ID: nht94-9.6

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs, MCI/TMC (Manitoba)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 7/30/93 from C.N. (Norm) Littler to Mary Versailles (OCC 8951)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX and phone call of July 30, 1993 to Mary Versailles of my office. Your FAX enclosed information on a vehicle, the AMF Invader, which is built on a remanufactured MCI chassis, and advertised and sold as a new vehicle. You do not believe that such a vehicle should be considered a new vehicle. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, we can explain whether such a vehicle would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the implications of such a determination. I suggest you also contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it is appropriate to advertise this vehicle as new. To determine whether this vehicle can be titled and registered as new, you would have to contact the various states concerning their laws.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle's first retail sale, a provision affecting its modification is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) which provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, andy device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

It is possible that modifications on an existing vehicle may be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle for purposes of compliance with the safety standards. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such modifications were completed.

The agency has stated that a bus built with a new body is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle (see, for example, August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer). The agency has also stated that a bus constructed from an old body and a new chassis is a new vehicle (see, for example, July 17, 1981 letter to Mr. Larry Louderback). When neither the body nor the chassis are completely new, the agency looks to see if the vehicle has so deviated from the original components and attributes that it may be considered an new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a used vehicle (see, for example, April 22, 1991 letter to Mr. Kent Morris).

You enclosed an article titled "The New Invader" from the August 1993 issue of National Bus Trader magazine. The manufacturing process for the Invader is described beginning on page 14. Page 16 of this article states, "the Invader is supplied with a new engine," but the article does not contain enough information to determine whether the vehicle, which includes both new and old parts, would be considered new. If the Invader has a new body, NHTSA would consider the vehicle to be new if the chassis lacks the used components referenced in the Farmer letter. Any new vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture before the vehicle can be sold in the United States.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9544

Mr. Bob Carver
Product Engineering
Wayne Wheeled Vehicles
13311 Industrial Parkway
Marysville, OH 43040

Dear Mr. Carver:

This responds to your letter of January 8, 1994, asking two questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follow.

1.There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specification in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Opening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.

Your question specifically concerns how the "maximum unobstructed opening" of a side door is measured when the opening is partially obstructed by a seat. In the case of the illustrated door exit, occupants would use the exit by movement along the floor. This would be considered in determining the extent of an obstruction. None of the four examples you enclosed with your letter correctly illustrates the area that would be credited for the illustrated exit. The following regions would not be credited for this exit: (1) the area visually obstructed by the seat; (2) your region A2, an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; (3) your region A5, an area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; and (4) your region A8, an area bounded by the seat leg, the floor, the lower edge of the seat bottom, and the edge of the door forward of the seat. Because the seat would make the last three regions unusable as exit space for a person traveling along the floor of the bus towards the exit, they would not be credited for that exit.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

2.Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a):

"Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate, .... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e., FMVSS 302)?

The answer to your question is yes. The agency addressed this issue in an October 2, 1978, letter to Mr. E.M. Ryan of Ward Industries, Inc. I am enclosing a copy of this letter.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:217 d:3/24/94

ID: nht80-1.17

DATE: 02/26/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in several Toyota vehicle models (Corolla Sedan, Corolla Coupe, Corona Sedan and Starlet). You assert that the rear seat hip room in these models ranges from 39.4 inches to 42.6 inches, and ask whether the vehicles would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.

Under the strict measurement technique specified in the amended definition of "designated seating position" (SAE J1100a), the Toyota vehicle models in question would have the hip room dimensions you state. This is due to the fact that the SAE procedure specifies that hip room is to be the minimum dimension of the seat cushion. The Toyota designs include wheel wells and contoured side paddings at the intersection of the seat back and seat cushion that establish the minimum dimension of the seat. However, these structures only extend out 4 to 5 inches (approximation) from the seat back. If the hip room of the rear seats is measured midway of the seat cushion, all of the designs have greater than 50 inches of hip room, and ostensibly should have three designated seating positions. Nevertheless, since according to the measurement technique specified in the definition these seats have substantially less than 50 inches of hip room, the agency must conclude that the rear seats could qualify as having only two designated seating positions. This opinion is accompanied with several candid remarks, however.

The effective hip room of the Toyota seat designs is much greater than the approximately 40 inches that is obtained by the technical measuring technique specified in the definition. If two outboard occupants move their hips several inches forward from the seat back in these vehicle designs, the wheel-wells and contoured side paddings are no longer impediments and there is over 50 inches of hip room, as noted above. Moreover, the design of these rear seats is such that use of the center position is "invited." There is at least 10 to 12 inches of well-padded hip room at the center portion of the seat between the inboard ends of the two seat belt assemblies installed in the seats. The manufacturer has given no indication that this space is not intended for occupancy. The agency is also concerned that this center position has no belt assembly to secure a child restraint system, particularly since the rear-center seat is statistically the safest position in a vehicle.

Frankly, with the wide center space that is available in these rear seat designs, we do not believe the manufacturer has made a sincere attempt to indicate to vehicle occupants that the seats are intended for use by only two occupants. It would be a simple matter for the manufacturer to make this obvious by use of a fixed armrest or some other impediment to use of the position. Furthermore, we believe that this message can be given to occupants without otherwise compromising the design the manufacturer wishes to achieve. If the manufacturer does not in fact wish to market the vehicles as having three-passenger rear seats, we do not understand why wide, well-padded center positions are present.

Finally, I am enclosing a copy of an earlier interpretation which discusses the measurement procedure included in the definition of "designated seating position." As that interpretation pointed out, the agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition by finding "loopholes" in the specified measurement procedure. If designs such as those displayed in the Toyota vehicles persist, without some clear indication that the center position is not to be used, the agency may find it necessary to amend the definition to provide that the hip room measurement is to be taken at the midpoint of the seat cushion. We hope that manufacturers will voluntarily alter designs of this type to conform to the intent of the definition, so that such an amendment is not necessary.

SINCERELY,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

January 17, 1980

Ralph Hitchcock Chief, Crashworthiness Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

This is to confirm our request, made by Mr. Donald Schwentker, Attorney-at-Law, for a meeting with appropriate National Highway Traffic Safety Administration personnel on Tuesday, January 29, 1980, to seek an interpretation of the designated seating position definition as it applies to several specific Toyota vehicles, as follows:

* Corolla Sedan

* Corolla Coupe

* Corona Sedan

* Starlet ('81 Model)

As you requested, Toyota will bring all vehicles to NHTSA's office on that date.

Our Attorney will contact you by telephone to work out the arrangements.

J. Kawano General Manager

ID: deyoung.ztv

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This responds to your letter dated November 15, 2002, and your letter of November 19, 2002, which responded to my letter to you dated November 14, 2002. I regret that your letters were misplaced and that you had to contact us several times.

The subject matter of our correspondence is the flash rate of hazard warning signal flashers. Your letter of November 15 (written before you had received my November 14 reply to your letter of October 18) stated your understanding that the agencys interpretation to Robert A. Belcher in 1980 was applicable to your flasher as well. Mr. Belcher had developed a dual mode hazard flasher, which flashed at a constant rate in one mode. In the other, or "distress," mode, the flasher alternated between a short flash and a long flash to simulate the international distress signal "S.O.S."We understood that the flash rate of the emergency distress signal mode would be 71 flashes per minute, and we informed Mr. Belcher that if it maintained this flash rate and met other requirements of J945, "it should qualify" (our letter of October 30, 1980). We further informed Representative Norm Shumway on July 30, 1984, with respect to Mr. Belchers device, that "We find nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes a dual mode flash for hazard flashers, provided that the flash rates chosen [comply], adding that "current flashers, of course, operate at a constant rate." We do not appear to have provided any other interpretations regarding flashers operating at a rate other than constant.

On November 19, you replied to my letter of November 14, stating that your system was designed to produce 120 cycles per minute and that you did not agree with our calculations which indicated a rate of more than 120 cycles per minute. I would note here that, in contrast to the Belcher system which operated at a flash rate of only 71 per minute, the 120 flashes per minute that you ascribe to your system is the maximum that the standard permits.

As I mentioned in my letter of November 14, SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966, is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 as the Federal requirement for flashers. Paragraph 3 of SAE J945 specifies that the "flashing rate . . . shall be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles." (our emphasis). You are correct in your remark that in our calculation we took "an arithmetic average of three flash rates without considering the amount of time each uses," and that this was an "unweighted average." We do not read the word "average" in SAE J945 as meaning anything other than an arithmetic average. Thus, in our opinion, compliance with Standard No. 108 requires that the flash rate be met over an arithmetic average of any number of three or more consecutive cycles that may be chosen after a minimum of five consecutive cycles have occurred since activation of the signal. Thus, your flash rate increases to 144.3 per minute if we measure the rate over 4 cycles, and to 148.7 per minute if we measure the rate over 5 cycles.

Your letter of November 15 also asked for confirmation that it would be permissible for a truck or bus owner to install your flasher even if it did not meet Standard No. 108s flash rate requirements. Paragraph S5.8.1 of Standard No. 108 requires that lighting equipment manufactured to replace original equipment be designed to conform to the standard. We regard your device as a flasher intended to replace a flasher manufactured in accordance with SAE J945. Thus, its flash rate must be within the parameters specified in SAE J945. The flash rate exceeds the maximum rate specified. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or introduce in interstate commerce any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard and is not certified as meeting that standard. Under 49 U.S.C. 30165, a person who violates Section 30112(a) is liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation, up to $15,000,000 for a related series of violations. Thus, we do not anticipate that you will manufacture and sell your device, and the question of installation is moot.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.8/7/03

ID: Roberts.1.wpd

Mr. Mark Roberts
Engineering Manager
B&R Manufacturing Inc.
4600 Wyland Drive
Elkhart, IN 46516

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This responds to your letter asking whether it would be permissible for a member of the transit bus industry to replace a required passenger-side, flat unit magnification mirror installed on new buses having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) with a 40" to 60"-radius convex mirror. As discussed in a conversation with Eric Stas of my staff, your company manufactures the aftermarket mirrors in question, and you seek confirmation of "What is [a] legal and an illegal mirror once the buses are in revenue service?"

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale.

One of the safety standards we have issued is FMVSS No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors" (49 CFR 571.111). FMVSS No. 111 sets different requirements for buses depending on the GVWR. Buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg must meet the requirements of S7.1, which requires outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 323 cm² of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must install mirrors that comply with S7.1 in order to certify new buses covered under the standard.

After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the "make inoperative" provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1). Thus, a manufacturer of new transit buses or other commercial entity repairing or modifying such buses could not replace a mirror complying with FMVSS No. 111 with another mirror that does not comply with the standard. However, it would be permissible to install your convex mirror on the passenger side of the bus as a supplement to a unit magnification mirror that meets all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 111.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her own vehicle. Consequently, NHTSA regulations do not prevent transit bus companies from making changes to their own used buses in their own garages or repair and maintenance facilities, even if they cause a vehicle to no longer comply with NHTSA safety standards. However, we urge vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including those required by FMVSS No. 111.

Further, I note that the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. Under FMCSA regulations, there is a provision related to "rear-vision mirrors" at 49 CFR 393.80, which provides in relevant part:

Every bus, truck, and truck tractor shall be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each side, firmly attached to the outside of the motor vehicle, and so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear, along both sides of the vehicle. All such regulated rear-vision mirrors and their replacements shall meet, as a minimum, the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 (49 CFR 571.111) in force at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

49 CFR 393.80(a). Thus, for vehicles covered under FMCSA regulations, there is an ongoing requirement for rear-vision mirrors that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. You or transit bus owners should contact Larry Minor of the FMCSA at (202) 366-4009 for further information about this regulation and the vehicles to which it applies.

In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you or transit bus owners should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:111
d.9/5/03

ID: weeengin.crs

Mr. Jon Shippee
Wee Engineer Inc.
P.O. Box 39
Dayton, IN 47941

Dear Mr. Shippee:

This is in response to your letter of December 13, 1996, in which you state that Wee Engineer Inc. wishes to be registered with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as a vehicle manufacturer under 49 CFR Part 566. You request our assistance in determining the proper classification of the company as a vehicle manufacturer, and in identifying the necessary actions that the company should take.

As described in your letter, Wee Engineer purchases used tractors and trucks and disassembles the components that were added to those vehicles by previous final stage manufacturers, restoring them to the configuration they were in at the incomplete vehicle stage. The company then may either lengthen or shorten the unit, or add or subtract axles and springs, depending on the application for which the vehicle is intended. Additionally, the company may either raise or lower the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) originally assigned to the vehicle to meet its intended application.

You state that Wee Engineer is aware that the original certification label must remain on the vehicle. However, the company is concerned that the GVWR identified on that label will not be accurate following the modifications that it performs. As a consequence, you have asked whether Wee Engineer could add an additional label, identifying the GVWR of the vehicle as reconfigured by the company. Incident to this request, you have asked whether Wee Engineer qualifies as a vehicle manufacturer subject to the vehicle certification requirements in 49 CFR Part 567, and if not, whether there is an exception to those requirements that would allow the company to affix certification labels. Alternatively, you have asked whether Part 567 could be amended to grant certification responsibilities to manufacturers who modify a used vehicle's GVWR or change its classification.

From the information you have provided, it appears that Wee Engineer modifies used vehicles and then installs new body and work performing components on those vehicles. Because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are issued by NHTSA apply only to new vehicles, those are the only vehicles that must be certified as complying with the standards under 49 CFR Part 567.

NHTSA has issued a regulation at 49 CFR 571.7(e) that specifies the applicability of the standards to vehicles that are assembled from both new and old components. That regulation provides that "[w]hen a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle."

From your description of the manufacturing operations that Wee Engineer conducts, it appears that the engine, transmission and drive axles on the vehicles it assembles are used, and were all originally found on the same vehicle. As a consequence, Wee Engineer is not required to certify those vehicles under 49 CFR Part 567, and cannot be considered a manufacturer for the purpose of those requirements. As noted in your letter, Wee Engineer must ensure that the original certification label remains on these vehicles. Additionally, to avoid a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(b), the company must not "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [those vehicles] in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

The manufacturer identification requirements in 49 CFR Part 566 apply only to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. See 49 CFR 566.3. Wee Engineer would not be subject to those requirements unless it performs operations other than those described in your letter, which would result in the production of what this agency would regard as a new vehicle under 49 CFR 571.7(e) (i.e., a vehicle in which the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are new, or if used, are taken from three separate vehicles).

In response to your questions regarding Part 567, there is currently no express exception that would allow a party other than the original manufacturer of a vehicle to certify its compliance with applicable safety standards. However, in prior interpretation letters, this Office has recognized that when modifications are made to a used vehicle that change the GVWR identified on its certification label, the modifier is permitted to install an additional label that identifies the GVWR of the vehicle as modified. We have allowed this practice so that owners and users of the vehicle may be apprised as to how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the address above, or by telephone at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567

d:5/2/97

ID: nht92-7.35

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Vernon Wright; Wisconsin Specification File

TITLE: Request for Interpretation: Reference: (1.) 49 CFR Part 571.131 Section S5.5. (2.) Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 300.64 - Stop Signal Arm

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Thomas Turner (A39; Std. 131)

TEXT:

Blue Bird Body Company is in the process of implementing changes to conform to the new stop signal arm requirements of FMVSS 131. Reference 1 requires that, "THE STOP SIGNAL ARM SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum WHENEVER THE RED SIGNAL LAMPS required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 ARE ACTIVATED (emphasis added); except that a device may be installed that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm." The standard continues with requirements for this device including the requirement that an audible signal shall sound when the device is activated.

These requirements are logical and can be implemented in conjunction with the use of the eight light warning systems currently required in 46 of the 50 states; however, when these requirements are considered in terms of a four light warning system, there are certain operational issues that need to be considered. Specifically, the state of Wisconsin requires a four light warning system and a stop signal arm on school buses and has the following requirements for stop signal arms per Reference 2; "(2) Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation."

To meet these requirements, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. In order to comply with the new FMVSS 131 standard, we are adding a warning buzzer that will sound when the alternating red flashing lights are activated but the service door has not yet been opened to activate the stop signal arm. We believe that this system meets the intent of Standard No. 131 but are concerned about compliance with the wording of the standard in terms of requiring "automatic extension" of the stop signal arm. The system described above for Wisconsin provides for manual activation of both the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm and is not "automatic." However, it appears to meet the intent of the standard by having the stop arm extend when the service door is opened and the alternating red flashing lights are on, and by having a warning buzzer activated whenever the arm is not extended and the lights are on.

It is our understanding that the Wisconsin requirements are necessary so that the alternating red flashing lights can be used to warn traffic of an impending stop and the stop signal arm is used to actually stop traffic. They do not

want the stop signal arm to extend automatically when the red lights are activated. For an eight light warning system, the amber lights are used to warn traffic of an impending stop and it is proper for the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm to be activated simultaneously to stop traffic. Since Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require as a minimum a four light warning system and allow an eight light warning system, the requirements of Standard No. 131 must be compatible with both systems.

Based on the above information and reasoning, and with the best interests of school bus safety in mind, Blue Bird requests confirmation that the warning light and stop arm system and operation, as required by Wisconsin and described above, conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 131 section S5.5. Specifically we request written confirmation that when a four light warning system is used and is activated by a driver actuated switch, it is permissible for the stop signal arm to be activated by opening of the service door, provided that an audible signal warns the driver when the alternating red flashing lights are on but the stop signal arm has not been extended.

Blue Bird is working to resolve all system design and operational issues regarding Standard No. 131 in the very near future so that changes in production can be implemented in time to meet the September 1, 1992 effective date. Your prompt consideration and response to this request is, therefore, urgently requested.

ID: aiam5094

"Dear Mr. James: This responds to your letter of October 24, 1992, wit respect to the Tekonsha electronic brake control. You believe that this agency has 'approved' this brake control. Based on your experience towing a travel trailer, you expressed concern about the safety of these particular electronic brake controllers when in service on the public roads, because the stop lamps on the towed vehicle are not activated when the electronic brake control is used to apply the trailer's service brakes. You asked us to review our thinking and 'rewrite the specs on this matter.' Let me begin by emphasizing that this agency has no authority to 'approve,' endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any items of motor vehicle equipment. All that our letters of interpretation purport to do is to answer questions from manufacturers and other members of the public as to whether the manufacture, sale, and/or installation of equipment is permissible under applicable Federal laws and regulations. Our letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, Tekonsha's manufacturer, which you quote at one point, was a letter of interpretation, which concluded that 'it now appears that the sale of the Tekonsha Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.' This letter and conclusion can in no way be read as 'approving,' endorsing, or recommending the use of the Tekonsha system. At this time, we do not have, nor are we aware of, any data indicating that there is a real-world safety problem created by use of the Tekonsha brake control. Hence, we have no reason to change the conclusion announced in the April 3 letter to Echlin about the legality of the Tekonsha control. We would be willing to review this matter again if data become available indicating a potential problem. Thus, if you or any member of your organization learns of any specific safety problems that have arisen for vehicles equipped with the Tekonsha control, please let us know. I appreciate your interest in highway safety. It is only through the concern and support of citizens like yourself that this agency can achieve its goal of minimizing deaths and injuries on this nation's highways. Thank you for taking the time to let us know your thoughts on this matter. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking";

ID: aiam2501

Dear Mr. Whiston: This responds to the British Standards Institution's December 2, 1976 request to know what constitutes 'first purchase of a new motor vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale' as this phrase is used on (sic) S 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1397(b)(1) and S 567.7 of NHTSA regulations (*Part 567--Certification*). You also ask to know the legal basis for any distinction between 'original equipment' and 'replacement equipment' as those terms are used in regulation of motor vehicles and equipment in the United States.; I can confirm your understanding of S 567.7 of our regulations, as se forth in the statements which you designate as '(a)' and '(b)'. With regard to statement '(b)', S 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle incompliance (sic) with an applicable standard. Thus a dealer could not make the sunroof alteration if he knew that installation rendered inoperative the minimum roof crush capabilities specified by Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*.; Your statement designated '(c)' is not necessarily correct. The NHTSA' interpretation of the meaning of 'first purchase' relies substantially on the modifier 'in good faith.' Thus the agency evaluates the circumstances of the purchase with a view to whether or not there is an attempt to circumvent the requirements of law and applicable regulation. For example, when purchasers asked for disconnection of ignition interlock systems by dealers after contracting for the purchase of a vehicle, the agency required that bona fide physical delivery take place without an immediate return of the vehicle to the dealer for disconnection. As a practical matter, the new provision of the Act discussed above (S 108(a)(1)(A)) prohibits dealer action of this type in the future.; Since the 1974 amendments to the Act, there has been a distinctio between 'original equipment' and 'replacement equipment'. I have enclosed a copy of our proposal to implement this distinction for purposes of Federal regulation. I believe your question actually addresses the practices of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. You may wish to contact one or more of those organizations for an answer to your questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2429

Dear Mr. Decker: This is in belated response to your letters of June 22, 1976 concerning the availability of NHTSA interpretation letters and the assignment by vehicle manufacturers of Gross Axle Weight Ratings.; Letters written by this agency that interpret the Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standards or accompanying regulations are regularly compiled by standard or regulation number and placed in a public file (the 'redbooks') in the Docket Section at Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. Copies of these letters are distributed informally by various trade associations, as you have noted. However, there is currently no subscription service available directly from the NHTSA. I recommend that you periodically (bimonthly, perhaps) telephone the Docket Section (202 426-2768) to find out whether entries have recently been made in the Redbooks under the standards and regulations that are of particular concern to you.; You have also asked several questions concerning the relationshi between an axle's Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) and the overloading of that axle when the vehicle is in use. GAWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as; >>>the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.<<<; It is thus a rating assigned by the manufacturer at the time o manufacture. A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably forseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect. Such a vehicle would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1392 *et seq*.).; We cannot prescribe specific steps that a vehicle manufacturer mus take to ensure that a GAWR would not be found so low that it would be a safety-related defect. For example, if a warning in the owner's manual against loading in a certain manner is likely to be ignored, then such a warning would not, by itself, be sufficient. The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel