ID: MCI_removable_lift

Ms. Michelle Filippi
Motor Coach Industries
1700 E. Golf Rd. Suite 300
Schaumburg, IL 60173




Dear Ms. Filippi:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, with respect to vehicles designed to accept a platform lift by means of "quick connects". In your letter you stated that your company, Motor Coach Industries (MCI), manufactures over-the-road coach buses, including wheelchair accessible coaches. You explained that some of your customers have requested that MCI offer a vehicle/wheelchair lift system that would allow a lift to be removed from one coach and installed on an acceptable coach through the use of quick disconnects.

You expressed concern with the implications of FMVSS No. 404 to such a system, in that the lifts "can be taken out and re-installed by various MCI or customer technicians". You asked that we advise you about the agencys position on this issue.

I will reply to your letter by discussing how FMVSS No. 404 applies in the situation you described.

By way of background, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. Platform lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 403. Vehicles manufactured with platform lifts on and after July 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 404.

Applicability of FMVSS No. 404 to a "Quick Connect" System

The central factor in determining the applicability of FMVSS No. 404 to a "quick connect" vehicle/lift system is whether the vehicle is originally equipped with the lift. 49 U.S.C. 30112 prohibits, in part, the manufacture for sale and the offer for first retail sale of a vehicle that is not certified as complying with all FMVSSs applicable at the vehicles date of manufacture. Each vehicle manufactured with a lift on or after July 1, 2005, must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift and must comply with FMVSS No. 404. If a lift is installed after a vehicle is certified by the vehicle manufacturer, but prior to first retail sale, the vehicle as altered must comply with all standards affected by the alteration; i.e. , the vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404 and all other applicable standards. Conversely, if a vehicle is manufactured to accept a "quick disconnect" platform lift, but is not equipped with a platform lift up to the point of first retail sale, then FMVSS No. 404 would not apply.

"Make Inoperative" Provision

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first retail sale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "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; "make inoperative" provision).

If a vehicle not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 (e.g. , a "quick connect" bus that was not equipped with a lift as manufactured or sold at first retail sale) has a "quick disconnect" lift added by one of the above named businesses after the first retail sale, the vehicle would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if a "quick disconnect" lift were added by any of the above named businesses, the addition of the lift must not cause any applicable FMVSS to be made inoperative.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses would be prohibited from removing a vehicle certified to FMVSS No. 404 from compliance with that standard. While a vehicle certified to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift, we would not consider removal of the lift a violation of the "make inoperative" provision. In that instance compliance was premised on the presence of a platform lift. However, if a lift were then reinstalled on such a vehicle, the vehicle would be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 based on that lift model.

Applicability of FMVSS No. 403

As noted above, a "quick disconnect" platform lift manufactured on or after April 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 403. The equipment standard requires in part that the lift be accompanied by instructions that identify the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed (S16.13.1), and that the instructions specify procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational and compliant (S16.13.2).

However, the agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, with a system for which a vehicle was designed to accept a lift, we would not expect such alterations to be necessary.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.2/11/05

ID: Koito.2

Mr. Takayuki Amma
Manager, Regulations & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Amma:

This responds to your recent letter, in which you asked whether it would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to manufacture and sell a headlamp that automatically reduces intensity when the vehicle is stopped. Your letter stated that the lamp (which includes a fail-safe performance feature) would operate at full intensity when the vehicle is in forward motion, but that an electronic light source control gear would reduce the intensity once the vehicle comes to a rest. According to your letter, "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," and you further suggested that such headlamps would have the potential for significant energy conservation (about a 20-40% reduction in wattage), depending upon the optical design of the headlamps. As discussed below, we believe that the intensity-reducing headlamps described in your letter would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108, because the would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571). 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.

As you are aware, the requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, which provides in relevant part:

S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means."

Your proposed headlamp would not fall within any of the standards express exceptions, and therefore, must be "steady-burning." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g., February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall). However, as stated in your letter, your proposed headlamp would routinely experience perceptible intensity changes resulting in a 20-40% reduction in wattage, so the lamp would not meet above definition of "steady-burning."

There are several reasons for the requirement for headlamps to be steady-burning. For example, several States have expressed concern that lights of variable intensity could be confused with emergency vehicles, which are allowed to have flashing headlamps. We also note that motorcycle headlamp modulation, while permitted under S5.5.10(c), must meet the requirements of S7.9.4; the modulation rate is regulated to prevent seizures in susceptible individuals. Furthermore, we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals.

In your letter, you pointed to our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein in support of your position that Standard No. 108 should permit headlamps that reduce intensity when stopped. The letter to Mr. Goldstein discussed "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions. You quoted from the portion of that letter which provides, "The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified".However, your letter omitted the immediately preceding sentence, which provided, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs".

The situation presented in your letter is distinguishable from the one presented in our letter to Mr. Goldstein. In the case of gradational DRLs, the lamps would be expected to determine an appropriate level of intensity based upon ambient lighting conditions and then maintain that level until conditions had changed sufficiently to potentially warrant a further change in intensity. In that case, intensity changes would be expected to occur infrequently and could occur gradually, such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers.

In contrast to gradational DRLs, the changes in intensity that would accompany your proposed headlamp design would be anticipated to result in frequent modulation, particularly during instances of stop-and-go city driving. Assuming that the intensity change is perceptible, we believe that such a design could be a source of distraction to other drivers, which could have negative consequences for safety. Accordingly, we believe that the headlamp design presented in your letter would not meet the requirements of S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108.

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:108
d.8/1/05

ID: 15319.jeg

Mr. Ottar Cato Olsen
Project Engineer
Safety & Homologation
PIVCO AS
Stanseveien 4
N-0975 Oslo
NORWAY

Dear Mr. Olsen:

This responds to your letter, addressed to Paul Atelsek of my staff, asking several questions about our safety standards. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You first ask about a proposed design for a passenger air bag (PAB) on-off switch for "two seat cars." You state:

The proposed solution for deactivating the PAB is as follows:

• Turn the ignition switch to start position . . .;
• The start position on the ignition key will activate a PAB switch;
• The PAB switch, located on the top of the steering column cover, can now be pushed to activate/deactivate the PAB;
• If the PAB is deactivated, a yellow light in the center console (visible for both people in the front) will be turned on.

It is only possible to change the PAB status when the ignition key is in the start position.

You asked whether this system would meet NHTSA's requirements, and whether this agency has "any lamp display that PIVCO can use for the deactivated PAB."

By way of background information, NHTSA has established specific requirements for passenger air bag manual cut-off devices. These requirements are set forth in S4.5.4 of Standard No. 208. I have enclosed a copy of that section revised as of October 1, 1996, and a final rule published on January 6, 1997 (Docket 74-14, Notice 109) which amended that section.

As you will see, your proposed design would not meet the requirements of S4.5.4. For example, it would not meet the requirement specified in S4.5.4.2 that a passenger air bag manual cut-off device must be separate from the ignition switch for the vehicle, "so that the driver must take some action with the ignition key other than inserting it or turning it in the ignition switch to deactivate the passenger air bag." Also, it would not meet the requirement in S4.5.4.3 that the telltale light be located on the dashboard. As to your question concerning whether this agency has "any lamp display that PIVCO can use for the deactivated PAB," S4.5.4 includes several requirements for the display. Among other things, S4.5.4.3 specifies that the telltale must be yellow, and must have the identifying words "AIR BAG OFF" on the telltale or within 25 millimeters of the telltale.

You next ask when the "new FMVSS 201" will influence PIVCO. You state that PIVCO is a small car manufacturer, with only one vehicle line, producing 5,000 cars a year.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact was amended by a final rule published on August 18, 1995 (62 FR 16718). This final rule, which established new requirements for head protection, was amended by a notice published on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718).

The standard provides manufacturers with four phase-in options for meeting its requirements.

These phase-in options are not dependent on the number of vehicles produced by a manufacturer. Options one and two, found in S6.1.1. and S6.1.2 of the Standard, provide that certain percentages of production manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 must meet the new requirements. The third option, found in S6.1.3 of the Standard, states that manufacturers need not produce any complying vehicles before September 1, 1999 but that all vehicles produced on or after that date must comply. This option, which provides longer lead time than the first two options, was intended to accommodate manufacturers with limited product lines.

The fourth option is applicable only to final stage manufacturers. The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." If PIVCO is a "final stage manufacturer," it need not produce any vehicles that comply before September 1, 2002. However, all vehicles manufactured on or after that date must comply.

There is no exclusion from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) based upon the volume produced by the manufacturer. All motor vehicles must comply with all FMVSS, unless the agency has exempted them from one or more of the standards. NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30113 to exempt, on a temporary basis, a manufacturer whose total yearly production does not exceed 10,000 motor vehicles, from any FMVSS that would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship were it required to meet it immediately. The application procedures for such an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(a). The applicant must not only show hardship, but also that it has tried in good faith to meet the standard from which it requests relief.

Finally, you ask about contact persons within NHTSA. You ask whether it is OK for all communications between PIVCO and NHTSA to go through Mr. Atelsek, and whether there is any other way of communicating with NHTSA, e.g., by fax or e-mail.

In communicating with NHTSA, PIVCO should contact the specific office or person for which it has relevant questions or other business, to the extent it has the knowledge to do so. Requests for legal interpretation should be sent to Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC 20590 (FAX 202-366-3820). Questions regarding Standard 208 should be directed to Mr. Edward Glancy (eglancy@nhtsa.dot.gov). Inquiries about Standard 201 should be directed to Mr. Otto Matheke (omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
d.11/5/97

ID: 1983-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flyer Industries Limited -- Moni Marcus, Chief Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Flyer Industries Limited

TEXT:

Moni Marcus, P.Eng. Chief Engineer Flyer Industries Limited 64 Hoka Street Box 245 Transcona P.O. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R2C 3T4

Dear Mr. Marcus:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S 571.217). You stated that your company's transit bus models use eight large windows as emergency exits to satisfy the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217, and that the entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency doors. Accordingly, you stated that the entrance and exit doors do not "have to be tested for Standard No. 217 requirements." This is not wholly correct.

Standard No. 217 sets forth two basic requirements. These are (1) window retention requirements, which must be met by all windows in a new bus, except for the windshield, and (2) requirements applicable to emergency exits. As I pointed out in a letter to Mr. Moss, of your staff, the window retention requirements apply to all front door glazing which exceeds 8 inches in diameter, and this agency does test such glazing for compliance with the standard. Hence, while you may be correct in asserting that a door not designated as an emergency door would not be tested for compliance with the emergency exit requirements, you are incorrect if you are asserting that the glazing on such a door would not be tested for compliance with the window retention requirements.

Your letter went on to state that, although your entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency exits, most local transit authorities have requested you to add a decal instructing people how to open the doors in case of an emergency. You then stated your opinion that the addition of these decals would not change the status of the doors to emergency exits, so the doors would not be required to meet the Standard No. 217 push force requirements applicable to emergency doors. This conclusion is incorrect.

Standard No. 217 specifies minimum criteria for emergency exits which must be met by all new buses, and your letter states that your transit bus models do not need to count the entrance and exit doors on the buses to satisfy these criteria. Thus, absent other factors, those doors would not be required to comply with the portions of the standard applicable to emergency doors. However, affixing a decal, such as the one enclosed with your letter, in the area of those doors is labeling the door as an emergency exit. It is reasonable for riders of the bus to assume that a door which is labeled by the manufacturer with instructions in case of an emergency and which is intended by the local transit authority to be used as an exit in case of an emergency is in fact a door which can be used as an emergency exit. Given the likelihood of the use of the door as an emergency exit when it is so labeled, it is important that the door comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, and this agency has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in case of an emergency.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a letter reaching this same conclusion which was sent to another manufacturer. Contrary to the understanding expressed in your letter, this agency has never sent a letter to a manufacturer stating that doors labeled with emergency instructions were not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 217 applicable to emergency doors.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 12, 1983

Dear Mr. Krazke:

Re: Clarification of FMVSS - 217

As per our discussion on the phone, Flyer's transit bus models 900, 901 and 902 are equipped with 8 large windows and 3 fixed ones. The eight large windows are classified as emergency exits and they satisfy the FMVSS - 217 requirement of:

51 seats x 67 = 3,417 square inches (minimum) Therefore, the entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency exits and do not have to be tested for FMVSS - 217 requirements.

Both emergency exit windows and fixed windows were tested in 1980, and approved by your department - see Report No. 217-OYS (copy attached).

The question remaining is that most transit authorities have been requesting that bus manufacturers add a decal instructing people how to open the doors in case of an emergency. (Copy of decal drawings attached). In our view, the decals do not change the status of the doors to an emergency door status and, therefore, they are still not required to meet FMVSS - 217 push forces.

My understanding is that this interpretation has been given to other bus manufacturers before and we at Flyer would like to have a similar clarification from your office to straighten the records out specifically in regard to the letter marked NOA-30 and sent to Mr. Bill Moss, Flyer's test engineer by Mr. Frank Berndt (copy attached).

Your assistance on the phone was greatly appreciated and I hope to hear from you soon.

Yours truly,

Moni Marcus, P.Eng. Chief Engineer FLYER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Enclosure (4//5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Flyer Industries Limited Omitted here.)

ID: 1985-02.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: James H. Westlake -- National Automobile Dealers Assocaition

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James H. Westlake Associate Director American Truck Dealers Division National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Mr. Stephen Wood of this office asking the following three questions about rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks.

"1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered 'rebuilding' when the three major components (engine, transmission and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from 'rebuilding' to 'first stage manufacturer'?"

Neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act") nor the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("safety standards") contain the terms "rebuilding" and "first stage manufacturer". Your question, however, is clear: when new and used components are used in rebuilding a heavy truck, at what point does the truck become a "new" vehicle which must comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks.

The agency's regulation on Combining new and used components, 49 CFR 571.7(e), provides:

"When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with the safety standards and other provisions of the Act 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".

Thus, in terms of your question, if the three major components are reused in the rebuilding process and at least two of the three came from the same vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply even if a new cab is used. But if one of the three components is new, or if all are used and came from three different motor vehicles, then the standards apply and the truck must meet them, and be certified as meeting them, upon final assembly.

Your reference to "first stage manufacturer" implies that there may be rebuilding fact situations in which the process is completed by a person other than the manufacturer who initiated it. If the rebuilt truck is "new", then its assemblers are subject to 49 CFR Part 568 Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages. If the truck meets the definition of "incomplete vehicle", then the "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" is required to furnish the specified compliance information necessary for certification to the "intermediate stage manufacturer" or the "final stage manufacturer" as the case may be (Sec. 568.3).

"2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as 'new manufacturing' what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?"

As indicated above, the truck must be completed to comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks and be certified by its assembler as so conforming in accordance with Part 567 Certification. If more than one party is involved in the remanufacturing process, each party is subject to Part 568. In addition, any party remanufacturing a truck that must be certified as conforming is required to file a statement in the form prescribed by Part 566 Manufacturer Identification.

"3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these Federal regulations?"

As provided by section 109(a) of the act, any person violating any provision of the Act or a regulation issued thereunder is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, under Section 110(a) of the Act, the agency may seek to restrain the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any rebuilt truck that should have met Federal motor vehicle safety standards but in fact did not do so. Also, section 154 of the Act requires manufacturers to conduct recall campaigns and remedy any non-compliances with applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 25 1985 Mr. Steve Wood Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

Thank you for your telephone assistance Friday morning, and for directing our question to the appropriate individual.

The American Truck Dealers division of the National Automobile Dealers Association represents over 1,700 medium and heavy duty truck dealers. Many of our members are engaged in the business of rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks. On their behalf, we are requesting NHTSA provide guidance on the following questions.

1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered "rebuilding" when the three major components (engine, transmission, and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from "rebuilding" to "first stage manufacturer"?

2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as "new manufacturing", what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?

3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these federal regulations?

Your assistance in answering these questions and providing specific citations is greatly appreciated. If our questions require additional detail, please feel free to contact me at the above number.

Sincerely, James H. Westlake Associate Director, ATD

ID: 1985-03.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

Dear Mr. Burke:

Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr. Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an "alterer." Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

If your company is modifying used vehicles, then its actions would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part, that:

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

Thus, manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Dick Burdette U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Public Affairs Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Burdette:

I am writing to you today because I need your assistance in preparing a new automobile safety package for the U.S. Market which Hess & Eisenhardt is about to introduce. We think your input, based on your experience and supported by statistics will prove invaluable.

Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company is the oldest and largest armored car manufacturer in the world. Hess & Eisenhardt originally founded in 1876, was first asked to assist in the design of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Parade Car. For the last forty years, we have provided the armored vehicles for every United States President. Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company currently supplies armored vehicles to over thirty Heads of State worldwide as well as Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers, Diplomats, Industry Leaders, and private citizens.

Let me hasten to point out that we do not intend to introduce an "armored car" into the U.S. Market. Our product is definitely an automobile safety package. We believe that the experience we have gained in the many years we have been involved in automobile security can be provided to the public in a very cost effective manner. We have done extensive market research over the past twelve months and have received an enthusiastic response from the corporate world as well as many individuals. Please forward to me any information and statistics you might be able to provide that would pertain to the following components of our proposed safety package:

o Run Flat Tire Devices. o "New Generation" Shatter Resistant Glass (primarily intended to resist intrusion from the outside while providing an unprecedented shatter resistance to the standard tempered glass used in sidelights. o A highly sophisticated remote alarm system. o Dual batteries. o A trunk release mounted inside the trunk. o A fuel tank protector (with looking gas cap). o An emergency kit to include minor survival components such as: drinking water, flashlight, etc. o A door lock system that would prevent access to a stranger from the outside even if the driver forgets to lock the doors. o Anti-explosive gas tank. o An automatic engine fire suppression system. o Auxiliary fan. o Inside to outside intercom.

Any information you can provide will be greatly appreciated. We are now in the final stages of selecting the safety equipment which will go into our package and your input can help in the final design. As this product is primarily in the interest or the safety of the occupants, we would certainly not want to miss the opportunity to provide some safety feature you thought important. Please contact me directly if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

HESS & EISENHARDT ARMORING COMPANY

Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales

TJB/7/vah

ID: aiam4394

Dear Mr. Pape: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1987, to Taylor Vinson o this office, enclosing a copy of your letter to George Walton of AAMVA. In that letter you have asked three questions with reference to the center highmounted stop lamp required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, to which you have asked that we reply.; Your first question is 'May one word be introduced on the brake light? Standard No. 108 prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp, or with any reflective device. It does not prohibit the addition of one or more words to the lens. However, there are basic requirements that the lamp must meet, and the word or words must not prevent the lamp from meeting them. Specifically, the effective projected luminous area of the lens must not be less than 4 1/2 square inches, and the lamp must meet specified candela maxima and minima at 13 discrete test points.; Your second area of interest is the color red. You have asked whethe it is a Federal requirement for all brake lamps, whether other colors may be substituted, and whether the color red may be adjusted to a lighter hue. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be red in color. This color is defined in SAE Standard J578c *Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices*, February 1977, expressing chromaticity coordinates according to the CIE (1931) standard colorimetric system. Red is rather narrowly defined, and falls with the y coordinates, 0.33 (yellow boundary) and 0.98 (purple boundary). Red is not acceptable if its is less saturated (paler), yellower, or bluer than the limit standards. Thus red could not be adjusted beyond the prescribed limits. In our opinion, the 'soft pink' or 'hot pink' that you believe is desirable would be beyond those limits. No color other than red is permitted for stop lamps.; Your final area of interest is whether one should consider marketing lamp with the features you have indicated, and whether there are 'hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing.' Under assumption that your lamp would not comply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108, we must advise you that a noncomplying lamp could not be sold as original equipment for passenger cars, or as a replacement for center high mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Federal law would not prohibit its sale for use on vehicles other than these, but the lamp would be subject to the laws of any State in which it would be sold and used.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3925

Dear Mr. Richard: This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safet standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a 6 inch by a 4 inch sheet of 1/8 inch thick semi-transparent rubber that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials,* (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films o other sun screen devices, such as those described in your letter, in *new* vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered, continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.; After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may alter thei vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.; If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair busines installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; I am enclosing the sample of your product you sent with your letter. I you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3975

Dear Mr. Weight: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows i automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.; FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a ne passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent, clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.; Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver t detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance *less* than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the 'black window' is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material i new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so lon as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2281

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 29 and 31, 1976, an April 14, 1976, requests for confirmation of several interpretations you have made regarding the new safety standards for school buses and the definition of school bus' as they become effective in October 1976.; Your interpretation is correct that bus passenger compartment' as use in S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, means that portion of the bus that is rearward of the forwardmost point on the windshield.; You request confirmation that the requirement in S5.7(a) of Standar No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, to open emergency exits during the application of force to the bus roof are inappropriate and therefore not applicable in the case of roof exits. Your interpretation is correct, and the NHTSA intends to modify the language of Standard No. 220 appropriately.; You request confirmation that the knee impact requirement of S5.3.2. of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, does not apply to the rear row of seating in a school bus because there is no passenger seating behind this row. Your interpretation is correct. I would like to point out that the seat back of the rear row of seating also is not subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.1 for the same reason. You are also correct that school bus passenger seat' as defined in S4 does not include a wheelchair that is placed in a school bus to transport non-ambulatory bus passengers. Our response on other issues concerning special arrangements for handicapped passengers will be forthcoming as a response to the outstanding Sheller- Globe petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 222.; In your March 31, 1976, letter you asked whether a bus that is sold fo purposes that include carrying kindergarten and nursery school children to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus under the redefinition of school bus' that becomes effective October 27, 1976 (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The answer to your question is yes, because the statutory definition underlying the NHTSA definition of school bus specifically lists preprimary students as passengers of school buses. See 15 U.S.C. S1391(14).; In your April 14, 1976, letter you ask whether the requirement o S5.3.1.3 of Standard No. 222 for a minimum contact area' on a described spherical head form refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the spherical head form, or the area of contact on the head form as seen in projected view. The contact area' refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the head form.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel