prepared by prime glazing material manufacturers, distributors, and vehicle manufacturers. The standard specifies that the "DOT" symbol shall be placed on glazing that is designed by the prime glazing material manufacturer as a component of any specific motor vehicle. The agency's interpretations of several years ago pointed out that the standard requires a person other than a prime glazing manufacturer who cuts glazing materials to mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 and to certify it in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. These interpretations emphasized that a person who cuts and shapes the glazing material received from a prime glazing manufacturer should not include the "DOT" symbol in his marking and certification.

At the time of the earlier interpretations, the NHTSA considered it necessary from the standpoint of enforcement to distinguish between glazing that had been manufactured by the prime glazing manufacturer for use in specific motor vehicles and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered by another party before installation. The agency was also concerned that the use of the "DOT" symbol by anyone other than the prime glazing manufacturer would be misleading and could create confusion.

Since that time, the certification procedures have become more widely understood and uniformly practiced throughout the industry, and this has aided the "traceability" of glazing materials for enforcement purposes. Therefore, the agency no longer prohibits the use of the "DOT" symbol and the prime glazing manufacturer's code number by the distributor or manufacturer who cuts the glazing, if the prime glazing manufacturer grants permission for such use of his code number to the distributor or manufacturer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY

INCORPORATED April 9, 1976

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Adm. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have received a letter written by Robert L. Carter, Assoc. Adm., Motor Vehicle Programs reference N41-42, a copy of which is enclosed, relative to identification of plastic glazing under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

Considerable quantities of "Lucite" * AR abrasion resistant sheet are used for bus glazing as well as motorcycles and recreational vehicles. We supply large sheets of glazing material which are fabricated into bus windows by our Official Distributors. The bus manufacturers have required that these suppliers hot stamp the windows with a DOT number in addition to the other required identification and we have authorized these Official Distributors to use our DOT number 80. A literal reading of Mr. Carter's letter would seem to prohibit such practices. This has resulted in confusion and could prove to be quite costly to our business. If the fabricators are prohibited from using the manufacturers' DOT numbers, it will mean the bus manufacturers will have to revise all of their glazing blueprints and specifications removing the DOT number identification. We would like to avoid this extreme if possible. In discussing this with the enforcement group of NHTSA, I was informed that "while the DOT number was not required to be used by our Distributors, it would not be specifically prohibited."

* Du Pont Co. trademark

We are uncertain which interpretation is correct or if they are compatible and have been advised to request from you a clarification and official opinion.

Would you please review the above and advise whether or not our Official Distributors can use the Du Pont DOT number 80 on glazing of "Lucite" AR going into bus and other transportation glazing in order to comply with bus manufacturers' specifications.

Sincerely,

Russell H. Berry -- Marketing Specialist, "Lucite" Acrylic Sheet Products

ID: aiam0959

Dear Mr. Gal: In your letter of December 15, 1972, to the Department, you ask 'Do th regulations require that the brake lite be activated prior to the onset on any brake pressure due to pedal travel . . . can some brake pressure be on before the brake lite lights?'; Paragraph S4.5.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamp Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment* requires that 'the stop lamps shall be activated upon application of the service brake.' The standard does not state a specific time or brake line pressure at which activation shall occur so that some brake pressure is permitted at the activation point.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-1.13

DATE: 03/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider for R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lufkin Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 30, 1974, request for inclusion in Standard 106, Brake hoses, of J1402 type A and B hose and J844 (nylon type 3) hose.

Standard 106 has already been amended by the addition of 3/8-in and 1/2-in special sizes to the list of hose sizes which may be used with reusable fittings, and this addition permits continued use of commonly utilized types of A and B hose.

The nylon 3 hose to which you refer is not excluded from use under the standard. Several of its manufacturers have indicated that it does conform to the requirements of the standard, which have been modified to reflect the lower tensile strength valves needed when used at non-articulating points in the system.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

January 30, 1974

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION -- Docket Section

Re: Docket No. 1-5 Notice 8 49 CFR 571.106; 38 FR 31302 (November 13, 1973)

PETITION FOR NEW RULEMAKING - FMVSS

Gentlemen:

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, Trailer Division, is a manufacturer of a variety of on and off-highway trailer equipment. We operate a number of branch offices that sell, service, repair and distribute parts for LUFKIN and other trailers.

We are concerned that FMVSS 106, in its present form, is design restrictive. The law will severely effect our timetable of preparation for FMVSS 121, for the following reasons:

1. Failure to list SAE J1402 type A and B hose as acceptable air brake hose.

2. Failure to list SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) as acceptable "Chassis plumbing".

According to test data provided by our vendors, J1402 type A and B hose meets FMVSS 106, Paragraph S7. We strongly recommend that you recognize this product as acceptable due to its apparent safety and economy.

We have used J1402 type B for years as plumbing from air valve to brake chamber, and from belly of trailer down to sliding bogey. Repair manager interviews and review of documentation and warranty reports show no failures due to excessive pressure. Only two hose failures have occurred during the past two years. Both resulted from mechanical damage so severe that SAE 100RS, SAE J1402 type D, wire braid hose could not have prevented failure.

The same statements are true concerning SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing. The tubing's adaptability and workability have simplified complex varieties of air brake "chassis plumbing" on a variety of trailer configurations without sacrificing safety or dependability. We petition that SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing be accepted as "chassis plumbing" except for delivery lines from air relay valve to brake chambers, trailer-tractor connections, trailer-dolly-trailer connections, and trailer belly to sliding bogey connections.

If SAE J1402 type A and B hose and SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing are not accepted as brake hose under this law, we, as well as numerous trailer manufacturers, will be faced with unusable hose, tubing and fittings. Because of quantity order requirements necessitated by scarcity, long trailer construction lead times and planning uncertainties generated by FMVSS's 106 and 121, we may be unable to phase-out obsolete material in the time remaining. Additionally, all LUFKIN brake actuation and release timing tests have been conducted on equipment using the type B hose and nylon tubing. Duplication and waste will result if new components are to be introduced now.

We respectfully submit that the final disposition of FMVSS 106 needs immediate resolution. We must finalize drawings, purchase required parts, establish pricing, prepare a firm schedule for phase-out of any unusable parts and complete our shop training program. We need, from you, a finalized FMVSS 106 regulation that will allow us to plan effectively to meet mutual safety and reliability goals.

Yours very truly,

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC.

W. T. Little -- Vice-President General Manager, Lufkin Trailer Division

cc: A. G. Colburn; Joe Bills

ID: aiam4700

"Dear Mr. Ball: This is in response to your letter of January 23, 199 asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201). Specifically, you asked whether the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201, which apply only to 'interior compartment doors,' are applicable to a portion of a new cupholder design now being developed by GM. At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards would apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information. With those caveats, I believe that S3.3 of Standard No. 201 would not apply to your cupholder design, as explained more fully below. In your letter, you stated that General Motors plans to offer a vehicle with a cupholder permanently installed in the console assembly between the driver and right front passenger positions. The cupholder assembly would include a pivot, which would allow the cupholder to recess into the console when it is not needed. When the cupholder is recessed, the bottom face of the cupholder assembly would be flush with the console assembly. I concur with your opinion that the bottom face of the cupholder would not appear to be covered by section 3.3 of Standard No. 201, because that bottom face does not appear to be an 'interior compartment door' as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. The term 'interior compartment door' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as 'any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects.' According to your letter, when the bottom of the cupholder is facing the driver and passenger (which you state is the only configuration in which it could be considered a cover), there is no storage space for personal effects. The agency has made clear that the term 'interior compartment door' does not refer to every door that covers a compartment that could potentially be used as a storage space for personal effects. For example, ash trays and spare tire compartment doors in station wagons are capable of being used as a storage space for some personal effects. However, the preamble to the final rule that added S3.3 to Standard No. 201 expressly stated that S3.3 did not apply to the covers for ash trays and spare tire compartment doors in the Standard. 33 FR 15794 (October 25, 1968). Additionally, the agency has stated in previous interpretations that S3.3 of Standard No. 201 does not apply to doors in the interior of a vehicle that do not cover a storage space for personal effects. Hence, the door to a fuse box in the interior of a vehicle was said not to be subject to S3.3 in a July 3, 1984 letter to Mr. Bruce Henderson, and the outside surface of a fold-down table was said to be not subject to S3.3 in a January 31, 1986 letter to Mr. Russ Bomhoff. Applying this reasoning to your new cupholder design, we would tentatively conclude that, when the cupholder is retracted, the bottom face of the cupholder is not an interior compartment door subject to S3.3 of Standard No. 201. I do not believe that the compartment that would be covered by the bottom face of the cupholder when it is retracted would be a storage space for personal effects. Even if the compartment were capable of being used as a storage space for personal effects, it would not have been installed by the manufacturer for that purpose. Therefore, the bottom face of the cupholder would not be considered an 'interior compartment door' within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR 571.3, and would not be subject to the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 6972

Mr. Lance Watt
Director of Engineering
The Flxible Corporation
970 Pittsburgh Drive
Delaware, Ohio 43105-2859

Dear Mr. Watt:

This responds to your letter of February 11, l992, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to several scenarios regarding the wiring and use of optional brake retarder transmissions on city transit buses manufactured by your company.

In your current design, the retarder is designed so that it is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn illuminates the stop lamps. You have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 20. 1990, confirming that this design conforms to Standard No. 108, specifically S5.5.4 which states that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Since that time, several additional scenarios have presented themselves. First, some customers have requested that the transmission retarder be activated when the accelerator pedal is released, rather than when the brake pedal is applied. In this configuration, the stop lamps would not be illuminated, "and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed", unless the service brakes were also applied. However, some customers wishing this option would like to have the stop lamps illuminated by the retarder, that is to say, when the accelerator is released. Second, some customers have also requested a retarder cut-off switch in order to disable the retarder during icy or slippery road conditions. In such a case, the stop lamps would also be activated at the time of accelerator release "with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes." To date, your company has resisted these requests, but these customers, without a specific NHTSA interpretation on the point, threaten to declare your company a nonresponsive bidder on transit bus procurements. You have asked whether a noncompliance with section S5.5.4 would result "if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers."

The purpose of the retarder feature is to provide supplemental braking to city transit buses. This braking results in the deceleration of the vehicle. A stop lamp is defined by SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width as one that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Whenever the brake retarder is activated with the intent of diminishing speed by braking, Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated. The only mandate of the standard (S5.5.4) is that when the service brakes are applied, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

Nor does Standard No. 108 prohibit illumination of the stop lamps by release of the accelerator pedal followed by activation of the retarder. This is because the intention of the driver is to diminish speed by the braking action of the retarder. We distinguish this situation from the one in an interpretation provided Larry Snowhite, Esq. on January 25, 1990, in which a device activated the stop lamps whenever the accelerator pedal was released, regardless of the intent of the driver. Activation of the stop lamps initiated by release of the accelerator pedal is permissible only when the intent of the driver is to reduce the speed of the vehicle by an immediate subsequent act of braking, whether that is achieved through his use of the service brake system, use of retarders, or a combination of the two.

However, a configuration where the stop lamps operate in the absence of service brake application or activation of a retarder system (as appears to occur when a retarder cut off switch has been activated) would be subject to S5.1.3 of the standard. This prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In this instance, the retarder cut off feature would permit the stop lamps to send the false signal that the operator intended to stop or reduce vehicle speed when, in fact, there was no intent to do so.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:4/10/92