ID: aiam2488

Dear Mr. Henry: This is in response to your November 16, 1976, letter concerning th removal of snow plow assemblies prior to testing motor vehicles for conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*.; You have pointed out that a snow plow assembly includes component other than the part that actually contacts and moves the snow. You have requested confirmation of your interpretation that 'no part of the snow plow assembly, including the mounting components, was to be attached to a vehicle for purposes of [compliance testing] ...'; That interpretation is incorrect. The presence or absence of snow plo components on a vehicle during compliance testing depends on whether the components are included in the vehicle's 'unloaded vehicle weight'. As the July 16, 1976, letter from Mr. Robert Carter of this agency to the Jeep Corporation indicates, unloaded vehicle weight includes the weight of accessories that are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. The statement in that letter that 'snow plows' would be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing can be amplified as follows: 1) A snow plow, i.e., the component of a snow plow assembly that actually contacts and moves the snow, will be removed. 2) Those other components of a snow plow assembly that, like the snow plow itself, are ordinarily removed when not in use will also be removed. 3) Those components which are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when not in use will not be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing. The agency will abide by a manufacturer's good faith categorization of accessories and components of accessories.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1917

Dear Senator Cranston: #I am writing in response to your letter o April 14, 1975, in which you requested information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 (49 CFR Part 571.106-74) and its relation to the enclosed letter you had received from Mr. Thomas Z. Marshall of San Francisco. #Standard No. 106-74 specifies performance and labeling requirements of motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. Because labeling applied to hose and end fittings cannot satisfactorily identify the manufacturer of an assembly made up of those components, S7.2 of the standard (by incorporating S5.2.4) requires certain assemblies to be labeled by means of a band. By identifying the manufacturer and the date of production, this permits both the enforcement of the standard's performance requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies. #Mr. Marshall appears to have misunderstood some aspects of the standard. While each manufacturer of brake hose assemblies must initially inform the NHTSA of the identifying designation he intends to use on his bands, these is no requirement that he keep records of assemblies made or send such records to this agency. In addition, the bands need not be metallic, but may be of other materials which are less expensive to produce. Mr. Marshall has correctly pointed out, however, that the standard in its present form specifies the same requirements for large manufacturers, repair shops, and individual truck owners. In recognition of the burdens thus imposed on a person who manufactures only a small number of assemblies, the NHTSA proposed an amendment of the definition of brake hose assembly, to exclude certain assemblies from the requirements of the standard (40 Fr 8962, March 4, 1975, copy enclosed). We expect to act on that proposal in the near future. #Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3523

Dear Mr. Lamia: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1981, submitting petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; You have asked for rulemaking to allow the installation of a spee control device on motorcycles which you believe is presently prohibited by the requirement that the manual twist-grip throttle be self-closing after its release. You have pointed out to us that such devices are 'permitted' in motor vehicles covered by Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems*, but that no justification has been given for their 'prohibition' by Standard No. 123.; Our review of both standards indicates silence on the question of spee control devices, they are neither permitted nor prohibited by either standard. Standard No. 123's requirement that the manual throttle be self-closing after release is conceptually identical to Standard No. 124's requirement that the throttle return to idle 'whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force' (paragraphs S5.1, S5.2). We interpret this specification in Standard No. 124 as a requirement to be met under the implied condition that the speed control device is disengaged. To remove any inconsistency between the two Federal accelerator control standards, we will extend this same interpretation to Standard No. 123, speed control devices are allowable and the throttle must return to idle after manual release when the device is not engaged.; This means that your petition is denied on the basis of mootness. Suc a denial will allow us to prepare a *Federal Register* notice recording this fact and giving this interpretation a wide circulation.; Sincerely, Courtney M. Price, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ID: 14414.ztv

Mr. Jack Z. Zhang
P.O. Box 10-A
San Carlos CA 94070-0316

Dear Mr. Zhang:

This responds to your letter of March 24, 1997, asking the agency to support your "courtesy light." You have stated five "needs" that you ask us to address. We shall be happy to do so.

1. Whether "it is legal to install the Courtesy Signal Light (the "Light") in motor vehicles in the U.S."

As you have described it, the Light is a green-flashing signal lamp installed in the front of a motor vehicle, on its vertical centerline. Further, "[i]t starts to flash when the driver of a car pushes a switch button and it stops flashing when the driver releases the switch button."

Your letter indicates that you are familiar with the prohibition in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 against original equipment that impairs required lighting equipment, as you have addressed this issue at length in your letter. In your view, the green color of the Light, its status as the only center-mounted front lamp, and its flash rate are such that the effectiveness of the other front lighting equipment won't be impaired. You cite other factors, such as ease of operation which we do not consider are relevant to the impairment issue.

It is imperative for safety that the messages sent by lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, whether signaling or marking, be clearly understood at the moment other drivers perceive them. Use of a flashing green lamp on the front of a vehicle has the potential to cause confusion for the very reason that it is unique. For example, in your Figure 5 you present the hypothetical situation of a driver signaling a left turn to a vehicle approaching on the other side of an intersection who is not sure to go or stop; at this point, the first driver can flash the courtesy signal to indicate that the first driver will yield, so that the second driver "will cross the intersection with more confidence." On the contrary, we believe that the second driver may well hesitate in confusion when confronting an unfamiliar vehicle. In a real life situation, the second driver has the right of way over a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction that is signaling a left turn. Thus, the second driver should need no further assurance to proceed through the intersection. In summary, we believe that an amber flashing turn signal's effectiveness could be impaired by a front-mounted flashing green light installed as original equipment.

For the same reason, we believe that the Courtesy Signal could not be offered as an aftermarket device. The test for aftermarket devices is whether their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would "make inoperative" a safety device such as turn signals. Failure to immediately perceive the intent of a turn signal would make its signal at least partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition.

The prohibition does not extend to the owner of the vehicle. Assuming that an owner has the capability of installing the Courtesy Signal, the question is whether the lamp is legal under the laws of the various states. We are unable to advise you of state laws and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles of the states for their opinion.

We also raise the question of the possible effect upon safety of a lamp that requires the driver's continuing attention to activate and deactivate. This mode of signal operation has the potential to distract the driver from critical driving tasks such as braking.

2. Whether you may "petition [NHTSA] to amend Standard 108 to permit the Light as an optional lighting device for motor vehicles."

You have the right to petition for rulemaking for an amendment of this nature, but you should be aware that the agency invariably denies petitions that involves optional vehicle signaling equipment because of the importance it places on standardization of signals. Denials of rulemaking must be published in the Federal Register where they become public information.

3. Whether to submit the Light idea as a candidate for NHTSA research and development project."

Your letter states that the Courtesy Signal Light would likely reduce "Right-of-Way" and "Improper Overtaking" accidents by 50%. We have already addressed our reservations on the ability of the lamp to prevent right of way collisions. We also have reservations about its ability to prevent improper overtaking, or lane-change collisions under the conditions shown in your Figures 2 and 3. You surmise that when a vehicle wishes to enter an adjacent lane and flashes its turn signal, the driver of a vehicle in the adjacent lane can flash the Light to indicate that it is all right for the vehicle to enter the lane. The only way that the lane-changing driver is going to be able to see the Light is in a rear view mirror. The sight of a flashing green light can create a momentary distraction which could result in a rear end collision by the lane-changing vehicle with a vehicle farther ahead in the lane into which the turning vehicle is entering. The Light may also be subject to abuse, used for false signals.

I'm afraid I must say that we see very little safety benefit to this device, and do not view it as a candidate for NHTSA research.

4. Whether you may have a letter from NHTSA supporting your effort to improve traffic safety through the "Courtesy Signal Light."

We very much appreciate the fact that you have devoted time and effort to improve traffic safety. We would be interested in discussing your safety ideas further at such time as you have actual data from field trials, etc., that can support your assertions that the Light will reduce vehicular crashes and resulting deaths and injuries.

5. Whether you may present the Light and a prototype to NHTSA.

At the present time, I don't see the value of such an idea. We believe that it is an unproven concept with a possible negative impact upon safety. As I indicated above, at such time as you have actual data demonstrating that the invention will enhance traffic safety, we will be pleased to talk with you further.

I regret that we are unable to share your enthusiasm about the potential of the Light. If you have further questions about this letter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:4/14/97

ID: nht76-1.5

DATE: 02/18/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 3, 1976, letter pointing out an error in the publication of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, in Supplement 109 to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

While the Federal Register is, of course, the official source of the law, we share your concern for the accuracy of the supplements. The error in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 was discovered immediately upon its publication and steps were taken to correct it. We expect the correction to appear in the supplement to be mailed on February 25, 1976.

YOURS TRULY,

Ford Motor Company

February 3, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" - Supplement 109, dated December 3, 1975

In the subject publication, the technical reproduction of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101, "Control Location, Identification and Illumination, Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses" is in error. Columns 3 and 4 of Table I are incorrect, and page 3 was revised without a change in the revision date.

Attachments I through IV show Table I:

* as it appears in the December 3 supplement,

* before the latest amendment,

* amendments published in Docket 1-18; Notice 11 (40 FR 31770-71) July 29, 1975,

* as it should appear.

We appreciate the fact that the Federal Register is the official source for information related to amendments to the rules. Howeve, the value of the supplement lies in the fact that the revisions and pagination provide for a complete and up-to-date reference that is of continued use. Mistakes in this document may lead to unnecessary confusion.

Because of the importance of this document in our daily work and because the source of the information originates with your staff, we would like to request that you look into this matter to correct the current mistake and, if possible, have some member of your staff included in a galley proof review procedure to ensure that supplements are complete and accurate.

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

Table 1 -- Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) None Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) None Manual Choke Choke None Head Throttle Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illegi.) (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps or CL (Illeg.) Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash (Illeg.) Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def None Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 COLUMN 5 Alternate Motor Vehicle Equipment Control (Illeg.) Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

n1 Use when engine control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification Lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Framed areas may (Illegible Words).

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE 1 - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) Manual Choke Choke Hand Throttle Throttle Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illeg.) Vehiclular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) or CL LPS Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes (Illeg.) Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

(Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted) Column 1 Column 4 Alternate Permissible Symbol . None None None None None Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) None Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) None None (Illegible Word) areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE I - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Motor Vehicle Equipment Word or Permissible Control Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start ENGINE START n1 None Engine Stop ENGINE STOP n1 None Manual Choke CHOKE None Hand Throttle THROTTLE None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Headlamps and Taillamps LIGHTS n2 (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal HAZARD (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps CLEARANCE LAMPS n3 or CL LPS (Illeg.) Identification Lamps IDENTIFICATION LAMPS or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping WIPER or System (Illeg.) (Illeg.) Windshield Washing WASHER or WASH (Illeg.) System Windshield Defrosting DEFROST or DEF None and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Conditioning System

COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 n3 COLUMN 5 Motor Vehicle Equipment Alternate Illumination Control Permissible Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes n1 Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and (Illeg.) n4 Taillamps Vehicular Hazard (Illeg.) n4 Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) n4 Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Washing (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Defrosting None Yes and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Yes Conditioning System

n1 Use when (Illegible Word) control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side maker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification lamps and/or side market lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Heated areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam5447

"Mr. Ashpy Lowrimore Senior Vice President Southern National Bank P.O Box 6676 Florence, SC 29502 Dear Mr. Lowrimore: This responds to your August 11, 1994 letter regarding our requirements for school vehicles. You explain that your church owns a 'commercial bus' and a 15-passenger van and would like to use these vehicles to transport children attending a kindergarten and after school care program that the church operates. You ask to be advised of any requirements applicable to those two vehicles, and have three questions, which I will answer below. I would like to begin with background information about our requirements. Our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that affect school vehicles. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) issued under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Our agency was directed by Congress in 1974 to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The standards we issued apply to all new vehicles designed to carry 11 or more persons and sold for pupil transportation purposes. Under our requirements, such a vehicle is a 'school bus,' and any person selling such a vehicle must ensure that the new vehicle is certified as meeting the FMVSS's for school buses. The second set of regulations issued by this agency was promulgated under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These 'regulations' are actually recommendations from NHTSA to the States for use in developing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, 23 CFR 1204 (copy enclosed), applies to school vehicles, and contains recommendations for the design, identification and operation of school vehicles. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of Guideline No. 17 as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions: 1. Can we transport children who are related with our various schools by utilizing the van? ANSWER: The answer depends on State law, because the States regulate the use of motor vehicles, not NHTSA. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Any person selling a new bus or a new 15-passenger van to your church for purposes that include transporting kindergarten students to and from school or related events must sell buses that meet our FMVSS's for school buses, or face substantial civil fines and injunctive sanctions. NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate vehicle users, and thus does not mandate what vehicle can be used to transport school children. Thus, our regulations impose no requirement on schools that require them to transport students in complying school buses. While NHTSA does not require the use of any particular type of vehicle to transport students, we believe that school buses are the safest motor vehicle transportation currently available. We have included in Guideline No. 17 a recommendation that States require any bus (or van carrying 11 or more persons) used to carry school children to comply with all FMVSS's applicable to school buses at the time of their manufacture (see, recommendation number IV.B.1.h). However, since Guideline No. 17 will affect your church's school vehicles only if South Carolina has adopted it, you should check to see what State requirements are set for the operation of the school vehicles in question. Mr. Perry Brown, Deputy Director of South Carolina's Office of Highway Safety Programs, would be able to provide information about your State's requirements. He can be contacted at the following address: Mr. Perry Brown Edgar A. Brown State Office Building 1205 Pendleton St., Rm. 453 Columbia, SC 29201 2. Are there restrictions associated with the use of the bus in the transportation of children, young adults or senior adults? As explained above, NHTSA has no restriction on the use of motor vehicles. Restrictions on the use of a vehicle are matters of State law. Among other things, the State could require a special driver's license for persons operating buses as you described. A South Carolina official would be able to provide the information you need. 3. If there are special restrictions, can you elaborate on the type of equipment that we must obtain in order to meet any regulations or requirements that are in place? ANSWER: Again, NHTSA has no restrictions on the use of the vehicles by the church. Further, NHTSA does not require schools operating their vehicles to ensure that the vehicles are specially identified or equipped as school vehicles. However, Guideline No. 17 contains recommendations for identifying school buses and equipping them with safety equipment, including school bus lamps and mirrors and emergency equipment. South Carolina may have adopted some of these recommendations in its highway safety program for school vehicles. In summary, NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate the use of school vehicles owned and operated by your church. You should check with South Carolina officials to find out which, if any, State requirements apply to your church's activities. We hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ";

ID: aiam4939

"Dear Mr Kenyon: This responds to your letter regarding a hea restraint system your company is producing for use in pickup trucks with bench seats. You indicated that your company's head restraints meet or exceed the performance requirements specified in Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. As support for this statement, you enclosed with your letter an affadavit, in which you stated that you had tested your company's head restraint in accordance with Standard No. 202 and that the results of the testing showed that your company's head restraint complied with the performance requirements of Standard No. 202. Accordingly, you stated that you would like your company's head restraint system to be 'federally approved as an after-market safety product.' As I will explain in more detail below, this agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. By way of background information, Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR 571.213), which applies to all new passenger cars, and all new trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 202 for your information. The Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) provides: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114... With respect to your company's product, please note that Standard No. 202 applies only to new motor vehicles and requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with the standard. By its own terms, Standard No. 202 does not apply to head restraints as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act does not require manufacturers of head restraints to certify that the head restraint complies with Standard No. 202 before selling the product. Additionally, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to certify or approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment as complying with our standards. In this regard, the process for certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver their products to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the product, the government approves the product for use and assigns it an approval code. In place of this sort of process, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of 'due care' on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. Although we do not have any safety standards that directly apply to your product, there are several provisions of the Safety Act that apply to the sale of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your head restraints are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, the use of aftermarket items could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The effect of this provision is to make it unlawful for any of the named commercial establishments to replace an original equipment head restraint with an aftermarket head restraint if the commercial establishment knows or should know that the switch to the aftermarket head restraint results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 202. Finally, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. This information sheet also explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 1982-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 February 3, 1982

Mr. B. G. Ridgway Chief Car Safety and Regulations Engineer Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd. Car Division Crew, Cheshire CW1 3PL England

Dear Mr. Ridgway:

This responds to your letter concerning the labeling requirements of Standard No. 105 applicable to a separate indicator lamp concerning reservoir level. Your letter asked whether it is permissible to use words other than "Brake Fluid" for vehicles which use hydraulic system mineral oil rather than conventional brake fluid. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105 states in relevant part:

...If separate indicator lamps are used for one or more of the various functions described in S5.3.1(a) to SS.3.1(d), the lens shall include the word "Brake" and appropriate additional labeling (use "Brake Pressure," "Brake Fluid" for S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b)) except that if a separate parking indicator lamp is provided, the single word "Park" may be used....

As your letter pointed out, conventional brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil are not compatible. Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, differentiates between "brake fluid" and "hydraulic system mineral oil."

We interpret section S5.3.5 to require the use of the words "Brake Fluid" only for vehicles which use conventional brake fluid. The section's use of the word "appropriate," prior to its statement that "Brake Fluid" be used for S5.3.1(b), indicates that the labeling set forth in the parentheses need only be used where it adequately describes the fluid being used. For vehicles which use hydraulic system mineral oil, or other types of non-conventional brake fluid which might be developed in the future, the general requirement for the word "Brake" and appropriate additional labeling is applicable.

We are concerned, however, about your proposed use of the words BRAKE HSMO/LHM, since we doubt that many persons would understand that HSMO/LHM is an abbreviation for hydraulic system mineral oil/liquide hydraulique minerale. We suggest that you consider using the words "BRAKE MINERAL OIL" or similar language that more persons would understand.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Kenneth W. Preece Regulations and Special Projects Manager Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc.

Box 476 Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

The Administrator BGR DT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400, Seventh Street S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. U.S.A. 7th April, 1981

Possible PART 552 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS FMVSS 707-80 - CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS FMVSS 705-75 -HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

Dear Administrator,

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited believes that the requirements of these two standards, if strictly applied to the letter of the rules, force us into providing cars which have safety systems less safe than they would be with a less strict interpretation of the rules.

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited no longer uses BRAKE FLUID, as defined in FMVSS 776 in cars supplied to the USA market. HYDRAULIC SYSTEM MINERAL OIL (HSMO), again as defined and controlled by FMVSS 116, is used instead.

The braking systems provided in the cars have a comprehensive system of warning displays, separate displays being provided for the two pressure systems and a further display to warn if the level of the HYDRAULIC SYSTEM MINERAL OIL in either of the two separate reservoirs is too low.

FMVSS 101-80 controls the wording for this reservoir level warning display by its reference to FMVSS 105-75 in Table 2.

The specified wording in FMVSS 105-75 paragraph 5.3.5, for reservoir level, 5.3.7(b) is "Brake Fluid". We note that this wording is within parentheses and believe that it is intended to be advisory and we hope that you will accept our use of a different, safer, wording.

We are most concerned that the appearance of the words BRAKE FLUID would immediately bring to the minds of the driver and service personnel the thought of adding conventional brake fluid to the reservoir. This must not happen. As you know, and FMVSS 116 recognises, Brake Fluid and Hydraulic System Mineral Oil are NOT COMPATIBLE.

We have taken every care to label the reservoirs and the car, we have provided full customer and service information to avoid any risk of Brake Fluid being wrongly put into the reservoirs. If we can use different wording on the reservoir level warning display we can complete our safety information system without any ambiguity.

We therefore intend to use the following wording on the reservoir level warning display:-

BRAKE

HSMO/LHM

Where HSMO and LhM are abbreviations for Hydraulic system mineral oil and Liquide Hydraulique Minerale respectively. LHM will suit our Cars sent to Canada and it is a well known trade mark for HSMO.

In the interests of enhancing the safety of our products we intend to implement this change of wording at the earliest time.

We would appreciate your confirmation that our action will not be taken as non-compliance with either FMVSS 101-80 or FMVSS 105-75. Should you be unable to give this confirmation we hereby PETITION you to change FMVSS 105-75 paragraph S.5.3.5 so that it permits us to label our products in a manner which we feel is more safe.

Yours faithfully,

B. G. Ridgway Chief Car Safety and Regulations Engineer

ID: 1983-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/06/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Western Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 6, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Dean A. Fialka Western Bus Sales, Inc. 311 N.E. 2nd Gresham, Oregon 97030

Dear Mr. Fialka:

Ms. Lauretta Carlson of our Regional Office in Seattle has forwarded to us a copy of a letter to you dated April 21, 1983, from the Motor Vehicles Division, Department of Transportation, Oregon, with reference to the "Conspicuity Package" on school buses. Oregon appears not to approve the white reflectors in this package. Ms. Carlson has asked us to respond directly to you.

The portions of the conspicuity package that trouble Oregon are the eight white reflex reflectors on the rear (installed on the extreme edge of the vehicle to define its height and width), and the seven white reflex reflectors on each side (defining the overall length and height of the bus). The Oregon letter says that the laws of that State allow only red and yellow reflectors to the rear and sides of the vehicle and that it finds "no indication that the white reflex reflectors are approved by the federal code."

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the installation as original equipment of other lamps and reflectors not specified by the standard provided that the additional equipment does not "impair the effectiveness" of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The agency therefore has no present basis for concluding that white reflectors "impair the effectiveness" of red and yellow reflectors and lamps required by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a school bus may be manufactured and sold with the white reflectors.

Further, use of white reflectors may aid safety. Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not conducted research on improving the conspicuity of school buses, it has contracted for a study of that issue with respect to large vehicles of similar sizes such as trucks and tractor-trailer combinations. The preliminary results indicate that outlining the sides and rear of large vehicles with red and white reflex striping is the best way to improve conspicuity; verification awaits field tests which have not been scheduled to date. Use of white reflectors, while not as effective as red and white striping, probably enhances conspicuity.

The use of a bus with these reflectors, however, is subject to Oregon law. Although under Federal law a State may not have a vehicle safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal vehicle safety standard unless is identical to it, the white reflectors are not required by a Federal standard and are thus subject to regulation by any State in which the school bus is registered.

I hope that this letter provides a satisfactory clarification.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

cc: Lauretta Carlson Region X

April 21, 1983

Western Bus Sales, Inc. 311 NE 2nd Gresham, Oregon 97030

Attn: Dean A. Fialka

Gentlemen:

Your inquiry regarding the use of a special "Conspicuity Bus" package on school buses has been carefully reviewed. You advise the package contains all lighting and reflex reflectors required by federal standards, and in addition, white reflectors designed to be placed to outline the height and width of the bus from the rear and sides.

Oregon laws only allow the red and yellow or amber reflectors and lights to the rear and sides of a vehicle. (The only exception would be the white license plate light.)

Also, we find no indication that the white reflex reflectors are approved by the federal code. We will forward a copy of your letter to Lauretta Carlson, who is the area director for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Possibly she will be able to advise you further on the federal regulations. You may wish to call her at (206) 442-5935.

Photocopies of the Oregon laws pertaining to use of reflectors and the allowable colors are enclosed for your information.

If we can help further, please advise.

Very truly yours,

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Units Telephone 378-2057

AO:bef

cc: Lauretta M. Carlson, Highway Safety Program Area Director, N.H.T.S.A., 3140 Federal Bldg., Seattle, Washington, 98174

March 15, 1983

Mr. Wayne Ivie Motor Vehicle Division 1905 Lana Ave NE Salem, OR 97314

Dear Wayne,

Enclosed are copies of two magazine articles covering the "conspicuity package" I briefly described to you over the phone. We have approached some school districts about including this package on their new buses and everyone is concerned with the legality of the color of the reflectors. As the articles state these white reflectors are in addition to those required by FMVSS 108.

To properly market this reflector option we need a determination in writing from your Division stating whether this package would be permissible under Oregon law. This package is of particular interest because the increased visibility would be a tremendous positive safety factor after dark, especially on rainy nights when visibility is reduced. The longer of the articles demonstrates the effectiveness of this new reflector package.

We sincerely appreciate the time taken out of your busy schedule for our request.

Thank you for returning my phone call last Friday; if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me.

Very truly yours,

WESTERN BUS SALES, INC.

Dean A. Fialka Sales Manager

DAF:pb encl

ID: nht72-6.23

DATE: 11/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1972, asking among other things, whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts the recent California law requiring motorcycles made on or after January 1, 1972, to be wired so that their headlamps are lit whenever the engines are running. In light of the answer to this question, it is not necessary to deal with the other ones.

It is the opinion of this agency that the California law in question is presented in accordance with section 103(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and is therefore void. Standard No. 108. 49 CFR @ 571.108, establishes requirements for motorcycle headlighting, along with special wiring requirements for motorcycles and other vehicles. It is our position, therefore, that the California requirement is within the scope of the aspects of performance covered by Standard No. 108. Since it is not identical to a federal requirement, it is rendered void by operation of the Act.