ID: nht89-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SAMSON HELFGOTT -- HELFGOTT & KARAS, P.C.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/12/89 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2989; REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNING LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKIN G RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATON OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST ; SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS H-85-30 ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TEXT: Dear Mr. Helfgott:

This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1989, asking whether Federal regulations permit the use of an amberlamp either as original or aftermarket equipment. The lamp would be placed adjacent to the center highmounted stop lamp, but in a separate housing and wholly independent of it. It would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and deactivated whenever the stop lamps are illuminated. The purpose of the amber lamp is to improve conspicuity of the vehicle in order to lessen the braking r esponse time of drivers in vehicles following.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.108 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment allows a supplementary lighting device such as the amber lamp if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipmen t required by Standard No. 108. The decision regarding impairment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the supplementary device is installed, and which the manufacturer certifies as complying with all applicable Federal safety s tandards. In this instance you have indicated that the wiring of the amber lamp is independent of the center lamp, and that the amber lamp is inoperative when the stop lamps are on. While your lamp does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the cen ter lamp, you should consider whether your lamp, since it would be a steady-burning amber lamp, might confuse following drivers unused to seeing a steady burning amber lamp on the rear of a vehicle, or because of its brightness. Should the amber lamp cr eate confusion, it may impair the effectiveness of the other rear lamps required by Standard No. 108, each of which (other than the stop lamps) would when in use operate contemporaneously with it, such as an amber turn signal lamp, or a back up lamp. As part of the vehicle manufacturer's certification to Standard No. 108, it must certify that this situation would not occur, if the lamp is to be permissible as an item of original equipment.

As an aftermarket device, the amber lamp is not regulated by Standard No. 108, but is subject to the general prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) against rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a safety standa rd. The same considerations as discussed above should be taken into consideration when making this determination.

In addition, the use of this lamp is subject to local laws. We are not able to advise you as to these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MELVIN KREWALL -- DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION SERVICE FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/17/88 FROM MELVIN KREWALL TO NHTSA, OCC 2697

TEXT: Dear Mr. Krewall:

Thank you for your letter asking two questions about how this agency's regulations apply to vehicles used as school buses. Before I answer your specific questions, it may be helpful to discuss some background information.

Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses. A "school bus" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related event s, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture for sale a new school bus that does not comply with these safety standards. It is also a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may purchase or use a vehicle to transport school children even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. T his is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a retail purchaser or user of a school bus. (Note, however, that a dealer who sold a vehicle other than a school bus to a school district with knowledge that it is intended to be used to transport school children would violate the Federal law.)

With this background, I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter. First, you asked whether a "transit coach-type vehicle" that was manufactured prior to April 1, 1977 could be used to transport students to and from school. In a sub sequent telephone conversation with Joan Tilghman of my staff, you explained that you used the term "transit coach-type vehicle" to mean a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds. As explained above, Federal law does not

regulate the use of vehicles as school buses. If there are any limitations on the use of vehicles as school buses in your State, those limitations arise from the laws or regulations of the State of Oklahoma. NHTSA has repeatedly advised the States of o ur position that the safest way to transport students is in a vehicle that is certified as complying with Federal school bus regulations. We have encouraged States and school districts to consider this fact carefully when deciding what vehicle should be used to transport students to and from school and school-related events.

Your second question asked what must be done to bring a bus with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds "into compliance as a standard Type "D" school bus." In your telephone conversation with Ms. Tilgham, you explained that Oklahoma refers to school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds as "Type D" school buses. Please note that Federal school bus standards apply only to new school buses. Accordingly, there is no Federal requirement under NHTSA regulations that any person retrofit a used bus to make it comply with our standards for new school buses.

You may wish to know that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a separate agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, has proposed regulations to enhance the highway safety by regulating operations of "private motor carriers of passengers. " (54 Federal Register 7362, February 17, 1989, Private Carriage of Passengers.) FHWA is exploring whether it is appropriate to require retrofit of some buses owned by that category of operators to meet NHTSA vehicle safety standards. While the proposed rule does not address the operations of governmental entities, you may wish to consider the FHWA proposal or comment on it. I enclose a copy for your information, and direct your attention to the comment closing date of June 19, 1989.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of may staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: M. J. YOON -- DIRECTOR IN-ONE DEVELOPMENT CORP. SEOUL, KOREA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/26/88 FROM M. J. YOON TO STEVE KRATZTE -- NHTSA, 0CC 2864

TEXT: Dear Mr. Yoon:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke, asking whether a vehicle you are developing for a client would be classified as a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to be able to explain our law and regulations for you. I regret the delay in responding.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason , NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, ten tatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purpose of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements of classification are based on entirely on our understanding of the information pres ented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle referenced in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a moto r vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." In your letter, you describe the vehicle as having 4-wheel dri ve. Additionally, the approach and departure angles and the running

clearance dimensions for this vehicle show that it has high ground clearance. The combination of 4-wheel drive and high ground clearance would be considered "special features for occasional off-road operation." Hence, it appears to us that this vehicle c ould be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicles.

You also asked for a copy of the criteria for classifying vehicles for purposes of the safety standards. All of our classification definitions are set forth in 49 CFR @ 571.3. The information sheet I have enclosed explains how to obtain a copy of this and all of our other regulations, and provides other information relevant to new motor vehicle manufacturers. I have also enclosed a copy of our proposals for a new vehicle classification system for the safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSED

ID: nht89-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/89 EST

FROM: VERNON ROBERTS -- NHTSA NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TITLE: RESEARCH NOTES; CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1989

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/25/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HARRY REID -- SENATE. RED BOOK A33 [4] USA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/23/ 89 FROM HARRY REID -- SENATE TO DOT; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM STEVEN P. ELLIOTT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE, RE AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTOMOBILE AIR BAGS; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRA M A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLE CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985

TEXT: In 1983 and 1984, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began two air bag fleet programs. The purpose was to demonstrate that both original equipment and retrofit air bag systems would provide occupant crash protection, with no sign ificant operational problems.

The air bags in these fleets have performed well in service. There have been a total of 167 crash deployments. We know of no cases where the air bags failed to deploy as designed and only two non-crash deployments (neither of which resulted in any pers onal injury or crash damage).

NHTSA supported the development, procurement, installation, and evaluation of 539 retrofit air bag systems in state police vehicles. The agency also joined the General Services Administration (GSA) in the purchase of 5,000 1985 Ford Tempos that were fac tory-equipped with driver air bags for use as Federal government fleet vehicles. GSA subsequently purchased 1,500 1987 Ford Tempos with air bags. The Department of Defense purchased 300 air bag equipped 1985 Ford Tempos for its use.

Air bags are designed to protect drivers in frontal crashes in which the change in velocity is greater than approximately 10 miles per hour (mph): speeds at which serious injuries may occur. Both the car makers and NHTSA recommend that vehicle occupants also wear the available safety belts.

In the operation of these NHTSA sponsored air bag fleets through March 31, 1989:

* There were no severe or critical injuries in any of the 167 deployment crashes. The drivers of these cars typically had no injury or only minor injury. Only 14 had moderate to serious level injuries, but none received more serious injuries.

* The most severe deployment crash was a frontal collision with a velocity change of approximately 25 mph. The primary injury to the driver was a mild concussion.

* There was one catastrophic, fatal, non-deployment crash judged as non-survivable (see the third footnote on the summary table overleaf). In all other crashes where the air bags did not deploy, the crashes were of such a low severity that the air bags were not designed to deploy, and did not.

* There were two air bag deployments in the absence of a collision. In one case involving a police car, the air bag readiness indicator light on the dashboard gave adequate warning of a fault in the electrical system, but no action was taken. The bag d eployed while the car was parked with no occupant. In the other case involving a Tempo, the bag also deployed while the car was parked unoccupied. Design changes were made in both systems to prevent similar occurrences.

SUMMARY OF THE CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG EQUIPPED FLEET VEHICLES AS OF MARCH 31, 1989

Government Air Bag Fleets Originally Placed Currently in Vehicle Fleet in Fleet Service Fleet Service 1985 Ford Tempos - Federal Government 5,300 1,974 1987 Ford Tempo - Federal Government 1,500 1,3421983-1985 Police Cars (retrofit systems) 539 240

Air Bag Fleet Crash Experience Deployment Injuries to Drivers/Right Front Passengers n1 Crashes AIS-0 AIS-1 AIS-2 AIS-3 AIS-4 AIS-5 AIS-6 Unknown n2 Fed. Tempo 126 31/1 82/21 8/1 3/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 Police Cars n3 41 9/2 26/5 2/0 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 Total 167 40/3 108/26 10/1 4/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 n1 Injuries are classified according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS): AIS 1 = minor, AIS 2 = moderate, AIS 3 = serious, AIS 4 = severe, AIS 5 = critical, and AIS 6 = untreatable (usually fatal).

n2 One deployment occurred when a driverless, stolen Tempo was pushed off a river bank and struck a tree. Another stolen Tempo was recovered with frontal damage and a deployed air bag. Nothing else is known about the driver or crash.

n3 There were three deployments in unoccupied police cars. They were parked with engines running when struck by other vehicles.

Number of Vehicles Involved in Each Deployment Crash by Mode:

Front . . . 139 Side . . . 16 Rollover . . . 4 Undercarriage . . . 8 Non-Deployment n4 Injuries to Drivers & Right Front Passengers Crashes AIS-0 AIS-1 AIS-2 AIS-3 AIS-4 AIS-5 AIS-6 Fed. Tempos 764 713 50 0 0 0 0 1 Police Cars 29 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 793 741 51 0 0 0 0 1

n4 The information is incomplete because the crash notification criteria and injury information available on non-deployment crashes varies with each fleet. One Tempo crashed into a heavy truck at a closing speed of approximately 95 mph. This crash wa s so severe that the vehicle's electrical system was destroyed before the crash sensors could actuate the air bag. The car was catastrophically destroyed by the truck, fatally injuring the driver who could not have been protected by the air bag even had it deployed.

Air Bag Equipped Vehicle Exposure Vehicle Fleet Total Estimated Mileage Federal Tempos 250 million Police Cars 65 million

Results of Fleet Experience to Date

Experience with this current generation air bag fleet has been very positive. The air bags deployed in cases where the crash protection was needed. When air bags deployed, injuries typically were relatively minor.

ID: nht89-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/23/89

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA

TO: JIM BATES -- MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/19/88 FROM JIM BATES -- CONGRESS TO DIANE K. STEED

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bates:

This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1988, with reference to an invention by your constituent, Angelo R. Collica. You have asked for "the requirements necessary to install lighting devices on motor vehicles."

Since we do not have a description of Mr. Collica's device, our answer must therefore be general in nature. There are different answers, depending upon whether a device is installed before or after the first sale of a vehicle.

A supplementary lighting device installed on a vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or dealer before its first sale to a consumer is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment that are required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Examples of impairment are diminished brightness of a lamp due to interference with its wiring, or a confusion of its function through close proximity or signal of the supplementary devi ce. In general, also, all lighting equipment other than hazard warning/turn signals, and headlamps flashing for signalling purposes, must be steady-burning in use. Whether a device creates an impairment is a determination to be made by the vehicle manu facturer in its certification of compliance with the Federal safety standards, or by the dealer, before sale of the vehicle.

The installation of a supplementary lighting device on a vehicle after the vehicle's first sale to a consumer is acceptable under Federal law, provided that the installation does not degrade the performance of any device or element of design installed in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This prohibition applies to vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. It does not, however, apply if the supplementary lighting device is installed by the vehicle own er.

The legality of operating a supplementary device, installed after vehicle sale, is primarily determinable under the laws of any State in which a vehicle using it is registered or driven. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wil son Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203, is able to advise on State laws.

I hope that this has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RICHARD L. STORY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM RICHARD L. STORY TO NHTSA 0CC 2871

TEXT: Dear Mr. Story:

This responds to your letter asking whether manufacturers are required to install rear seat lap/shoulder belts in cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts at no additional cost to the consumer. The answer to this question is no.

The lap belts that are installed in the rear seat of your car are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on this agency's analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode, those belts would h ave saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this r eason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. For cars made in earlier model years, we have actively sought the car manufactur ers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. You indicated in your letter that Ford offers a rear seat lap and shoulder belt retrofit kit for your car, the 1988 Thunderbird.

We encourage consumers to consider having rear seat lap and shoulder belts fitted into their cars when manufacturers have made a retrofit kit available for the car, because of the additional crash protection afforded to rear seat passengers. However, NH TSA has no authority to require manufacturers to provide these retrofit kits and installation free of charge to the consumer. Thus, the individual consumer who desires the added protection of lap and shoulder belts in the rear seat will have to pay for that additional protection.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DERREL T. CRANCE -- AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEER SALT RIVER PROJECT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/14/88 FROM DERRAL T. CRANCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2310

TEXT: Dear Mr. Crance:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. I regret the delay in responding.

You stated that Salt River Project ordered 16 air-braked material/reel trailers and two air-braked transformer oil trailers. The trailers were built in 1987 and delivered by a vendor representing the manufacturer. You asked whether the trailers were re quired to conform to Standard No. 121 and, if so, whether a protected reservoir for parking brake release was required and whether the service reservoirs must be protected by check valves or the equivalent. In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the trailers receive daily use on the public highways, and were intended for such use. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its v ehicles comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and in the aforementioned telephone conversation.

Your first question was whether the trailers identified in your letter were subject to Standard No. 121. Section S3 of the standard provides that it applies to air-braked trailers, with certain exceptions. Thus, one issue raised by your letter is wheth er the trailers come within any of the exceptions. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the trailers do not come within any of the exceptions.

You indicated in the telephone conversation that the vendor and/or manufacturer suggested that the trailers come within the exception set forth in section S3(e). That section provides that the standard does not apply to "(a)ny trailer that has gross veh icle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 120,000 pounds and whose body conforms to that described in the definition of "Heavy hauler trailer" set forth in S4." (Emphasis added.) Thus, in order to come within the exception, a trailer must meet both of the c onditions set forth in that section, i.e., it must (1) have a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds, and (2) have a body that conforms to the standard's definition of heavy hauler trailer. Since the GVWR's of the two types of trailers identified in your lett er are well below 120,000 pounds, the trailers do not come within that exception. Moreover, while it is not apparent why the vendor and/or manufacturer would believe that the trailers conform to the standard's definition of heavy hauler trailer. In add ition, based on our review of the other portions of section S3, the trailers do not appear to come within any of the other exceptions to Standard No. 121. Thus, it is our opinion that the trailers were subject to Standard No. 121.

Your second question was whether a protected reservoir for parking brake release was required by Standard No. 121. The answer to that question is yes. Section S5.2.1.1 provides the trailers must have a reservoir that "is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system."

Your third question was whether the service reservoirs must be protected by check valves or the equivalent. The answer to that question is also yes. Section S5.2.1.5 provides that each service reservoir for trailers must "be protected against loss of ai r pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices."

Since your letter suggests that you purchased trailers that may not have complied with Standard No. 121, I have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LES SCHREINER -- FRESIA ENGINEERING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/01/89 FROM LES SCHREINER TO NHTSA, OCC 3193

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towi ng vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

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

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles design ed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public

2

roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statement that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public road s.

NHTSA has also stated that in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public road will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purpose of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 mil es per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with our letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories.

a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed app ears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any ve hicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. HNTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles shoul d be classified for the purpose of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquir e additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional

3

materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statues and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor ve hicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA peri odically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: KARL H. MAYER -- RULES AND REGULATIONS, DR. ING.H.C.F.PORSCHE AG STUTTGART

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: CONFIDENTIAL LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION -- CLARIFICATION FMVSS 101 AND FMVSS 102; LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMEN T; LETTER DATED 08/15/88 FROM DEAN HANSELL TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA, RE PORTCHE'S JUNE 28 REQUEST FOR REGULATORY INTERPRETATION FMVSS 101 AND 102

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, Controls and Displays, and No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standar ds in connection with a new transmission and related gear shift mechanism that you are considering producing. I note that your accompanying request for confidentiality was withdrawn by an August 15, 1988 letter signed by your attorney, effective Septemb er 30, 1988.

You stated that the new transmission is characterized by two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit. A motor vehicle incorporating the transmission does not have a clutch pedal. Operation of the transmissi on is entirely dependent on the position selected for the gear shift lever. The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 1. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping t he shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the "M" position after being tapped. You plan to provide two shift displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel.

You stated that you believe that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it meets the various requirements of Standards No. 101 and 102 and asked whether we agree with

your interpretation. You also asked three questions related to certain aspects of the transmission and related gear shift lever and shift displays. Your questions are responded to below.

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

I agree with your basic contention that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it, and the accompanying gear shift lever and shift displays, meet the various requirements of Standards No. 101 and 102. The perfo rmance requirements specified in the two standards do not prohibit dual function transmissions.

I have one primary comment concerning how you should evaluate Standards No. 101 and 102 with respect to the compliance of a vehicle equipped with the transmission. In some instances, these standards specify different requirements depending on whether a vehicle is equipped with a manual transmission or an automatic transmission. Thus, a critical issue is which of these requirements would need to be met by a vehicle equipped with your planned transmission. While you characterize the transmission as havi ng two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit, it is our opinion that the transmission is an automatic transmission for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is possible, of course, to manu ally control most conventional automatic transmission, at least to some extent, by means of the gear shift lever, e.g., by shifting the lever from D to L. Your transmission would differ from a conventional automatic transmission primarily in having an a dditional means of manual control. However, the transmission would still be an automatic transmission. Vehicles equipped with the transmission would thus need to meet the requirements specified by Standards No. 101 and 102 for vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, and not the requirements specified for vehicles equipped with a manual transmission.

I will not address your three specific questions. You stated that it appears to you that when the shift lever is in the manual slot, it is permissible to have the lever, after tapping to shift up or down, return to the original middle position, and aske d for our interpretation on this point. We agree that this basic design is permitted under Standards No. 101 and No. 102.

Your second and third questions, which I will address together, concern the shift displays. You stated that you believe that it is permissible for both of the dual shift pattern displays, i.e., the one on the middle console and the one on the instrument al panel, to be constantly visible so that the driver can simultaneously see the currently used shift mode and also the alternative, and asked for our evaluation of the point. You

also asked about he permissibility of two alternative instrument panel displays.

I will begin my discussion of these questions by identifying the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and 102. Section S3.2 of Standard No. 102 states that the "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions . . . shall be pe rmanently displayed in view of the driver." NHTSA has previously interpreted "position" to mean the shift lever positions in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions. NHTSA has previously interpreted the requirement for permanent display as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mo de of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the required display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an electronic display, be activated) only when the key is in the ignition switch. (I note that on August 25, 1988, NHTSA published a notice of pr oposed rulemaking to amend the requirement for permanent display. A copy is enclosed.)

Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.1 requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S6 provide s that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together r equire that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102.

Your design includes the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 1 2 + M -. Under section S3.2 of Standard No. 102, all of these positions must be permanently displayed, i.e., there must be a display of the 10 positions in relation to each other and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. As indicated above, Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays.

The fact that your design would include more than one gear position display raises several issues, including (1) whether more than one display is permitted, (2) whether each display (where multiple displays are provided) must meet all of the requirements specified by Standards No. 101 and No. 102, and (3) whether multiple displays can be used to meet the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meet the requirements. It is our opinion that more than one display i s permitted. It is also our opinion that if one display meets all of the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102, the additional display(s) provided voluntarily by the manufacturer need not meet any particular requirements (except for section S5.3 .5. of Standard No. 101, which specifies requirements for sources of

illumination not otherwise regulated by that standard). We have not previously found it necessary to address the issue of whether multiple displays can be used to meed the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meets the requirements. However, one commenter on the August 25, 1988 notice cited above asked whether two displays could be used together to demonstrate compliance with section S3.2 of Standard No. 102. We plan to address that specific issue in the co ntext of that rulemaking.

While is is not entirely clear from you letter, the display on the middle console may provide permanent display (including items when the ignition is not on) of the shift lever positions, i.e., a display of the 10 positions in relation to each other and an indication of the position selected by the driver. It appears, however, that illumination is not provided for this display. Given the reference in Standard No. 101 to Standard No. 102, it is our opinion that where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. 102 and others do not, the requirements of Standard No. 101 must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. 102.

If the display on the console fully met the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102, it would be unnecessary for the additional display on the instrument panel to also meet the standards (with the exception of section S5.3.5 of the Standard No. 101 , as noted above). I note that either of the alternative instrument panel displays shown in your letter show all of the shift lever positions. While the displays do show P R N D 3 2 1, they show either 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1 instead of + M -. If the ins trument panel display, rather than the console display, was to be used to meet the requirements of section S3.2 of Standard No. 101, it would be necessary for the display to show the 10 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. I also assume that t he instrument panel display is not activated when the ignition is not on and thus does not provide a permanent display.

I would like to note that the discussion in the preceding paragraph should not be read as a suggestion that you change the instrument panel display to show + M - instead of 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1. One consequence of your design is that, in the manual mode , the driver would not know what gear the car was in from either observing the location of the gear shift lever or by knowing the shift lever position (+ M or -). Your design takes care of this, however, by providing an indication of actual gear positio n on the instrument panel display. Assuming that you can meet the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 by means of the console display, we believe that it would be a desirable feature of your design to indicate actual gear position on the volun tarily provided instrument panel display.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD -- AGAPS PLASTICS INC

TO: NHTSA CHIEF CONSEL

TITLE: REF: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 - HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS FOR VEHICLES DRIVEN IN WINTER WEATHER.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/16/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/89 FROM STEPHEN WOOD TO GEORGE VANSTRATEN

TEXT: PER MY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. TAYLOR VINSON ON FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 1989, PLEASE FIND LITERATURE, SAMPLES AND SPECS OF OUR NEW HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS/LENSES.

FOR THOSE WHO DRIVE IN THE SNOW STATES IT OFTEN BECOMES DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THE LIGHTS OF VEHICLES AHEAD AND BEHIND. THE HEATED SAFETY LIGHT ELIMINATES THE ICE AND SNOW BUILD-UP FORMING THE CRUST THAT BLOCKS OUT VEHICLE LIGHTS.

AT THIS POINT, HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE STATE OF MICHIGAN FOR USE ON HEAVY SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT, SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR SCHOOL BUS LIGHTS, AND OTHER PURCHASES BY SEMI TRAILER REPLACEMENT PARTS DEALERS. THE HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS HAVE PROVED VIABLE AND ARE PERFORMING AS ADVERTISED IN THE ENCLOSED BROCHURE. THE LIGHTS ARE REORDERING AND NEW ORDERS ARE COMING IN FROM A SMALL AD PLACED IN A TRUCK MAGAZINE.

AGAP'E PLASTICS HAS BEEN APPROACHED BY VAN STRATEN TO TAKE OVER THE ASSEMBLYING OF THIS LIGHT TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTION NUMBERS AND SALES. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP A MULTIPLE PRODUCTION SYSTEM, AND ARE WORKING ON A NATIONAL MARKETING PROG RAM THAT WILL PUT US IN TOUCH WITH CUSTOMERS IN TWO DIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF SALES.

ALL LIGHTS, LENSES, AND MATERIALS TO ASSEMBLE THE HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CERTIFIED AND PASSED THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION THAT THERE IS NO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. FOR HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS. IN ORDER FOR US TO DO BUSINESS AT THE O.E.M. LEVEL WE REQUIRE A LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM YOU TO US THAT WE MAY PASS ON TO OUR CUSTOMERS SO THEY MAY START ORDERING AND WE MAY START PRODUCING.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT TOM GRAVENGOOD OR TOM ALT. AT AGAP'E PLASTICS, 616/363-1191. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. THANK YOU.

SINCERELY,