ID: nht90-4.84

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Roger C. Fairchild -- Shutler and Low

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-5-90 from R.C. Fairchild to P.J. Rice (OCC 5287)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for my opinion of whether a particular vehicle (the Pinzgauer) would be considered a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. When NHTSA previously considered this question, we stated in a March 25, 1982 letter to Mr. Leonard Fink that the Pinzgauer would be considered to be a motor vehicle, based on the information that was available to the agency at that time. However, that letter also stated that the agency would be willing to reconsider this conclusion if additional information were provided regarding the vehicle's marketing, advertising, and actual use. Your recent letter set forth three additional factors that you suggested might lead the agency to change its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer was a motor vehicle. As explained in detail below, this agency reaffirms the previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle.

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 vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicl es and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a ma ximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is 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, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Vehicles such as the Pinzgauer are not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, the Pinzgauer is obviously designed to have substantial off-road capabilities, as evidenced by high ground clearance, deep water fording capabilit ies, and all-wheel drive. According to its manufacturer, 95 percent of the annual production of Pinzgauers is purchased by armed forces worldwide. These factors suggest that the Pinzgauer should not be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, the available information shows the Pinzgauer is suitable for use on-road. The vehicle has a top speed of nearly 70 miles per hour. Page 4 of Enclosure 1 of your letter shows that the Pinzgauer is equipped with turn signals and states that the power st eering minimizes steering effort "both in difficult terrain and when parking." Page 4 of Enclosure 3 with your letter describes the serviceability of the Pinzgauer "with ordinary on- and off-road usage." These factors suggest that the vehicle is design ed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, which suggests that it should be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether something is a motor vehicle, when the vehicle has both on-road and off-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, NHTSA has ap plied five factors to reach its conclusion. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

When NHTSA previously considered whether the Pinzgauer should be considered a motor vehicle, the available information regarding these factors showed that the manufacturer had equipped the vehicle with side marker lights, the manufacturer expected the ve hicle to be used on-road, and that it would be sold by dealers that also sell vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles.

In your letter, you enclosed some additional information and brochures from the manufacturer that show the manufacturer continues to expect Pinzgauers to be used both on- and off-road. Since the manufacturer does not now expect to sponsor the vehicle's sale in the U.S., no information is available on the anticipated dealers. The additional information enclosed with your letter did not specifically address any factors on

which no information was previously available to NHTSA. Hence, the agency has no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle.

You suggested three reasons that might lead the agency to reverse its previous conclusion. First, you suggested that the 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer has a unique body configuration which distinguishes it from typical, on-road vehicles and makes i t particularly well suited to off-road use. You correctly noted that the agency's 1982 letter addressed both the 4-wheeled and 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. However, for the purposes of this analysis, there is no attribute of the 6-wheeled versio n that would lead the agency to conclude that it should be classified differently than the 4-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. Many vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles have 6 wheels. In all other respects, the 4- and 6-wheeled Pinzgauers have simi lar on-road capabilities, including a top speed of more than 65 miles per hour.

Second, you suggested that NHTSA concluded that the Unimog is not a "motor vehicle" in a February 7, 1984 letter, and that the Unimog and Pinzgauer are comparable vehicles. In the February 7, 1984 letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber to which you refer, NHTSA stated that it had no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Unimog was not a "motor vehicle." NHTSA also noted that this conclusion was based upon the assumptions that Unimog vehicles would continue to be marketed through dealers of farm machinery and heavy equipment and that Unimog vehicles would have a label affixed stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use. In other words, the information available for Unimog (especially regarding factors number 4 and 5 above) was s ufficient to lead the agency to conclude that it was not a motor vehicle, even though Unimogs are operationally capable of on-road use. By way of contrast, either no information is available for Pinzgauer vehicles regarding the five factors identified a bove or, if information is available for a factor, it suggests that the Pinzgauer should be treated as a motor vehicle. Since the Pinzgauer is operationally capable of on-road use, and there is no indication that the manufacturer does not intend for it to spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA reaffirms its previous statement that these vehicles appear to be "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the Safety Act.

Third, you suggested that NHTSA's 1982 conclusion did not include a consideration of the primary design intent of the Pinzgauer for military purposes and the high percentage of its total sales to the military. NHTSA's 1982 conclusion and this reconsidera tion both are addressed only to the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer. The military versions of the Pinzgauer would not be subject to the safety standards if their sales satisfied 49 CFR S571.7(c). In both the 1982 and this examination of whether the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer are motor vehicles, the agency fully considered the substantial off-road capabilities of these vehicles. However, absent indications that the manufacturer does not intend the Pinzgauer to spend substantial peri ods of time on-road, NHTSA concluded in 1982, and reaffirms at this time, that the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer appear to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or

need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht87-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/87

FROM: BARRY NUDD -- SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, ATWOOD MOBILE PRODUCTS

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/88 TO BARRY NUDD FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 207, VSA 108; LETTER DATED 07/14/88 EST TO S. ROBSON FROM FRANK BERNDT; STANDARD 207

TEXT: Dear Erika Jones,

Atwood Mobile Products is a manufacturer of seat adjusters serving the recreational and heavy duty vehicle markets. A majority of our customers use our product in an assembly consisting of a bucket seat mounted to a pair of seat adjusters which are in t urn attached to a pedestal that elevates the seat above the floor of a vehicle and generally incorporates the seat belt anchorages. The inclusion of the pedestal in the seating systems causes considerable confusion with some customers when testing to St andard No. 207. The main issue is whether the weight of the pedestal should be added to the weight of the seat when calculating the force to be applied to the seat back for testing the compliance of the seat adjusters when mounted between the seat and p edestal.

A letter from the Chief Counsel of NHTSA to Mack Trucks Inc. dated July 14, 1983 (copy enclosed) states [a combined test procedure that first tests the seat adjuster for its ability to stay in the adjusted position when subject to a force of 20 times the upper seat and adjuster weight and then subjects the entire seat assembly (seat, adjusters and pedestal) to a 20 g force as anchored to the vehicle structure] establishes due care in testing to FMVSS Standard No. 207.

We would conclude from this opinion that the first portion of the procedure outlined above, establishes that the seat adjusters meet the requirement of Standard No. 207 S4.2. (The second portion of the test then establishes the compliance of the seat st ructure from the seat adjusters down to the pedestal mounting in the vehicle to the general requirements of S1 that seat attachment assemblies and their installation meet the standard as well as the seat itself.)

We request your interpretation with regard to the test procedures required by Standard No. 207 for seat assemblies consisting of a trimmed seat mounted on seat adjusters which are in turn mounted to a pedestal which incorporate seat belt anchorages (S4.2 (c)), specifically as outlined in the two part test set forth (in figures 1 & 2).

Our questions are specific to the Mack Truck letter with the addition of the seat belt loads.

Question No. 1: Does a load applied as in figure 1 satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 207 concerning the seat adjusters remaining in their adjusted position?

Figure 1 tests the ability of the seat adjusters to remain in their adjusted position when subjected to 20 times the weight of all seat components mounted above the adjusters plus the Standard No. 210 belt load.

Question No. 2: Can the seat adjuster, having passed figure 1 loads be locked for the second part of the test as in figure 2.

The second portion of the test (figure 2) established the compliance of the seat structure from the bottom of the seat adjusters down to the connection of the pedestal to the floor. Because the forces in figure 2 do not accurately reflect the forces act ually imposed on the seat adjusters in an actual crash, the adjusters can be welded or otherwise locked together (the adjusters having been tested in figure 1, see paragraph three of the Mack Truck letter" ... the adjusters and upper seat section would n ever experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash.") while the rest of the seat assembly is tested to the requirements.

Question No. 3: Does the two part test procedure shown in figures 1 & 2 establish due care in meeting Standard 207 when applied to an upper seat and adjusters mounted on a pedestal assembly which incorporates seat belt anchorages?

There are several other questions of a more general nature that arise when applying Standard No. 207 to pedestal mounted seats as shown in figure 1.

Question No. 4: Can the 20 times seat weight load as required in Standard No. 207 S4.2 be applied at the center of gravity of the seat as more accurate alternative to application from a point outside the seat frame in the horizontal plane of the seats ce nter of gravity?

Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 illustrates a bracing system apparently intended to insure that the force applied to the seat back remains in the horizontal plane of the center of gravity of the seat. If the seat frame were excessively flexible and t he braces not used, the deformation of the seat frame would raise the load application line above the plane of the center of gravity of the seat resulting in a larger moment being placed on the seat attachment. This condition is especially evident in buc ket seats mounted on pedestals which incorporate seat belt anchorages.

A simultaneous application of a type I seat belt load and a 20 times seat weight force causes deflections to the entire seat system resulting in the seat force acting significantly above the plane of the seat center of gravity. This condition can consid erably overstate the moment load on seat attachments that would occur in an actual 20g impact. To more accurately simulate a 20g impact load (which appears to be the intent

of the standard) the seat force should be applied at the seat center of gravity not at the seat back through the plane of the center of gravity. The current technique as outlined in S5.1.1 applied to pedestal mounted bucket seats is contrary to elem entary mechanical principles when significant deflections take place.

Another question related to testing for compliance to Standard No. 207 concerns paragraph S4.2(c), the simultaneous application of Standard No. 210 seat belt loads and the 20 times seat weight load.

Question No. 5: Can the seat belt load in figure 1 be eliminated based on the reasoning that an identical floor mounted seat and belt anchorage are not required to sustain the seat belt load and that the second part of the test, figure 2, subjects the se at assembly to the load to check the seat attachment assembly (pedestal) for compliance with Standard No 207?

On installations as previously described and shown in the attached figures, the seat belt anchorages are a part of the seat pedestal on which the seat adjusters and seat are fastened. If a bucket seat were to be mounted on the floor, and the seat belt a nchorages mounted to the floor with separate attachments, the seat and adjusters would not be subject to paragraph S4.2(c). Because the seat pedestal seems to be included in the definition of a seat, the pedestal mounted belt anchorages require the seat to be subjected to paragraph S4.2(c) loads with the seat remaining in its adjusted position during application of each force specified (S4.2). It can be shown that identical bucket seats can be mounted on a floor of a vehicle or on a pedestal and their respective belt anchorages can be located in identical positions, in relation to the seat adjusters.

A typical seat pedestal installation involve the seat belts wrapping around the sides of the seat. As the belts are loaded, considerable transfer of force occurs from the forward stretch of the belts to the seat frame and hence into the seat adjusters. Accepted lab techniques for applying the seat belt load include using steel cables to simulate belts and untrimmed or bare seat frames for applications of loads. The steel cable can bite into a bare seat frame and transfer a large load into a seat adju ster. This force is variable and subject to extremes when testing techniques vary within the limits set forth in Standard Nos. 207 and 210. In case of an identical bucket seat and adjusters mounted on the floor of a vehicle with the floor mounted belt anchorages located in the same position relative to the seat, this force is totally ignored (S4.2(c) is not required).

It is certainly essential that the 20 times seat weight load be applied simultaneously with the Standard No. 210 seat belt load to verify compliance with general requirements of S1 that the chance of failure of the seat attachment assemblies and their in stallation by forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact be minimized. However, if the seat adjusters of an identical seat installation mounted on the floor are not subjected to loads induced by seat belts wrapping around the seat frame, a pede stal

mounted seat assembly should be permitted to have the tracks welded or locked together while the loads of 4.2(c) check the seat attachment assemblies to the general requirement of Standard No. 207. Of course if the seat belt anchorages were on the s eat frame itself (above the seat adjusters) then the seat adjusters would definitely have to remain in their adjusted position when subject to the simultaneous application of Standard No. 210 seat belt anchorage load and the 20 times seat weight load.

Respectfully Submitted,

TEST PROCEDURE PART 571 S207 SECTION S4.2

ALL LOADS TO BE APPLIED SIMULTANEOUSLY; FIGURE 1 AND 2

(DRAWINGS OMITTED)

ID: 2640o

Mr. Toshio Maeda
Executive Vice President
& Chief Operating Officer
Nissan Research & Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 8650
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1987, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

That paragraph specifies in pertinent part that a replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1-Aiming Adjustment Test, of SAE Standard J580 AUG79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. Section 6.1.1 states that "when the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of +/-4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes." You have asked whether the aiming adjustment is to be achieved by the headlamp assembly, or by both the headlamp assembly "and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the vehicle."

SAE J580 applies to the design of headlamp assemblies, including the functional parts other than the headlamps, such as aiming and mounting mechanisms and hardware. The assembly may include one or more headlamps. Although the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, its design must be identical to the headlamp assembly used on the vehicle. Thus, if the aiming adjustment requirement is met by the headlamp assembly in the laboratory, it should also be met when the assembly is installed on the vehicle. An individual headlamp installed on the vehicle need not meet the aiming adjustment test unless that headlamp is part of a headlamp assembly comprising only one headlamp.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:1/14/88

ID: 2407y

Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann
Hella KG Hueck & Co.
Postfach 28 40
4780 Lippstadt
West Germany

Dear Herr Westermann:

This is in reply to your letter of February 21, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to whether two designs for center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) you enclosed are permissible. You wish to know whether the ECE definition of "lamp unity" can be applied, and whether the designs form a CHMSL unity in the sense of Standard No. 108.

The question, as we see it, is not whether the ECE definition can be applied, but whether the two designs you submitted would meet the clearly expressed requirements of Standard No. 108. The standard requires that there be a single lamp, that it have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, that its signal be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and that it provide specified minimum photometric values at 13 specific test points.

The design represented in Enclosure l appears to pass through the center of the lamp, at the H-V test point, thus affecting compliance of the lamp. Measurement at test points can only be determined by photometric testing. The design represented in Enclosure 2 would not comply with the standard. It is, in effect, two lamps mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Standard No. l08 requires a single lamp, to be mounted on the vertical centerline.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:4/25/90

ID: 12137.ZTV

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
Sierra Products
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of June 26, 1996, to the Administrator asking whether a provision of the California Vehicle Code is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that clearance lamps be located "on the front and rear." However, paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 allows them to "be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45

degrees inboard." California Vehicle Code Sec. 25100(e) requires that "Clearance lamps shall be visible from all distances between 500 feet and 50 feet to the front or rear of the vehicle."

We see no conflict between Standard No. 108 and CVC Sec. 25100(e). Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps", July 1972. Table I specifies photometric minimum candela requirements that these lamps must meet at test points 45 degrees Left, Center, and 45 degrees Right. Thus, even if a clearance lamp is not visible at 45 degrees inboard, it is required to be visible directly to the rear and at 45 degrees outboard. We assume that at that location a clearance lamp would be "visible . . . to the rear of the vehicle" within the meaning of the California requirement.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d:7/29/96

ID: nht93-3.32

DATE: May 4, 1993

FROM: St. F. Steiner -- Consultant, AET Network

TO: John Womack -- Chief Council, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-17-93 from John Womack (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to St. F. Steiner (A41; Part 591)

TEXT: As an environmentally, concerned company, our goal is to become proactive before the new California 2010 Emissions State Law is to be effective and the President of the United States signs the new Environmental Protection Laws. We think it's time to aggressively contribute in the development of human responsibility and thus, build up an agreeable base for our children and future.

Because of this, our company is into environmental protection by way of contributing toward the reduction of gasoline pollution attributed to the transportation industry. In our efforts, our goal is to import electric automobiles from Europe for research and exploration. In order to do this, we need your assistance on the following U.S. laws and D.O.T. requirements for 3 and 4 wheelers with 1 to 5 passengers.

o Are there any safety standards and regulations for the above mentioned automobiles?

o Is there a minimum speed standard regulation for the above mentioned automobiles?

o Are there weight limitations for the above mentioned automobiles?

o What conversions would be required in order to meet U.S. specifications and standards? o Could these automobiles be permitted on highways?

Thank you for taking the time to review our needs. Your immediate response and assistance would be greatly appreciated in supporting our effort towards improving our environment. If you should inquire additional information about our electric automobiles please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht88-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/26/88

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

TO: STEVE KRATZTE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/31/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO M. J. YOON, REDBOOK A33 (2), PART 571.3

TEXT: DEAR, MR. KRATZTE

WE, IN-ONE DEVELOPMENT CORP., ARE DOING AS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER OF SSANGYONG MOTOR COMPANY, PROCEEDING TWO PROJECTS WHICH ONE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE AND ONE PASSENGER CAR AND PLANNING TO LAUNCH THE CARS IN U.S.A.

THEREFORE, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE VEHICLE CLASSIFICATIONS (PASSENGER CAR OR MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER CAR) OF OFF-ROAD VEHICLES PLANNED TO PRODUCT IN THE END OF 1991.

FOR YOUR REFERENCE, GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VEHICLE ARE AS FOLLOWS.

OVERALL LENGTH: 4200 approx. 4250 mm, DRIVE SYSTEM: 4 WHEEL DRIVE (PART TIME)

OVERALL WIDTH: 1716 mm, FRAME: LADDER TYPE FRAME

HEIGHT (ON GROUND): 1670 approx. 1700 mm

WINDSCREEN SLOPE ANGLE: 55 degrees

APPROACH ANGLE: 40 degrees

DEPARTUER ANGLE: 30 degrees

GROUND CLEARANCE (IN LADEN CONDITION): MINIMUM 200 mm

(THE SHAPE OF THE VEHICLE LOOKS LIKE PASSENGER CAR; AERODYNAMIC SHAPE)

AND, WE ALSO WANT TO KNOW THE CRITERIA FOR VEHICLE TYPE CLASSIFICATIONS. YOU ARE KINDLY REQUESTED TO SENT THE INFORMATIONS, IF AVAILABLE. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR PROMPT RESPONSE. NOTE). OUR ADDRESS & FAX. NO ARE AS FOLLOWS.

ADDRESS: 2nd FLOOR, GUKDONG BUILDING, 3-GA CHUNGMOO-RO, JUNG-GU, SEOUL, KOREA.

FAX. NO: 02-277-5321

SINCERELY YOURS

ID: 11475DRN

Edwin J. Kirschner, Ph.D.
President
Space Coast Writers Guild, Inc.
P. O. Box 804
Melbourne, FL 32902-0804

Dear Dr. Kirschner:

This responds to your question whether school buses are authorized to load or unload school children on highways with posted speed limits in excess of 40 miles per hour. The conditions for loading and unloading zones for school children on school bus routes are not regulated by this agency. The are governed by State laws, so your question is one the State must answer.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration establishes minimum safety standards for the manufacture of new motor vehicles, including school buses. The agency has, however, issued guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs. Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" notes recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. We have enclosed a copy of Guideline 17 for your information. I direct your attention in particular to paragraphs C.2.a., C.2.b., and E.6., which relate to school buses stopping on public highways.

Nevertheless, each state determines how school buses will be operated in that state. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only to the extent it has been adopted by state officials. For information on Florida's procedures for safe conduct in school bus loading and unloading zones, you may contact:

Mr. Charles F. Hood Administrator, School Transportation Department of Education Florida Education Center, Suite 824 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

Mr. Hood's telephone number is: (904) 488-4405.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#571.3 D:4/5/96

ID: nht94-8.49

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc., Denver Branch

TO: Walt Myers -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Rulemaking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/31/94 From John Womack To Allan Garman (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(1)(A)

TEXT: Total number of pages INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE: 5

Mr. Myers:

As a followup to our telephone conversation this afternoon regarding the saleability of 287 baby car seats being transported inside a tractor-trailer which was involved in an accident, my 4-pg. "File Report" to the Insurance Adjuster follows for your review.

Although the "File Report" contains some information which will be of minimal interest to you, I felt it best if I provided you with all the information I have.

Please respond by answering the following questions:

1) Is there law in effect which would prohibit us from selling the involved car seats as salvage due to the fact that they were involved in a transit accident?

2) Assuming the subject car seats complied with all federal safety regulations and guidelines prior to being involved in this truck accident, are there any other laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, or recommended practices under the NHTSA's jurisdiction which we should consider before offering these car seats for eventual sale to the public?

3) Can we arrange to have an NHTSA representative from the local Denver office inspect these car seats at our warehouse and render an opinion as to whether they comply with all applicable federal safety standards?

My most sincere thanks to you for researching this matter for us. I look forward to your response.

Please find my address, telephone number, and fax number on the "File Report" letterhead.

(ATTACHMENT OMITTED)

ID: nht95-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: Ricardo Martinez -- M.D., NHTSA

TO: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM SHIN-CHIANG CHEN TO DOT MINISTER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We a re not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.