ID: 1985-02.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John L. Strickland

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John L. Strickland J.S. Welding Rt. 5 Box 496 Denham Springs, Louisiana 70726

Dear Mr. Strickland:

I am responding to your February 20, 1985 request for information regarding Federal regulation of trailer manufacturing.

There is no Federal Licensing requirement for the manufacture of trailers, which are considered motor vehicles under Federal law. As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, however, you must submit identification information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You must also certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal regulations. The procedure is specified in 49 CFR Part 567.

At this time, the only safety standards applicable to all trailers are Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, Safety Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, and Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number-Basic Requirements. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at Part 565. Trailers with certain braking systems also must meet Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, Safety Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids, and Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. These standards are found in Part 571 of 49 CFR.

I am enclosing an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of these regulations. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

February 20, 1985

National Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin. Office of Chief Council 400 7th Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

I need all information on what I need to obtain the necessary manufacturing license for this operation.

The trailers will range from approximately 6' long by 6' wide; 1 axle - gross weight of 750 to 1500 pounds - to 20' long by 6' 6' wide; 3 axles - gross weight of 20,000 pounds.

As it stands in our business at the present we will be building between 10 and 20 trailers a year.

We are new in this field, if you need more information please contact me.

Yours truly,

John L. Strickland J. S. Welding Rt. 5 Box 496 Denham Springs, Louisiana 70726 504 - 6644593

ID: 1985-02.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Alexander E. Nagy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Alexander E. Nagy 19015 132nd Avenue Sun City West, AZ 85375

Dear Mr. Nagy:

This responds to your letter to this agency, as supplemented by a March 11, 1985 telephone conversation between yourself and Steve Kratzke of my staff. You indicated that you plan to produce golf carts, which would be designed primarily for use on golf courses, but would also be used to transport golfers on the public roads from their homes to the golf course and back. You asked what Federal safety requirements the golf carts would have to meet. As explained below, if your golf carts are used on public highways, have a top speed of 20 mph or less, and have a configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, they would not be motor vehicles, and therefore would not be subject to this agency's safety standards.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (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.

This agency's safety standards apply only to vehicles which are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of this definition. Vehicles such as forklifts and mobile construction equipment which are sold primarily for off-road use, but which incidentally use the public roads to travel from one job site to another are not considered motor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles which regularly use the public roads and stay off-road for only limited periods of time are motor vehicles and are subject to our safety standards. NHTSA has generally said that golf carts are not motor vehicles because their use on public roads is intermittent and incidental to their use on golf courses.

However, you stated in your letter and emphasized in the telephone conversation that you intend your golf carts to be regularly used on the public roads to transport golfers and their equipment to and from their homes. Accordingly, the agency's past reasoning as to whether golf carts are motor vehicles (intermittent use on the public roads, which use is purely incidental to use on golf courses) would not apply to these golf carts.

This agency has stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles which will be used regularly on the public roads will not be considered motor vehicles if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. Golf carts generally have a vehicle configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, since they do not have doors, a windshield, windshield wipers, and the like. Hence, even if your golf carts are intended to be used on the public roads, they would not be considered motor vehicles if they have a configuration similar to most other golf carts and if their maximum attainable speed is 20 mph or less.

If you decide to build your golf carts so that they would not be classified as motor vehicles, you may wish to contract the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations applicable to golf carts. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207. If you decide to build your golf carts so that they would be;classified as motor vehicles, I have enclosed an information sheet which explains how to obtain copies of this agency's regulations.

Finally, you noted that you may build these golf carts in versions powered by a gasoline engine, an electric motor and batteries, and a hybrid version powered by a gasoline engine and electric motor. You asked if the electric and hybrid versions would have to meet any additional safety requirements. If your golf carts are motor vehicles, and therefore subject to this agency's safety standards, the same safety standards apply regardless of whether the vehicle is driven by a gasoline, electric, or hybrid engine, and there are no additional safety requirements applicable to electric and hybrid vehicles . If your golf carts are not motor vehicles, I must again refer you to the Consumer Product Safety Commission for a response.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Alexander E. Nagy 19015 132nd. Ave. Sun City West, AZ 85375

Dept. of Transportation NHTSA Office of Rule Making 400 7th St., SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I an planning on designing, developing and manufacturing golf cars. What federal safety requirements will the cars have to meet? Some will be driven by a gasoline engine, others by and electric motor and batteries. In addition, I may also develop a golf car employing a hybrid type power plant, a combination gasoline engine and electric motor. What additional federal safety requirements, if any, would they have to meet?

The golf cars will be designed primarily to traverse golf courses, however, they will also be utilized to transport the golfer from his residence to the golf course and base home.

May I hear from you soon? Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Alexander E. Nagy Phone #: 602 975-2050

ID: 1985-02.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Richard -- JBR Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey Richard JBR Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield IA 52556

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a 6 inch by 4 inch sheet of 1/8 inch thick semi-transparent rubber that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films or other sun screen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered, continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

I am enclosing the sample of your product you sent with your letter. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

JRB Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield, IA 52556 (515) 472-7249 Jeffrey Richard

To whom it may concern:

We are proud to have solved the problems of the glare form the sun, of the automobile driver and its passengers, with our all new Glare Stopper.

The Glare Stopper is a great help for stopping glare from babies eyes, while sitting in the required car seat. It is also a big help for the driver from glare when the sun is too low for the sun visor, or too far over. The Glare Stopper will easily stick, or adhere to, the glass, with its suction cups. It is easily moved with one hand. The Glare Stopper works well for coverage of the side mirror at night, when headlights blind driver from seeing ahead, one only has to stick it to the side glass over the mirror. Passengers also enjoy the Glare Stopper to cover the glare in the rear windshield, as well as rear side windows. Driver enjoys the Glare Stopper to cover glare off the hood as well as glare coming in the side window, or when the glare comes in just beside the rear mirror.

Glare Stopper now makes it safer for drivers to drive into the morning or evening sun. Being just about the size of a persons hand, 4" x 6", makes it easy to see around while being used by a passenger. For added safety, a warning label has been placed on the back of the Glare Stopper where it will obstruct driver's view.

Glare Stopper is made of a durable rubber called jolite. It can't be torn, just cut. It is a semi-transparent material.

I have spoken to the law officers and officials which were of the state of Iowa. They said the Glare Stopper didn't violate any of Iowa's obstruction or tint laws for automobiles, because it didn't cover a large portion of the windshield.

I did, however, want the approval of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This is my first invention and company establishment, therefore I'd appreciate full consideration of my product. I have enclosed one full sample, as well as, portions of the other colors, which they come in.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Truly,

JRB Manufacturing Jeffrey Richard Owner/Inventor Manager/Salesman

P.S. The Glare Stopper's rough backside keeps it from reflecting the sun from your car into the eyes of an oncoming car. Enclosures

ID: 1985-02.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Joseph L. Hourihan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Joseph L. Hourihan Vehicle Inspection Services, Room 438 Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles 100 Nashua Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114

Dear Mr. Hourihan:

This responds to your March 11, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning our school bus safety standards. You asked who is responsible for determining, at the time of the initial sale of a bus, whether the vehicle's intended use is to transport school children. You also asked who is the party responsible for ensuring that a school buses complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

The responsibility for determining whether the vehicle's intended use is to transport school children rests with the seller of the school bus. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers or distributors from selling new buses for school transportation which do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. I have enclosed a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033) that discusses the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers who know that a vehicle will be used to transport school children to sell school buses that comply with our school bus safety standards. As discussed in that notice, the agency believes that, of all the persons in the chain of distribution who are subject to the Vehicle Safety Act, the seller is most likely to have knowledge of the likely use of the vehicle. Of course, the seller is not held responsible for more than its knowledge of the purpose of the sale.

In response to your second question, under the Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer of a new school bus certifies that its vehicle meets the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. The party selling a new bus for school transportation is responsible for selling a complying school bus.

In your letter, you state that new 10- to 15-passenger buses are being sold to schools and school districts in Massachusetts for the transportation of students even though they may not comply with our school bus safety standards. We would appreciate learning more about instances in which a noncomplying bus may have been sold. Please provide any information you may have to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Room 6113, at the address given above. With respect to the future purchases of new vehicles, schools and school districts should keep in mind that the dealers are obligated to sell vehicles that meet the school bus safety standards. The dealers should know that they are at risk if they sell noncomplying vehicles.

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff on March 25, you requested that we send you the Federal Register notice (41 FR 28506) that interpreted the term "public school buses" to include buses owned and operated by a private contractor under contract with a State to provide transportation for students to and from public schools. You will find that notice enclosed.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 11, 1985

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Chief Counsel Legal Section

Dear Sir:

I refer to the definitions "School bus" and "Schoolbus" as contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It appears that the standards listed below are applicable to vehicles designed to carry more than ten passengers (generally van type vehicles), providing such vehicles are sold for the purpose of transporting school students. What is the opinion of the N.H.T.S.A. at the time of original sale as to who is responsible for determining the intended use of the vehicles and if the vehicles are in compliance with those F.M.V.S.S. specifically applicable to School Buses?

I am particularly interested in the application of Standards #217, #220, #222 and #221* (*which relates to a vehicle with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 lbs.) as it appears that factory vans, which have not been modified and which are not in compliance with the provisions of said standards, are being sold and utilized for the transportation of school students, said vans having a seating capacity in excess of ten and up to fifteen passengers.

Very truly yours,

Joseph L. Hourihan Supervising Hearings Officer Vehicle Inspection Services

JLH/eam

ID: 1985-02.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Beatrice Ho -- Honest International Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Kevin C. Graves

TEXT:

Ms. Beatrice Ho Honest International Corp. P.O. Box 851391 Richardson, TX 75081

This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of this agency's Rulemaking Division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a child restraint which has been certified as meeting the Japanese safety standard could automatically be considered as complying with Standard No. 213, and, if not, asked for the names and addresses of the U.S. testing laboratories.

There is no requirement that the measures, such as testing, taken by a manufacturer to demonstrate it exercised due care to produce an item of equipment in accordance with Standard No. 213, be performed in this country. If a foreign standard is essentially identical to Standard No. 213, then it may be that the efforts made by a manufacturer in a foreign country to show compliance with that country's standard could form the basis for the manufacturer's certification that its product complied with Standard No. 213. The adequacy of those efforts would depend on a variety of factors, including the degree of similarity between the standards and the resources available to the manufacturer to determine its compliance. For additional information relating to your question, please see the enclosed letter written last year to an Austrian child restraint manufacturer. That letter explains in detail the procedures for certifying compliance with Standard No. 213.

For purposes of enforcing Standard No. 213, this agency conducts spot checks of child restraints after they have been certified by the manufacturer as complying with the standard, by purchasing child restraints and testing them in accordance with the procedures specified in the standard.

If the child restraints pass those tests, no further steps are taken. If a child restraint fails the tests and is determined not to comply with Standard No. 213 or if it is determined that the child restraint contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the child restraint is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:

(1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance is removed or

(2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

[See 8/17/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Kevin C. Graves]

HONEST INTERNATIONAL CORP.

Ref. 58114

February 27, 1985

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Child Restraint Seat

Dear Mr. Radovich:

We are trying to import Japanese Child Restraint Seat to the local market. The product has been tested at Japanese laboratory and met the Japanese Vehicle Safety Standards.

Our questions are:

1. May a Japanese Test report or certificate duly notarized at the U.S. Embassy in Japan be served as approval of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

2. If another U.S. laboratory test is required, please advice us the name and locations of such laboratories.

Thank you very much for your attention, and looking forward to hear from you soon.

Very truly yours, Honest International Corp. Beatrice Ho BH:cy

ID: 1985-02.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 20, 1985

FROM: LARRY GIFFORD -- SERVICE REP., YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION

TO: WES SPRUNK -- SAF-TEE SIPING & GROOVING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 19, 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: Reference is made to our conversation concerning truck tire siping at the N.W.T.D.A. meeting here in Portland 2/7/85.

Several of our dealers, mainly in Montana and Colorado, have been making this service a practice for many years. In doing so, it achieves three main benefits; improved traction, less free roll wear on radials (steer & trailer positions) and extends mileage.

I also mentioned going a step further and have had three sets of our logging tires siped at 11/32 depth. The tire is our 710 and originates with 25/32. The results were about 40% less usage of chains; less abrasive damage to tread area and 7-10% more mileage. The tires are not to recap stage, but I do not expect any carcass failures from the siping.

I surely recommend this service now in all types of tire usage.

ID: 1985-02.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Jerry D. Williams -- Senior Vice President, American Transportation Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/28/85 letter from Frank Berndt to Jerry D. Williams

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President American Transportation Corporation Highway 65 South Conway, Arkansas 72032

This responds to your February 13 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting clarification of this agency's definition of a bus. A "bus" is defined in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.3) as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." You asked whether a vehicle's classification under our regulations is based on the seating capacity of the vehicle as designed, which may vary, or the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles, as manufactured, comply with our safety standards. Thus, the agency uses the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured to determine the classification of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. "Designated seating position" is defined in S571.3 as "any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats...." Consistent with this definition, we have also counted positions designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Under our regulations, a vehicle having a total of more than 10 designated seating positions and wheelchair positions is a bus and a vehicle having a total of 10 or less positions is either a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

The vehicles you manufacture must be certified as meeting all the standards applicable to those vehicle types. For example, you must certify your MPV's as complying with all the safety standards applicable to MPV's. You may also voluntarily manufacture a MPV in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

In the materials you enclosed with your letter, you indicate that some of the vehicles you manufacture are equipped with wheelchair lifts. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a final rule recently published in the Federal Register (50 FR 12029; March 27, 1985) amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, to exclude doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and audible or visual alarms from the requirements of the standard.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 13, 1985

Re: Your Letter of January 28, 1985

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am in receipt of the above referenced letter and am hereby requesting additional clarification.

In your second paragraph, second sentence, you state, "Under our regulations, a vehicle which is designed to carry less than 11 persons would be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle."

None of the buses which we manufacture were "designed" to carry less than 11 persons. Therefore, using this scenario we should be able to modify the seating plan to seat less than 11 persons and still meet the letter of the law.

Mr. Berndt, I am in no way trying to circumvent the law or its intent. I am simply trying to remain competitive. At the present time there are at least three of our competitors selling and delivering buses which have provisions for less than 11 passengers due to the fact that they are interpreting the law according to the aforementioned scenario.

I am enclosing copies of the above referenced letter along with my correspondence to you for your ready reference and, hopefully, early reply.

Sincerely,

Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President Marketing

JDW:gd

Enclosures [1/28/85 letter from Frank Berndt to Jerry D. Williams omitted here.]

ID: 1985-02.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Wataru Hayashibara -- Manager, Certification Business Division, Mazda Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wataru Hayashibara Manager Certification Business Division Mazda Motor Corporation P.O. Box 18, Hiroshima, 730-91 Japan

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. According to your letter, you are considering a bulb check system for telltales that operates while the ignition switch is turned to the "ON" position and the engine is not running. You stated that the proposed design of this system is such that all telltales subjected to the bulb check may emit light simultaneously when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system. You asked whether the proposed system would comply with the requirements of section S5.3.1 of the standard. You also asked whether the answer is dependent on whether a vehicle is equipped with a telltale for electrical charge. As discussed below, the answer to both of your questions is no.

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

Section S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states:

A telltale shall not emit light except when identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting.

There are thus only two situations in which it is permissible for a telltale to emit light: (1) when the telltale is actually identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for which it is designed, and (2) during a bulb check upon vehicle starting. The emitting of light by all telltales whenever a malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system does not fall within either of these categories and is therefore not permitted by the standard.

This interpretation is limited to the specific factual situation described above, i.e., where light would be emitted by all telltales whenever a malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system. In essence, your proposed design would replace the telltale for electrical charge, which is provided by most manufacturers to warn of such things as low voltage, with a warning message in the form of all telltales simultaneously emitting light. This is not permitted by Standard No. 101, for the reasons stated above.

Your letter suggests an interpretation that the simultaneous lighting of all telltales subjected to the bulb check when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system could not be any violation of the requirements of S5.3.1, because it is the vehicle condition which "is designed" by a manufacturer for all telltales to emit light. We do not agree with that suggested interpretation. Section S5.3.1's use of the words "malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed" refers back to the term "(a) telltale." It is our opinion that the phrase is applicable only to the specific malfunction or vehicle condition for which a particular telltale is designed to warn the driver and not to a situation where all telltales are designed to collectively warn of a malfunction or vehicle condition.

Our interpretation is not dependent on whether a vehicle is equipped with a telltale for electrical charge or not.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

December 26, 1980 Our Ref. No. NH84/20

Re: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 101 Controls and Displays

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request your interpretation regarding the telltale lighting condition specified in the last sentence, shown below, of S5.3.1 of Standards No. 101.

"A telltale shall not emit light except when identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting."

(Underline is added.)

We are now studying a bulb check system that operates while the ignition switch is turned to "ON" position and the engine is not running. If this system is adopted, all telltales subjected to the bulb check may emit light simultaneously when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system.

Under the above-mentioned conditions, we would like to have your confirmation whether the following interpretation is correct.

The simultaneous lighting of all telltales subjected to the bulb check when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system could not be any violation of the requirements of S5.3.1, because it is the vehicle condition which "is designed" for all telltales to emit light by a manufacturer.

If the interpretation depends on whether a vehicle is equipped with "a telltale for electrical charge" or not, the interpretations in both cases would be appreciated.

Your prompt interpretation on this matter would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Wataru Hayashibara Manager Certification Business Division

cc: Mazda (North America), Inc. Mazda (North America), Inc. Detroit Office

ID: 1985-02.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Dick Kruse -- Secondary Schools Principals Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dick Kruse Secondary Schools Principals Association 1904 Association Drive Reston, Virginia 22091

This responds to your May 1, 1985 telephone call to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applying to buses used for school extracurricular activities. You were especially interested in the agency's regulatory definition of "school bus" which was adopted pursuant to enactment of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Public Law 93-492; hereinafter "the Schoolbus Safety Amendments").

In the Schoolbus Safety Amendments, Congress defined "school bus" as:

a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.

The legislative history of the Schoolbus Safety Amendments shows that Congress chose to specify a broad definition of a school bus, so as to require vehicles used solely for extracurricular activities to meet the same safety standards as buses used to transport the children to and from school. Congress intended NHTSA to set forth a regulatory definition of a school bus that encompassed any bus likely to be significantly used for student transportation.

The agency's definition of a school bus is in accordance with the Congressional definition of that term. The agency definition is found in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). A school bus is defined as:

a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Our regulations further define "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

The enclosed materials include a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60035; December 31, 1975) amending the agency's definition of school bus to conform to the mandate of the Schoolbus Safety Amendments, and materials on the legislative history of Title II of the Amendments, Schoolbus Safety. Pursuant to your request, I have also enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and information describing our motor vehicle safety standards and how you csn obtain copies of those standards.

You expressed an interest in Secretary Dole's response to Representative Cheney's recent letter regarding NHTSA's regulations for activity buses used by school districts. A copy of that letter is enclosed.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 MAY 14, 1985 The Honorable Dick Cheney House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Dick:

Thank you for your letter requesting clarification of the Department's regulations pertaining to the use by school districts of commercial-type buses as activity buses. appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

You requested clarification of whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the sale of a used commercial-type bus to a school district for use on activity trips. The Act only applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Thus, persons selling a used bus to a Wyoming school district are not subject to the Act's requirement to sell certified school buses, and a used commercial-type bus, regardless of its model year, may be sold as an activity bus.

You also had several questions about Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. You are correct that states have discretion to adopt all or part of Standard No. 17, and that the standard has no direct effect on the purchase of used buses by local school districts. Congress has given the Department the discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While the Department has stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistant with Standard No. 17, the Department has not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

You asked whether Wyoming school districts can obtain an administrative waiver from the requirements of Standard No. 17 if Wyoming has adopted the standard as its own policy. Since a state has the discretion to adopt and amend Standard No. 17 as it determines to be necessary for its highway safety program, the effect of Standard No. 17 on Wyoming school districts is a matter for the state to decide. An administrative waiver from NHTSA is therefore not necessary.

I trust this letter has clarified our regulations for school buses.

With best wishes. Sincerely, Elizabeth Hanford Dole

ID: 1985-02.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Chris Condon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Chris Condon 5639 Lightspun Lane Columbia, MD 21045

Thank you for your March 1, 1985 letter to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the ignition interlock in your 1980 Volkswagen Rabbit. I regret the delay in our response. You ask whether an automobile dealer may legally disconnect this safety belt interlock.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The safety belt interlock system in your vehicle is not required by any of our safety standards. In addition, Section 108(a)(2)(C) of the Act expressly allows dealers to disconnect safety belt ignition interlocks. Thus, your dealer may disconnect the ignition interlock system without violating the "render inoperative" provision.

Please note, however, that a dealer who undertakes such a task must not render inoperative any device that is required by a vehicle safety standard. For example, the dealer may not remove the safety belts themselves nor disconnect a belt warning system required by our standards. You state that there is some confusion over the actual effects of disconnecting the interlock system. Before undertaking the procedure, your dealer should determine whether the belt warning system required by our standards would in fact still operate after disconnection of the interlock.

Also, you are correct that you, as an individual vehicle owner, are not subject to the "render inoperative" provision of the Vehicle Safety Act. Although the agency believes that motor vehicle safety devices are important and should not be tampered with, you may alter any safety feature in your car, even if the feature was installed to comply with our regulations.

I hope that I have answered your question. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

5639 Lightspun Lane Columbia. MD 21045 March 1, 1985

Mr. Steven Oesch National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve,

As per our phone conversation of February 27. I am writing to request your legal opinion regarding the following:

Our 1980 Rabbit diesel has a passive restraint system which was a manufacturer's standard feature on the car when we purchased it. The seat belts in the front must be engaged or the car cannot be started. You told me that as an individual I could legally, disconnect the system allowing me to use the seat belts but not having the procedure linked to the starting of the car.

My question is - can a car dealer's mechanic at his place of employment disconnect the electrical connection legally? I have been told conflicting statements by two persons who work in Volkswagon service as to whether all belt warning would be eliminated if the belt- starter connection were to be severed. I plan to write to the appropriate person in the company to obtain a written opinion.

Your help is appreciated. Cordially, (Mrs.) Chris Condon