ID: nht88-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/88

FROM: JOHN S. CROCKENBERG

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO JOHN S CROCKENBERG; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205

TEXT: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Dear Ms. Jones,

I am writing to you after speaking with Joan Tillgham regarding a device I am developing. Ms. Tillgham suggested I obtain and research Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400 through 999; Section 571.103 and 571.111. I have read this vo lume and cannot find any information that applies.

I will describe this device and its purpose to enable you to understand my device and answer my questions.

The device is an antiglare shield for automobiles. It is a 4" x 6" x 1/8" parallelogram with rounded corners made of transparent bronze plexiglass with an attached 1/2" diameter suction cup. It adheres to the interior of automobile windows.

The development of this product was necessitated by the need to deflect obstructive sunglare where conventional sun visors could not be placed.

My questions are:

1) What standards if any apply to this type of product?

2) If no standards apply what might I need to concern myself with before proceeding with the manufacturing and marketing of this device.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

ID: nht88-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: JOSEPH P. FAIA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO JOSEPH P. FAIA FROM ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: This letter is in reference to a vehicle lighting accessory for trucks. But its use is not limited to trucks.

On June 3, 1988 I met with Susan Schruth and Richard Van Iderstine, they advised me on questions of legality and design.

The description below is from my patent application.

ABSTRACT

A system for illuminating two-dimensional displays on the sides of vehicle trailers includes a plurality of reflector light assemblies disposed about the perimeter of a side of a trailer. Each light assembly includes a base which is affixed to the si de of the trailer and carries a light source. A housing formed of both a transparent section and semi-translucent sections is joined to the base and encloses the light source. The transparent housing section faces generally tward the center of the trai ler side surface. A concave reflector in the housing together with lens portions in the transparent housing section act to focus light across the trailer side surface to illuminate the two-dimensional display thereon. A lesser quantity of light passes through the semi-translucent section which are tinted and arranged to function as the running lights commonly seen on trailers.

I have also sent the drawings attached to further help explain.

My questions about the use of this light are:

-- Can this light be used as described, as a combonation side illumination and marker light.

-- As a back-up light and parking light, to be used only in these situations.

-- As a stop light, To come on only when brake is applied.

-- As a light to illuminate the side of trailer only. not in combibnation with marker light.

[DRAWING IMITTED])

(DRAWING OMITTED)

ID: nht88-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Telex Communications, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Bill Hunt, Project Engineer Telex Communications, Inc. 8601 Northeast Highway 6 Lincoln, NE 68505

Dear Mr. Hunt:

This letter responds to your inquiry of November 3, 1987, in which you enclosed a diagram to show the relationship between your company, Telex Communications, Inc. (Telex or your company), and a Telex customer you designated as Company XYZ (or your custo mer). As I understand your diagram, Telex manufactures a trailer which it sells to Company XYZ. Company XYZ then delivers the trailer to its subcontractors, Companies ABC and DEF, who install items such as generators and communications equipment. Your l etter suggests that you are uncertain about your company's certification responsibility. It is your company's position that as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, you should provide the document specified in 49 CFR @568.4(a). On the other hand, your cust omer asserts that as the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Telex must assume legal responsibility for the incomplete vehicle under 49 CFR @568.7(a), and certify the vehicle's compliance under Part 567. On a number of occasions, you spoke with Joan Tilghma n of my staff on the matters raised in your letter.

On the diagram enclosed with your letter, you state that the trailers Telex delivered to Company XYZ are equipped with "running gear, brakes, lights, etc." Telex assigns a VIN, gross axle weight rating, and a gross vehicle weight rating to each railer it delivers to Company XYZ. You are concerned because two contractors with whom you have no relationship add equipment to the trailer after you deliver it to your customer.

First, having reviewed the drawing of the trailer and the narrative information in your letter it is not clear to me whether your trailers are, in fact, incomplete vehicles. You may wish to provide me with information that more completely describes your trailer so that I may give a more definitive answer to your question. A photograph showing the trailer as it is delivered to Company XYZ would be helpful. However, I shall be as responsive as I can be given the information you supplied in your letter.

If the trailers are incomplete vehicles, then Part 568 would not compel your company to certify the trailers' compliance with all applicable Federal safety standards. Under @568.7, Telex may elect to assume legal responsibility for all the certification duties and liabilities imposed on a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and affix the certification label as specified in @567.5(e). But if Telex decides against assuming certification responsibility, then it must supply the incomplete vehicle document specified in @568.4.

If the trailers are completed vehicles which are converted to a different use by Company XYZ through its subcontractors, you must certify them irrespective of whether your customer contracts to have other equipment added to the vehicles after delivery. T he fact that your customer contracts to have a generator and communications equipment added does not mean that the vehicle requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function. The determination of whether a vehicle requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended functions is not a subjective inquiry into what use the particular person to whom the vehicle is delivered intends to make of the vehicle. In previous interpretations, we have explained that the question is whether the particular vehicle type (e.g., trailer, van) requires further manufacturing operations to perform the customary functions that an ordinary purchaser would expect of this vehicle type.

For example, a van that is delivered to a dealer ready for road use is a completed vehicle, even if the dealer intends to send it to a van converter to have different equipment (seats, refrigerators, etc.) installed before selling the van to a retail cus tomer. Similarly, the trailer your company delivers to Company XYZ is a completed vehicle if it needs no further manufacturing operations to perform the functions an ordinary purchaser would expect of a trailer.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), a complete vehicle manufacturer's certification responsibilities apply up to the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. It appears from your let ter that Company XYZ purchases your trailers for purposes other than resale, and that after its purchase, Company XYZ subcontracts with two other companies to add a generator and communications equipment to the trailers. If my assumptions are correct, th en the two subcontracting companies have no certification responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act, because they are modifying vehicles after their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

The only limitations on the modifications those subcontractors can make to the trailers is set out in S108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2)(A)). That section states 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an ap plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

If Company XYZ's subcontractors are "manufacturers," "distributors," "dealers," or "motor vehicle repair businesses" within the meaning of @108 (a) (2) (A), they may not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs that T elex installed in the trailers in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, or wish to provide additional information about the particular relationships that here the subject of this letter, please feel free to contact Ms. Tilghman at th is address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 3, 1987

Chief Counsel - NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Z. Jones

Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing to you concerning the interpretation of CFR 567 and 568 regarding ultimate responsibility for DOT certification.

I have spoken with Joan Tilghman concerning this. She suggested I write to you explaining the circumstances. Please review the enclosed information. I will call soon to discuss this further. Thank you.

Sincerely,

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Hy-Gain Division

Bill Hunt Project Engineer

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS,INC.

The parties:

Telex Communications - Trailer manufacturer Customer: Company XYZ

Company ABC - Generator Manufacturer & Installer Customer: Company XYZ

Company DEF - Radio Equipment Manufacturer & Installer Customer: Company XYZ

Company XYZ - Buyer of trailer & additional Installed equipment.

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Lincoln, NE.

Manufactures a trailer with running gear, brakes, lights, VTN, etc. Total vehicle wt = 8000/9000#

Axle rating - 9000# ea., 18,000# total

Telex work is complete.

Telex' Customer, XYZ has permanent components added to trailer by two other sub contractors (after delivery from Telex). There are items such as generators (1) & communications equipment (2). Telex is aware of general nature and weight and location of added equipment. These factors have been used to determine trailer design. However, Telex does not have any contractual relationship with the other subcontractors. Telex does not install and is not responsible for the installation of the added equipment.

The problem: Certification of trailer.

Telex' position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer and should provide documentation as stipulated in CFR 568.4a.

XYZ's position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer that assumes legal responsibility as in CFR 568.7a. and is responsible for final vehicle certification per 567.5e.

ID: nht88-1.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TITLE: ACTION: ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/01/88 EST, FROM MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN, TO CARL KAPLAN, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/30/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT, TO KENNETH G. MOYER; LETTER DATED 05/02/84, FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: This is in reply to your memorandum of February 19, 1988, with respect to an advanced brake light device developed by ATAT Technology of Israel. You have described the device as one which activates "the stoplamps of a vehicle upon release of the acceler ator and before actual application of the service brake". You attached a draft of a letter to ATAT for our comment, and you have asked for our opinion of the acceptability of the device for aftermarket installation.

We have made minor changes to the draft. As you know, Standard No. 108 contains no requirements directly applicable to vehicles in use, and the sole prohibition of the Vehicle Safety Act directed to vehicles in use is that no manufacturer, dealer, or ve hicle repair business may render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a safety standard. As the device in question appears to involve the wiring of lighting equipment, it does not appear to be a m odification of a nature easily done by a vehicle owner.

The threshold question for the aftermarket is, does a modification of this nature render inoperative in whole or in part a device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. We equate "in accordance with" to mean "necessary for c ompliance with". From your description, we know only one thing about the device: the stoplamps are activated by means other than application of the service brakes.

Both Standard No. 108 and agency interpretations indicate that the device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, and hence be unacceptable as either original or aftermarket equipment. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes."

We assume that all stoplamps on new passenger cars are wired to activate simultaneously. Because activation of the center lamp may only be accomplished by activation of service brakes, and the Israeli device would activate the lamp without brake applica tion, its use would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Although the first sentence of S4.5.4 in contrast with the second does not expressly prohibit application of the lower mounted stoplamps by means other than brake application, the agency has taken the position that all stoplamps on a vehicle must be activated simultaneously (Letter of Oct. 21, 1985 to Kenneth Deane opining that a 35 millisecond delay would be considered "simultaneous"). This means that the vehicle could not be wired so t hat the lower mounted stoplamps would activate upon release of the accelerator but the center lamp would not. For vehicles equipped with the center high-mounted stop lamp, the Israeli device would create a noncompliance with new vehicle requirements, an d, for the aftermarket, result in a wiring and use of lamps noncompliant with new vehicle requirements, hence rendering that system partially ineffective within the meaning of the statute.

With respect to aftermarket installation on vehicles not equipped with center high-mounted lamps, different considerations obtain. In 1981 Kenneth Moyer wrote us about an "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released". We responded on November 30, 1981, citing paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, which defines the lamp as one whose operation indicates the "intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking ". Because Mr. Moyer's device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, we informed him that this device would create an "impairment" and a lack of effectivity as well, and that it would be prohibited. I attach a copy of this letter for your information, as it appears directly on point with the ATAT system, and because some of the agency's comments about the inventor's assumptions appear to remain relevant.

In contrast is the agency's opinion regarding use of the Jacobs brake retarder system, in which the stoplamps are activated when the retarder is in use (see letter of May 2, 1984, to Lawrence Henneberger). The manufacturer argued that use of the stoplam ps when the retarder was activated would indicate "that the vehicle is diminishing its speed by braking. . . ." In Mr. Henneberger's view two 1974 agency interpretations allowing combination of retarder controls with foundation brake controls impliedly r equire activation of the stoplamps when supplementary braking devices are used. The agency agreed with both these arguments.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Attachments

ID: nht88-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/88

FROM: DAVE TAYLOR -- REGIONAL MANAGER/FIELD ENGINEERING BRIDGESTONE

TO: JOHN FORTH -- STANISLAUS COUNTY D.A. OFFICE MODESTO, CA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DONALD N. STAHL RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696 REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119, PART 574; UNDATED LETTER FROM JOHN T. FORTH AND DONALD N. STAHL TO ERIKA Z. JONES NHTSA RE M CCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696, OCC 1749; LETTER DATED 07/13/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JACK DENIJS EXHIBIT 2; LETTER DATED 05/19/87 FROM JACK DENIJS TO ERIKA Z. JONES, SUBJECT COVERED DOT NUMBERS ON REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS; DRAWING OF TIRE DATED 01/14/88, MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS TIRE INFORMATION, EXHIBIT 3

TEXT: Dear Mr. Forth,

Attached is the N.H.T.S.A. letter which I referred to.

The 'E12R22.5 V-Steel Express' is not sold in N. America, however we have confirmed that this tire was specifically designed for rubber tired subway trains in Japan and therefor is not suitable by any means for highway use.

We appreciate the diligence of your office and those people involved in discovering them and removing them from the school bus.

We would definitely like to know the source or importer of these casings, or any other information which would assist us in taking the necessary steps to prevent these casings from being sold & used in N. America.

For your information we do not consider these used tires to be 'grey market' tires. All new truck tires imported to the U.S. must meet the requirements of FMVSS 119 and therefor have D.O.T. markings molded into one sidewall of the tire.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht88-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/02/88

FROM: RONALD R. MITCHELL -- MORAN TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENT

TO: VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT LENS CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/16/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 04/03/89 FROM THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD TO NHTSA; REF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO 108 - HEATED SAFETY LIGHT S FOR VEHICLES DRIVEN IN WINTER WEATHER; OCC 3348; LETTER DATED 01/28/87 FROM GLENN M. MAKI -- COUNTY OF BARAGA MICHIGAN; LETTER DATED 04/02/87 FROM ARVON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL SKANNE MICHIGAN; UNDATED LETTER FROM KENNETH R. HAMMERBERG; BROCHURE OF VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT CO FOR HEATED SAFETY LIGHT; BROCHURE FROM 3M ON DUO PACK ADHESIVES; DYMAX UV CURING ADHESIVES PRODUCT DATA SHEET; SPECIFICATION OF GENERAL PURPOSE WIRE AND CABLE FROM CONSOLIDATED ELECTRONIC WIRE AND CABLE

TEXT: Gentlemen:

We are just finishing our first winter with your heated lens on the flashing hazard lights on one of our buses.

The snow that accumulates on these lights has always posed a problem that required our drivers to stop the bus and clean them off periodically during adverse conditions.

The use of your heated lens has alleviated this problem and we will definitely be replacing the regular lens, with yours, on our entire fleet.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert L. Bernard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert L. Bernard Attorney at Law 12342 Wrenthrope Drive Houston, TX 77031

Dear Mr. Bernard:

This letter responds to your inquiry of August 21, 1987, where you asked for this agency's opinion on whether Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115 (49 CFR S571.115) requires a manufacturer's chrome script name on the trunk of vehicles it manufacture s. It does not.

Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number- Basic Requirements, directs a vehicle manufacturer to place a discrete vehicle identification number (VIN) on each vehicle it manufactures. Under paragraph S4.5, the VIN for any motor vehicle must appear indel ibly on a Dart of the vehicle other than the glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair. Paragraph S4.6 states that the VIN for passenger cars must appear inside the passenger compartment. Title 49 CFR Part 565, VIN-Content Requirement s, states that among other things, the VIN's first three characters must identify the vehicle manufacturer. However, neither Standard 115 or 565 require a manufacturer's name plate to appear on the vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief of Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: FMVSS-115

I have purchased a AC Mark IV motor vehicle manufactured by Autokraft in England which complies with all D.O.T. and E.P.A. rules and regulations and is imported and sold through Ford Motor Company franchised dealers with Ford warranty.

Enclosed please find a copy from the company brochure.

I have requested the deletion of the chrome script name "Autokraft" from the trunk from the manufacturer.

I request your opinion that the above standard and regulation does not require the chrome script name "Autokraft" on the trunk because there is the name and data plate affixed to the body in the engine compartment.

I have discussed this matter with Joan Tilghman and she requested that I write to you.

Please advise.

Very truly yours,

Robert L. Bernard

RLB/kmr/ed

cc: Joan Tilghman

ID: nht88-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Phoenix Transit System

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Robert W. Hocken General Manager Phoenix Transit System P.O. Box 4275 Phoenix, AZ 85030

Dear Mr. Hocken:

This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1987 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have received a "Service Information Safety Related letter" from Flxible Corporation stating that deceleration warning lights installed on your buses do not comply with Standard No. 108. You have also asked how you may file for "Special Exception" if your buses are not in compliance.

This will confirm that Flxible Corporation, pursuant to applicable Federal regulations, has determined that certain buses produced by it, including the 67 units furnished Phoenix, do not comply with Standard No. 108, and has initiated a notification and remedy campaign (Campaign 87V-089). The basis of this determination was the manufacturer's conclusion that flashing amber deceleration warning lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stop lamps. The company has advised you of the corrective action to be taken, that is, to remove the deceleration flasher. Although the agency encourages owners of campaigned vehicles to remedy noncompliances, the decision whether to do so rests with the vehicle owner. There is no Federal requirement that an owner correct a noncompliance that exists in his vehicle, and no penalty for his failure to do so. Thus, no "Special Exception" is either needed or available for an owner who wishes to continue operating a vehicle in a non compliant state.

We are interested in your comment that you experienced a 44 percent reduction in accidents in 1985, the first full year that the system was installed on all your buses, compared with 1984. This report compares favorably with the accident reduction experi enced in our test fleets of passenger cars equipped with center highmounted stop lamps, which has the basis for eventual adoption of that requirement. The agency is engaged in research pertaining to the conspicuity of large vehicles, and would find it he lpful to have a copy of the data upon which you based your comment. It should be sent to Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Research and Development, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, s.w., Washington, D.C. 20590. We appreciate your interest in sa fety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 16, 1987 Taylor Vinson, Legal Counsel Rm 5219 NATHA U S Department of Transportation 400 7th St SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

We request an official interpretation of rule FMVSS 108. We have received a Service Information Safety Related letter from the Flxible Corporation that states that our deceleration lights do not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 108, "lamps, reflecti ve devices and associated equipment."

In the spring of 1982, we began an experiment with 10 buses with DAS (Deceleration Alert System) to see if we could reduce our rear end accidents. The 18 months with the DAS was so successful that we had our entire fleet fitted with the lights. The year of 1985 was the first full year that lights were installed on all our buses. There was a 44 percent reduction in accidents over the previous year (1984).

You can see why we need an official interpretation. If we are not in compliance with FMVSS 108, we need to know how we can file for "Special Exception."

We will need the required forms; who we need to contact; and to whom the forms need to be sent to in order to achieve this Special Exception.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Hocken General Manager

pk

ID: nht88-1.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

TITLE: ACTION: ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/01/88 EST, TO CARL KALPAN, FROM MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/30/81 TO KENNETH G MOYER FROM FRANK BERNDT; LETTER DATED 05/02/84 TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER FROM FRANK BERNDT

TEXT: This is in reply to your memorandum of February 19, 1988, with respect to an advanced brake light device developed by ATAT Technology of Israel. You have described the device as one which activates "the stoplamps of a vehicle upon release of the acceler ator and before actual application of the service brake". You attached a draft of a letter to ATAT for our comment, and you have asked for our opinion of the acceptability of the device for aftermarket installation.

We have made minor changes to the draft. As you know, Standard No. 108 contains no requirements directly applicable to vehicles in use, and the sole prohibition of the Vehicle Safety Act directed to vehicles in use is that no manufacturer, dealer, or v ehicle repair business may render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a safety standard. As the device in question appears to involve the wiring of lighting equipment, it does not appear to be a modification of a nature easily done by a vehicle owner.

The threshold question for the aftermarket is, does a modification of this nature render inoperative in whole or in part a device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. We equate "in accordance with" to mean "necessary for c ompliance with". From your description, we know only one thing about the device: the stoplamps are activated upon release of the accelerator, or conversely, the stoplamps are activated by means other than application of the service brakes.

Both Standard No. 108 and agency interpretations indicate that the device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, and hence be unacceptable as either original or aftermarket equipment. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes."

We assume that all stoplamps on new passenger cars are wired to activate simultaneously. Because activation of the center lamp may only be accomplished by activation of the service brakes, and the Israeli device would activate the lamp without brake app lication, its use would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Although the first sentence of S4.5.4 in contrast with the second does not expressly prohibit application of the lower mounted stoplamps by means other than brake application, the age ncy has taken the position that all stoplamps on a vehicle must be activated simultaneously (Letter of Oct. 21, 1985 to Kenneth Deane opining that a 35 millisecond delay would be considered "simultaneous"). This means that the vehicle could not be wired so that the lower mounted stoplamps would activate upon release of the accelerator but the center lamp would not. For vehicles equipped with the center high-mounted stop lamp, the Israeli device would create a noncompliance with new vehicle requirement s, and, for the aftermarket, result in a wiring and use of lamps noncompliant with new vehicle requirements, hence rendering that system partially ineffective within the meaning of the statute.

With respect to aftermarket installation on vehicles not equipped with center high-mounted lamps, different considerations obtain. In 1981 Kenneth Moyer wrote us about an "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released". We responded on November 30, 1981, citing paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, which defines the lamp as one whose operation indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking ". Because Mr. Moyer's device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, we informed him that his device would create an "impairment" and a lack of effectivity as well, and that it would be prohibited. I a ttach a copy of this letter for your information, as it appears directly on point with the ATAT system, and because some of the agency's comments about the inventor's assumptions appear to remain relevant.

In contrast is the agency's opinion regarding use of the Jacobs brake retarder system, in which the stoplamps are activated when the retarder is in use (see letter of May 2, 1984, to Lawrence Henneberger). The manufacturer argued that use of the stoplam ps when the retarder was activated would indicate "that the vehicle is diminishing its speed by braking...." In Mr. Henneberger's view two 1974 agency interpretations allowing combination of retarder controls with foundation brake controls impliedly requ ire activation of the stoplamps when supplementary braking devices are used. The agency agreed with both these arguments.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

ATTACHMENTS

ID: nht88-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rusty Mitchell -- A-Z Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Rusty Mitchell A-Z Bus Sales, Inc. P.O. Box 9389 5555 W. Mission Blvd. Ontario, CA 91762

This is a response to your letter of November 11, 1987, in which you asked for information on the "application of seat belts in school buses." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds) to afford passe or crash protectio n by means of "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include hi gh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance.

Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) experience greater force levels in a crash, Standard 222 requires the added protection of safety belts at each passenger position in a small school bus.

School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening cr ash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, our regulations do not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses.

I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject.

You also asked whether there is an order form listing available data for safety belts in school buses. This agency does not publish "order forms" for any data. For further information on this subject, you may wish to contact individual school bus manufac turers to ask for data about safety belts in their buses. I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 11, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Ms. Jones:

We need information regarding the application of seat belts in school buses.

Is there an order form with a listing or all data available if so, who do we contact, and can we order several copies of each?

Ms. Jones, any information you can send us would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

Rusty Mitchell Sales Representative

RM/df