ID: nht93-3.12

DATE: April 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kirk Brown -- Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-15-93 from Kirk Brown to John Womack (OCC 8442)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 15, 1993, inquiring "whether modifying the throttle controls on a school bus so that a short person can operate it would jeopardize the manufacturer's certification that a bus is in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" (FMVSS's).

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.; Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 124, ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS (49 CFR Part 571.124). Standard No. 124 "establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control." The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements.

If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new bus prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would probably be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. As an alterer, that person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR S567.7.)

If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the "render inoperative" prohibition in S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

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

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from modifying the throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition.

You ask whether NHTSA could grant a waiver to allow a school bus company to modify the throttle control on its vehicles. The Safety Act provides that

NHTSA may by regulation exempt a person from the "render inoperative" prohibition if the agency determines that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. Based on the information in your letter, we believe it would be unlikely that the agency would decide that an exemption is appropriate for any modification that would prevent the throttle from returning to idle. Such an exemption would increase the incidence of engine overspeed and the likelihood of possible crashes resulting from this condition. That the vehicle in question is a school bus makes the safety concerns even more compelling.

You should be aware that the "render inoperative" prohibition only applies to the commercial entities listed in S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

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

ID: nht93-3.13

DATE: April 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Larry Bluthardt -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Kansas Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-19-93 from Larry Bluthardt to Patricia Breslin (OCC 8458)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 19, 1993, concerning the use of built-up foot operated throttle controls. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

1. IS THERE A VIOLATION OF THE FMCSR'S IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FMVSS CONCERNING THE MODIFICATION OF A SCHOOL BUS FOOT OPERATED THROTTLE CONTROL OR OTHER EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS THAT MAY RELATE TO THE PHYSICAL ACCOMMODATION OF A COMMERCIALLY LICENSED DRIVER TO PERFORM HIS OR HER DUTIES BEHIND THE WHEEL?

My answer is limited to a discussion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's), since NHTSA issued these under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.; Safety Act). The Federal motor carrier safety regulations (FMCSR's) are issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on the FMCSR's you should contact:

Office of Motor Carrier Standards Room 3404 Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-1790

The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 124, ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEM (49 CFR S571.124). Standard No. 124 "establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control." The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new, completed school bus) prior to the new vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR S567.7.) If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA

requirement that would affect the modification is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

That section provides that:

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

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business listed in S108(a)(2)(A) from modifying the foot operated throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the foot operated throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition.

Please note that the render inoperative prohibition only applies to the named commercial entities. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

2. IF WE CAN MODIFY THE FOOT OPERATED THROTTLE CONTROL TO THE VEHICLE (SCHOOL BUS), DOES THE MODIFICATION REQUIRE SPECIFIC REGISTRATION, CERTIFICATION, OR INSPECTION PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION?

FOR EXAMPLE: CAN THE MODIFICATION BE MADE AND INSTALLED LOCALLY, OR SHOULD THE MODIFICATION BE PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BY A CERTIFIED COMMERCIAL VENDOR I.E., MANUFACTURER.

NHTSA does not limit who may modify vehicles,and does not approve modifications or motor vehicle designs. Thus, the person making the modification does not receive any NHTSA approval prior to making the modification. If the modification is made by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, S108(a)(2)(A) would be a factor in how the modification may be performed. As explained above, those persons must not render inoperative any device or design installed pursuant to an FMVSS.

State law might affect how a throttle control can be modified on a vehicle. We suggest you consult with your State as to whether its law might affect the registration or inspection of the modified vehicle.

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

ID: nht93-3.14

DATE: April 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Dann T. Deaver -- President, Origins International Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from Dann T. Deaver to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8516); Also attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Matthew J. Plache; Also attached to letter dated 10-31-88 from Erika Z. Jones (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Hiroshi Kato; Also attached to letter dated 4-16-85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Alexander E. Nagy

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 30, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have asked for the Department's position on an electric vehicle to be developed by your company. You state that the vehicle "will be marketed as a closed community vehicle for retirement communities, closed club grounds, on site/off road/construction vehicles, theme parks, resorts, etc." It is also designed for use as a golf cart. The vehicle would have a top speed of 25 mph.

The jurisdiction of this agency over a vehicle depends upon whether it is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Under the Act, a motor vehicle is one that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways."

It appears from your letter that your planned vehicle could readily be used on the public highways. On the other hand, you plan to market the vehicle exclusively for off-road use. I have attached copies of two previous letters (December 3, 1991, addressed to Matthew J. Plache, Esq., and October 31, 1988, addressed to Mitsubishi) which address five factors that are relevant for determining whether such a vehicle is considered a motor vehicle. I have also enclosed a copy of an April 16, 1985 letter, addressed to Mr. Alexander E. Nagy, which discusses whether golf carts are considered motor vehicles.

If you wish to submit information relevant to the factors discussed in the enclosed letters, we would be pleased to consider it and offer you an opinion regarding your vehicle.

ID: nht93-3.15

DATE: April 23, 1993 EST

FROM: Patrick P. Radice -- Director of Operations, Electronics Division, Tridon

TO: Chief Counsel -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-5-93 from John Womack to Patrick P. Radice (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: We understand aftermarket manufacturers of turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers must certify their flashers comply with the applicable requirements specified in FMVSS-108 prior to sale.

For vehicles having combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flashers, must the manufacturer certify the aftermarket flasher also meet both the turn signal and hazard warning flasher requirements of FMVSS-108 or can they certify their flashers to meet either the turn signal flasher or hazard warning signal flasher or FMVSS-108 but not both?

I look forward to your response.

ID: nht93-3.16

DATE: April 23, 1993

FROM: Wayne S. Ferguson -- Research Manager, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation, Transportation Research Council

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/30/93 from John Womack to Wayne Ferguson (A41; Std. 108; VSA 103(d); VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The Virginia General Assembly recently passed a joint resolution requesting the Department of Motor Vehicles and other designated state entities to study the desirability of allowing deceleration lights on semitrailer-trucks in the Commonwealth (see attached). The purpose of these lights would be to warn following traffic of non-braking deceleration by trucks, thereby preventing potential rear-end collisions.

The Virginia Transportation Research Council has been asked to evaluate any potential legal problems regarding state regulation of such deceleration lights. Of primary concern is the potential federal pre-emption in the area of vehicle safety equipment.

I am writing to request your opinion on two questions. First, do the current federal regulations and standards dealing with various vehicle safety devices pre-empt Virginia's proposal to permit deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth? Second, if such state action would be pre-empted, what is the proper course of action to obtain federal approval of the use of deceleration lights?

I would appreciate your legal opinion on these questions, as well as any additional comments you may have on this matter.

Attachment

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 247

Requesting the Department of Motor Vehicles, in cooperation with the Center for Innovative Technology, the Motor Carrier Division of the State Corporation Commission, and the State Police, to study the use of deacceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth.

Agreed to by the Senate, February 25, 1993 Agreed to by the House of Delegates, February 23, 1993

WHEREAS, trucks often deaccelerate without use of brakes, such as when traveling uphill; and

WHEREAS, such deacceleration can pose a hazard to following traffic which is given no warning of the deacceleration; and WHEREAS, deacceleration lights on trucks may provide an appropriate warning to following traffic; and

WHEREAS, such deacceleration lights are not currently permitted in the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth should study the desirability of permitting deacceleration lights on trucks; and

WHEREAS, if the Commonwealth decides to allow such deacceleration lights on trucks, appropriate standards should be developed to dictate their use; now therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That the Department of Motor Vehicles, in cooperation with the Center for Innovative Technology, the Motor Carrier Division of the State Corporation Commission, and the State Police, be requested to study the desirability of allowing deacceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth, the types of deacceleration lights which currently exist, and the appropriate standards which should dictate their use.

The Department shall complete its work in time to submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the 1994 Session of the General Assembly as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents.

ID: nht93-3.17

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Jeff Gerner -- Product Engineering Manager, Banner Welder, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-25-93 from Jeff Gerner to NHTSA, Office of the Chief Council (OCC 8268)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about whether the mobile screening and shredding equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that your equipment is designed to be used primarily in off-road environments such as compost sites similar to landfills, but may be towed over the public roads to multiple sites. You stated that most purchasers of your equipment use it at an off-road site for extended time periods, but occasionally the equipment will be moved from one off-road to another off-road site on a more frequent basis. You stated that it would be inconvenient for your equipment to comply with Standard No. 121's emergency braking requirements because a truck with an air brake system would be needed at all times to move your equipment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, this agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"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."

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the literature provided in your letter and the subsequent telephone conversation, the agency believes that the on-highway use of your equipment is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured.

Accordingly, it appears that your mobile screener and shredder are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, they would not be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

This conclusion is based on the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. We note that while your letter stated that your equipment may be moved "daily or weekly" on the public roads to other sites, you stated in the telephone conversation that such frequent movement is rare and that this equipment is primarily for off-road purposes. The agency would reconsider this determination if it obtained information indicating that the equipment's on-highway use is more than "incidental."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.18

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Arvind V. Rajan -- Vice President, Marketing and Planning, Solectria Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from Arvind V. Rajan to John Womack (OCC 8505)

TEXT: We have received your letter of March 30, 1993, asking for confirmation that Solectria Corporation is permitted to import nonconforming motor vehicles for conversion to electric power, provided that the vehicles will be exported immediately following conversion. The vehicle you wish to import is the Suzuki Swift, similar to the Suzuki Swift that has been certified by its manufacturer for sale in the United States, except that the steering column is on the right hand side, and that it has not been certified.

There is no section of the importation provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) that directly permit the importation of nonconforming vehicles for purposes of repair or alteration. Obviously, the failure of such vehicles to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards poses no risk of traffic accidents, or deaths and injuries resulting from such accidents if these vehicles are never driven on the public roads. In these instances, the agency tries to provide an interpretation of the Act that is consistent with both the purpose of the Act and the facts at hand.

Section 108 (b)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)), in effect, allows importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle "intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle ... and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported." As the legislative history of this section makes clear, "(t)his legislation does not purport to establish standards for motor vehicles ... to be used entirely outside the United States." (House Report 1776, page 24). Section 108(b)(3) has been implemented by 49 CFR 591.5(c). We believe that, under the facts as described in your letter, it would be appropriate for Solectria to import nonconforming Suzuki Swifts for conversion to electric power pursuant to paragraph 591.5(c). The vehicles have not been imported for use on the American roads, but solely for export following their conversion. We assume that Solectria will label the converted vehicles and their containers, if applicable, in accordance with the regulatory requirement.

If we may help you in any other way, please let us know.

ID: nht93-3.19

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Brett J. Higgins

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-93 from Brett J. Higgins to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8493)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1993 to former Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to an item of equipment you wish to sell. According to your letter, the item is a

special clamp that is applied to the shoulder strap of a seatbelt as an after-market item. The purpose of this clamp is to allow for slack in the shoulder harness section of a seatbelt thus allowing it to be worn more comfortably.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 ET SEQ.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION (49 CFR S571.208). This standard requires new motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts and requires that those belts meet specified fit and comfort requirements, as set forth in S7 of the standard. However, Standard No. 208 does not apply to aftermarket items that seek to alter belt fit and/or comfort. Hence, you are not required to certify that this device complies with Standard No. 208 before offering the device for sale.

In addition, you are not required to get some sort of "approval" from this agency before offering this device for sale. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we 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. As stated above, this device is not subject to any safety standard, so you do not have to make any certification.

Although none of our safety standards directly apply to this device, there are several provisions in the Safety Act that are relevant. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your belt positioning device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturer, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative,"

in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. There are two elements of design in a vehicle that might be "rendered inoperative" by the use of your belt positioning device. One is the occupant protection afforded by belts that meet the specified fit and comfort requirements. The other element of design that could be rendered inoperative by the use of your device is the burn resistance required by Standard No. 302, FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS (49 CFR S571.302). The materials used in the interior of vehicles, including the seat belts, seat backs and cushions, trim panels, and headliner must comply with the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 to reduce deaths and injuries in the event of a fire in the vehicle's interior. If your device renders inoperative the belt fit and comfort requirements specified in Standard No. 208 or does not comply with burn resistance requirements, it could not be installed in a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop.

I note that NHTSA has received a number of inquiries about devices similar to the one you plan to sell. As we have advised others, this agency is concerned that a belted occupant could inadvertently use such products to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt and thereby reduce the effectiveness of that belt. We encourage you to provide instructions with the product that warn users not to introduce excessive slack and provide detailed guidance for users on what is an excessive amount of slack.

I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of NHTSA's regulations and provides information on how to obtain copies of those regulations.

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

ID: nht93-3.2

DATE: April 14, 1993

FROM: Lanny Kness -- Coach Design Engineer, Chance Coach, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Interpretation of S5.1 and S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Larry Kness (A41; Std. 101; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Chance Coach is a manufacturer of transit buses, and we are soliciting a written interpretation of two parts of FMVSS 101.

First, S5.1 divides specific motor vehicle controls into three categories: hand-operated controls, foot-operated controls, and displays. If a specific control is furnished, then is it required to be operated per the category's operation? For example: the turn signal control would be hand-operated, the service brake would be foot-operated and the highbeam control could be either hand- or foot-operated. Or should S5.1 be interpreted to mean: if a control is furnished and it is operated in this manner (hand- or foot-), then the following sections of S5.2 and S5.3 apply?

Currently, the turn signal controls of transit buses are mounted to the floor. This position has been used in the transit bus industry since FTA (then UMTA) issued the BASELINE ADVANCED DESIGN TRANSIT COACH SPECIFICATION (referred to as the "White Book"). As stated in the White Book, the turn signals are to be foot-operated momentary contact switches. Do foot-operated turn signals meet S5.1 of FMVSS 101?

A second interpretation is required on S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101. In a transit bus, the furnished controls are located on the dash, and they are illuminated by back lighting their identification. A dimmer switch provides illumination of the identifications over a continuous range. Typically, the windshield wiper/washer controls are provided by a vendor, and they are also installed on the dash. The windshield wiper/washer identifications are located on the control knobs, and they are not backlit. At night, the control knob's identifications are barely discernible from the indirect lighting coming from the other identifications and displays, and very discernible by turning the overhead driver's controlled light on. Does this comply with S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101?

Please contact me at (316) 941-1614, if additional information is needed.

Enclosure

Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration BASELINE ADVANCED DESIGN TRANSIT COACH SPECIFICATIONS A Guideline Procurement Document for New 35- and 40-Foot Coach Designs November 1978 (pages II-35 through II-37) (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: nht93-3.20

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: T. Kouchi -- Director, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-2-93 from T. Kouchi to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 2, 1993, to Paul Jackson Rice, the former Chief Counsel of this agency.

You refer to Mr. Rice's letter of December 30, 1992, which you interpret as saying that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You consider "that the lamps having three lighted sections described in the attached drawing No. 1 & No. 2 need only comply with the photometric requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You ask "if our idea is appropriate."

We confirm your interpretation with respect to drawing No. 1, which appears essentially the same as covered by Mr. Rice's interpretation. With respect to drawing No. 2, this lamp appears to be composed of a panel of LEDs flanked by two incandescent bulbs. When the LED panel alone is operated, or when it is operated in conjunction with either one or both of the incandescent bulbs the requirements applicable to three lighted sections will apply. However, each bulb is regarded as being a single light source so that if the bulbs are operated individually, only the requirements for single lighted sections apply.

If the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform the same function, the requirements for two lighted sections apply. However, if the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform different functions, the single lighted section requirements apply and all other requirements such as contrast ratios (e.g., the 1:5 for tail and stop lamps) must be met.