ID: 10-01396_Bruno_drn.doc

ID: nht95-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Randal K. Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/22/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO RANDAL BUSICK (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is in response to the letter of Mr. Philip Recht to Vehicle Science Corporation dated January 5, 1995 regarding our previous request for an interpretation of S7.1.2 of FMVSS 208.

In the final paragraph of his letter, Mr. Recht indicated that the agency's technical staff raised concerns about the "SLIDER BAR" to which the outboard lower end of the seat belt is attached (see attached diagram, "Attachment # 1"). Mr. Recht further st ated that the staff is concerned that the bar allows the seat belt webbing to slide freely fore and aft longitudinally. Mr. Recht concluded by saying that this design may prevent the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of FMVSS 208 as well as prevent the anchorage from meeting the location requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS 210.

Enclosed for your review are more detailed photographs and diagrams of the slider bar ("Attachment # 2"). Please note that the purpose of the slider bar is to allow ingress and egress to and from the rear seats of a 2-door vehicle. This system is very s imilar to the system used in the 3 series BMW coupe. The seat belt assembly (with slider bar) contemplated herein will be crash tested with an air bag under the requirements of FMVSS 208.

The forward (hooked) end of the slider bar is the point at which the belt always comes to rest when in use (buckled). This point is within the angle required by FMVSS 210 S4.3.1.1(b), and we therefore believe that the anchorage location requirements of Standard 210 are met.

In sum, once the crash test requirements and injury criteria of FMVSS 208 are met, together with applicable requirements of FMVSS 209 and 210, we do not see how the system "may prevent" the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of FMVSS 208 or the anchorage from meeting the location requirements of FMVSS 210.

Kindly respond to the Vehicle Science Colorado office, P.O. Box 1015, Golden, CO 80402-1015 (Tel. 303 279 0203) so that we can discuss this further and swiftly resolve the issues presented herein.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Attachments: (Drawings and Photos omitted)

ID: nht79-3.10

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Scott Lyford, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office when you telephoned on June 4, 1979, on behalf of your clients who intend to manufacture auxiliary gasoline tanks, to sell the tanks as part of a universal kit with all parts necessary for installation, and in some instances to install the tanks in vehicles. You inquired as to the meaning of the word "integrity" as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75 (49 CFR 571.301-75) and the applicability of the standard to your clients' proposed activities. You also inquired as to the meaning of the phrase "render inoperative" as used in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act) and its applicability to your clients' proposed activities.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard that applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars or (2) multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. The word "integrity" as used in FMVSS 301-75, refers to the fact that compliance with the standard requires that fuel spillage from a vehicle subjected to a fixed or moving barrier crash not exceed the limits established by FMVSS 301-75, S5.5 and S5.6.

Since FMVSS 301-75 is only a vehicle standard and does not specify performance standards for fuel tanks, it does not directly apply to your clients' proposed manufacturing activities. However, as will be discussed later, it does apply when an auxiliary fuel tank is installed in a vehicle by either the manufacturer of the tank or other persons specified in the Act.

Despite the lack of a specifically applicable safety standard auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. The defect responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151-153) authorize the Secretary of Transportation (or his delegate the NHTSA Administrator) to make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer of the equipment to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. In addition, these provisions also require that a manufacturer who discovers a safety-related defect in his product notify the Secretary of Transportation (or NHTSA Administrator) and then provide notification and remedy to purchasers. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(A) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Since auxiliary gasoline tanks are items of motor vehicle equipment, as defined in section 102(4) of the Act, your clients as manufacturers of such equipment would be required to provide notification and remedy should their auxiliary gasoline tanks prove to be defective in design, materials, manufacture, or performance. (See 49 CFR Part 597).

FMVSS 301-75 would apply to your client's installation of auxiliary fuel tanks in new motor vehicles. Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with the safety standards applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone, for purposes other than resale. The purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. Any person who, prior to the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, alters that vehicle by making more than minor finishing operations, is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all safety standards applicable to it. Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act).

Under these provisions, your clients would be considered to be alterers if they installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, and they would be required to recertify the vehicle as complying with applicable safety standards, including FMVSS 301-75. With respect to FMVSS 301-75, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary tank added by an alterer must meet them also.

It should also be noted that the defect responsibilities imposed by Section 151 et seq., mentioned earlier with respect to the defective design, composition, manufacture or performance of auxiliary tanks also apply to safety defects in the installation of such tanks in new vehicles. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation. Acting, as both manufacturers and installers of the tanks, your clients would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both the production and installation of the tanks.

FMVSS 301-75 as well as the "render inoperative" provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply to your clients' activities in installing auxiliary gasoline tanks in used vehicles. After the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle (referred to here as a used vehicle) is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). Specifically, the section provides:

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 ....

The words "render inoperative," in the context of section 108(a)(2)(A), in essence prohibit certain listed entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards.

A listed person or entity found to have violated section 108(a)(2)(A) would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Should your clients begin producing auxiliary gasoline tanks they would be encompassed by the term "manufacturer" as that term is used in section 108(a)(2)(A) and defined in section 102(5) of the Act. Therefore, if your clients added an auxiliary gasoline tank to a used vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 and in the process knowingly reduced the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, they would be deemed in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). Such reduction of performance could occur for example, if the gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, or if the design materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.

I hope you will find this response helpful.

ID: nht95-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs, Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors; Signature by F. Laux

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Request for FMVSS 205 Interpretation; USG 3183

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MILFORD BENNETT (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of FMVSS 205. Specifically, General Motors seeks the agency's concurrence that a vehicle equipped with a particular rear window sunshade meets the light transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 .

General Motors plans to offer a rear window sunshade in a near-future Cadillac model. The sunshade is a screen-like device that significantly reduces the light and heat load entering through the backlite. In its raised position, the sunshade covers app roximately 90% of the backlite area, and the light transmissibility through the combined backlite and sunshade is less than 70%. In its retracted position, the sunshade is stowed in the panel shelf area below the backlite, such that no portion of the bac klite is obscured. A driver operated switch on the instrument panel is used to electrically raise and lower the sunshade.

FMVSS 205 requires a minimum of 70% light transmissibility through glazing that is requisite for driving visibility. The agency has historically interpreted the backlite of passenger cars to be requisite for driving visibility. General Motors seeks the Chief Counsel's interpretation that the proposed sunshade comports with the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205. Our reasons for believing that a vehicle equipped with the sunshade would continue to comply with FMVSS 205 are summarized as follow s:

* The rear window sunshade would have no adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. As with conventional windshield sunvisors, drivers can be expected to utilize the sunshade in a way that will maximize, rather than diminish, driving safety and comfort. Wi th the sunshade in its raised position, trailing vehicles and other objects are readily visible through the screen mesh. Driver and passenger side outside rearview mirrors further provide for rearward visibility, comparable to other passenger carrying v ehicles (light trucks, vans, multipurpose passenger vehicles) which are not required by FMVSS 205 to have 70% light transmittance in the backlite area.

* The sunshade is not glazing material, nor is it in contact with glazing material. FMVSS 205 states that: "This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment."

* The rear window sunshade is fully analogous to conventional windshield sunvisors. In both cases, the driver-selectable device can be positioned in a way that reduces effective transmissibility below 70%, and then easily stowed when not needed to resto re full transmittance.

* There is a well established international precedent for rear window sunshades. European and Japanese regulatory authorities have explicitly recognized and accepted these devices.

General Motors is aware of previous Chief Counsel interpretations stating that the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 must be met with a rear window sunscreen in position. (Reference Ms. Erika Jones letter to Mr. T. E. McConnell dated September 22, 1986, and Ms. Erika Jones letter to Ms. Susan B. House dated December 22, 1985.) We believe there is a critical distinction between the products the agency has previously commented on and the rear window sunshade GM contemplates. Specifically, the e arlier products were apparently tinting materials applied to the backlite, or shade devices that physically contacted the backlite via attaching hardware. By virtue of being in physical contact with the backlite, these earlier sunscreening products coul d be interpreted as being part of the backlite. The rear window sunshade GM plans to install will not be attached to the backlite in either the raised or stowed position, and therefore is clearly not part of the backlite glazing subject to FMVSS 205.

We would appreciate a favorable response at the agency's earliest convenience. In order to accommodate our product plans for the sunshade device, we would like to obtain a response by July, 1995, if possible. If there is any additional information we ca n provide to help expedite the agency's review, please contact Mr. Philip Horton (810-947-1738), Mr. Richard Humphrey of our Washington office (775-5071), or me (810-947-0149).

Thank you.

ID: nht76-2.17

DATE: 12/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: School Bus Manufacturers Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1976, in which you ask for an interpretation of the term "absorbed" as it is used in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Further, you request that the NHTSA withdraw its earlier interpretation of the same term made on July 30, 1976, to Thomas Built Buses.

In your letter, you outline data showing that a seat may meet the energy absorbtion requirements of S5.1.3 when recoil energy is included, while failing those same requirements when recoil energy is subtracted from the total energy. You further argue that the NHTSA interpretation of July 30, 1976, which explained the subtraction of recoil energy, is at variance with the wording of the standard, because the standard does not explicitly require the subtraction of recoil energy and speaks only to the application of force upon the seat. Moreover, you suggest that plotting the recoil energy results in insufficient area under the force/deflection curve to meet S5.1.3. For these reasons, you request that the term "absorbed" be defined as the total energy received by the seat without subtracting energy that is returned through recoil.

The NHTSA declines to adopt the interpretation that you suggest. The dictionary definition of the term "absorbed" is "to receive without recoil." This definition, when applied to energy absorbed by a seat, contemplates the subtraction of recoil energy in the computation of absorbed energy. The NHTSA intentionally chose the term "absorbed" to denote exactly this meaning. Therefore, according to the common usage of the term "absorbed," the standard does require the subtraction of recoil energy even though those express words are never used.

Your assertion that plotting the recoil energy results in a force/deflection curve that falls within the prohibited zones indicates a misunderstanding of the force/deflection zone requirements. The force deflection zone requirements (S5.1.3(a), S5.1.3(b), S5.1.4(a), and S5.1.4(b)) prescribe limits within which the seats must perform only during the force application phase of the test procedure.

SINCERELY,

SCHOOL BUS MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE

November 2, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On July 30, 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an interpretation to Thomas Built Buses, Inc. (Item 1) defining the term "energy absorbed in deflecting the seat back" as it relates to the new FMVSS 222 School Bus Passenger Seating (Item 2). The Agency's definition of this term is based on the concept that the absorbed energy equals the amount of energy received less the energy associated with recoil.

The School Bus Manufacturers Institute representing the six major manufacturers of school buses takes exception to this terminology being applied to the present configuration of FMVSS 222. We do not disagree with the semantics but we do believe that there is a definite conflict between the definitions interpretation and the test procedures outlined within the standard.

Our disagreement is not just a recent development. As early as September 1974 through discussions with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Legal and Engineering, the SBMI indicated that a seat demonstrating purely elastic properties could be constructed to meet the then proposed FMVSS 222.

On a number of occasions since that time, this question has been reviewed by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration personnel. Nevertheless, on January 22, 1976, the final draft of FMVSS 222 was issued without any reference to rebound or recoil adjustments to the test procedure.

Based on the FMVSS 222 test criteria, the SBMI members have designed, developed and tested an entirely new generation of school bus seats. The Thomas Interpretation drastically changes the test criteria used in compliance calculation.

FMVSS 222 Section S5.1.3 states:

Seat performance forward. When a school bus passenger seat that has another seat behind it is subjected to the application of force as specified in S5.1.3.1 and S5.1.3.2 and subsequently, the application of additional force to the seat back as specified in S.5.1.3.3 and S5.1.3.4:

(a) The seat back force/deflection curve shall fall within the zone specified in Figure 1;

(b) Seat back deflection shall not exceed 14 inches; (for determination of (a) and (b) the force/deflection curve describes only the force applied through the upper loading bar, and only the forward travel of the pivot attachment point of the upper loading bar, measured from the point at which the initial application of 10 pounds of force is attained.)

(c) The seat shall not deflect by an amount such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 inches of any part of another school bus passenger seat or restraining barrier in its originally installed position;

(d) The seat shall not separate from the vehicle at any attachment point; and

(e) Seat components shall not separate at any attachment point.

In order that we may more clearly define our objection to the Thomas Interpretation, a typical force/deflection seat test is enclosed (Item 3).

The shaded areas above and below the acceptable zone indicate a seat that is too rigid (upper shaded zone) or too limber (lower shaded zone) to manage the accident induced impacts. Therefore, the force/deflection characteristics properly designed seat will fall within the unshaded area.

Line A plotted on the force deflection curve (Item 3) indicates the amount of seat back deflection for a given loading.

Prior to the Thomas Interpretation line A would be a satisfactory test.

S5.1.3

(a) The curve fell within the specified zone

(b) The seat back deflection did not exceed 14"

(c) The seat did not encroach to within 4" of an adjacent seat

(d) The seat did not separate from the vehicle

(e) The seat components did not separate

The area below line A was above the minimums set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Should the Thomas Interpretation be applied to this same seat test, the results are entirely different (Item 4). The new interpretation will require that the recoil of the seat after testing be measured and plotted on the graph-line B.

S5.1.3

(a) The curve fell within the shaded area

The area included within lines "A" and "B" is less than the limit allowed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This example outlines one area of conflict between FMVSS 222 and the Thomas Interpretation. FMVSS 222 makes no mention of measuring and plotting rebound, as a matter of fact the test criteria requires only forward motion of the loading bar during the forward test and rearward motion during the rearward test.

The SMBI is now to the point of product verification based on the final draft of FMVSS 222. To revise the test levels at this late date will place an unjust economic burden on this industry.

If it is the Agency's intention to have school bus seats that "eat up" a given amount of energy during a crash, then this requirement should be spelled out within the standard and not within a private interpretation.

Because of the wide reaching effects of this interpretation, we ask that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration withdraw the Thomas Interpretation and in its place introduce a proposal to revise FMVSS 222 to include the Agency's definition of energy absorption.

If we can be of any assistance in clarifying this matter please feel free to contact me.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ITEM 2

(Illegible Line) and Crash Protection FMVSS 222 Effective April 1, 1977

(Regulation Omitted)

ID: 007749drn-3

Robert Strassburger, Vice President
Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your request that we reconsider a May 6, 2003, interpretation letter to Jaguar Cars on the meaning of "daylight opening" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. After carefully considering your request, we affirm the opinion stated in our letter. Our reasons are set forth below.

In its request for interpretation, Jaguar asked whether the daylight opening should be measured to the edge of complete blackout area, the start of dot fade area, or to some point in between. We explained that the daylight opening is measured to the edge of complete blackout area on the indshield.

Daylight opening is defined at S3 of FMVSS No. 104 as: "the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface, as defined in paragraph 2.3.12 of section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963."

Paragraph 2.3.12 of that SAE standard states:

The term "Daylight Opening" (abbreviated DLO) refers to the maximum unobstructed opening through any glass aperture, including reveal or garnish moldings adjoining the glass, according to a given direction or projection. If not specified the dimension will be the vertical projection.

We noted that the definition of "daylight opening" referred to by Jaguar was in a later SAE document (SAE Recommended Practice J1100) and not the one referenced in FMVSS No. 104. One difference between the definition of "daylight opening" in the older document and the one in J1100 is that the newer one treats "opaque coatings" in the same manner as reveal or garnish moldings.

In our letter, we noted that opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield are now used to serve the function once served by moldings, i.e., covering the glue around the edges of the windshield. Given this changed technology, we believed it was appropriate to treat opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield in the same manner as moldings, in interpreting the term "daylight opening" in FMVSS No. 104. We stated, however, that this is only true for what Jaguar referred to as "complete blackout" or "truly opaque" areas. We stated that the dot fade area is not truly opaque, and is not analogous to moldings. Thus, daylight opening is measured to the edge of complete blackout area.

In your recent letter, you disagree with our view about the dot fade area. You believe that the dot fade area that is ordinarily inboard of the opaque coatings at the edge of the windshield should not be included in the measurement of "daylight opening."

According to your letter:

"Daylight Opening" is defined both in FMVSS No. 104 and in the referenced SAE standard as the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface. The dot-fade area is not "unobstructed." Rather, the dot-fade area is more appropriately viewed as the transition to the opaque area of the windshield, analogous to the edge of a molding in an older design. As moldings would not have been included in the definition of "daylight opening" under the standard, the dot-fade edge of the opaque area should likewise not be included in that definition. For the same reason, Alliance members have not included dot-fade areas as part of the daylight opening when providing windshield measurements to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for purposes of FMVSS 104 compliance testing.

While we have considered your arguments, we do not agree that the dot fade area toward the edges of a windshield represents an obstruction within the meaning of FMVSS No. 104.

As a technical matter, we believe that the term "unobstructed opening," as used in the 1963 SAE document incorporated into FMVSS No. 104, originally referred to physical obstructions. In our letter to Jaguar, however, we noted that opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield are now used for the function once served by moldings, i.e., covering the glue around the edges of the windshield. Given this changed technology, we believed it was appropriate to treat opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield in the same manner as moldings, in interpreting the term "daylight opening" in FMVSS No. 104.

After considering your letter, we continue to believe that this is true only for what Jaguar referred to as "complete blackout" or "truly opaque" areas. The dot fade area is not truly opaque and does not cover the adhesive.We therefore do not consider it analogous to moldings or to the "edge of a molding." (The edge of a molding is a part of the molding and is opaque.) If anything, the dot fade area is more analogous to shade bands, which are not obstructions. Since a dot fade area neither constitutes a physical obstruction nor is opaque, it comes within the definition of "daylight opening."

We note that in a letter dated February 24, 2004, you cited a letter from the Vehicle Certification Agency of Great Britain concerning its interpretation of the term "daylight opening" under the applicable ECE regulation and direction. However, that agency was providing an interpretation of different language with different origins from that included in FMVSS No. 104.

Because there has been some confusion within the industry regarding the proper interpretation of the term "daylight opening," we will begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003, interpretation beginning with vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2005.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.3/31/04

ID: 22137(2)

Bob Snyder, Vice President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
424 Fourth Street
Suite C
Annapolis, MD 21403


Dear Mr. Snyder:



This responds to your August 24, 2000, letter asking whether vehicles are allowed to have any size side windows in the front seat occupant compartment. Specifically, you ask about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205) and FMVSS No. 214, Side door strength (49 CFR 571.214), as applied to a flatbed-type truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of 18,000 pounds. Our answer is that our standards do not directly limit the size of vehicle side windows.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, nor endorses products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing new vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Our FMVSSs set forth requirements for safety performance, in terms that minimize design restrictions. Ejection of occupants through glazing (through windshields or the side windows) is a safety concern addressed by several standards, including FMVSS No. 205. FMVSS No. 205 sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment. FMVSS No. 212, Windshield mounting (49 CFR 571.212), establishes windshield retention requirements to reduce the likelihood of ejection of occupants in a crash. FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release (49 CFR 571.217), establishes requirements for the retention of windows in buses, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the bus.

You also inquire about the requirements of FMVSS No. 214. FMVSS No. 214 specifies vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified strength requirements for side doors. FMVSS No. 214 does not apply to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 18,000 pounds.

At this time, the above-discussed standards do not directly restrict the size of side windows. NHTSA, however, in response to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 and ongoing research into rollover and ejection mitigation, is currently evaluating the potential of advanced glazing systems to reduce occupant ejection. The agency has recently published a report entitled "Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing: Status Report II" which evaluates the progress of that advanced glazing research. This report is available online at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/include/nrd10/nrd11/glazing.html or may be ordered through NHTSA's Technical Information Services at 1-800-445-0197.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. FMCSA was established on January 1, 2000, and was formerly a part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You may wish to contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4012 for information concerning the issues discussed in your correspondence.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.1/3/01

ID: 15-004254 WayRay Glazing_sb_3

ID: nht90-4.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 29, 1990

FROM: John K. Roberts -- Vice President, Muth Advanced Technologies

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 to John K. Roberts from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for speaking with me yesterday about FMVSS requirements for automobile and truck mirrors. As I said, Muth Advanced Technologies is developing and marketing a unique vehicle mirror device which may be governed by two or more FMVSS rules (108 an d 111). Correct interpretation of those standards as they apply to this device is very important to us. For this reason, we appreciate being able to speak directly to people who understand the letter and intent of those rules.

For your edification, I have enclosed a brief description of the technology we're working on (presently known as "STM", or "Stop Turn Mirror"). We anticipate STM's being used as safety enhancements on certain vehicles, in combination with (or possibly i n place of) CHMSL's. Hopefully, the enclosed description will give you a clear conception of the device.

Following our conversation, a number of specific questions came to mind regarding the STM and applicable FMVSS Standards:

(1) If the STM satisfies the current explicit requirements of FMVSS 111 and FMVSS 108, is there further NHTSA approval we should pursue before fielding the device?

(2) Would it be reasonable for us to apply for a variance or to seek a change in FMVSS 108, if the STM doesn't meet the letter of FMVSS 108 in certain applications, but demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the standard?

(3) Before a pick-up truck CHMSL standard is published, would it be possible to certify the STM as a compliant device and ensure that the wording of the new rule doesn't needlessly prohibit utilization of STM's?

(4) Is it possible that someone at NHTSA would like to see this thing or test it before we go too far in our development and marketing? It may be a useful development in vehicle safety devices with importance to industry and the public. It also may be a ready solution to the difficult issue of requiring CHMSL's on pick-up trucks. We would be happy to support any such investigative effort by supplying a model, information, etc.

If you have any further thoughts on these subjects I would be very interested in hearing them. I'll call next week to follow-up on this.

Enclosure

Muth Advanced Technologies Stop/Turn Mirror The Stop/Turn Mirror (STM) is a system which integrates the functions previously performed separately by rear view mirrors and the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp (CHMSL). The system may be particularly well suited for vans, pick-up and medium duty trucks , sports cars, motorcycles and other vehicles where design of a suitable CHMSL is difficult. The STM offers superior performance as a highly visible stop and turn indication system and simultaneous function as a mirror. Additional benefits are the elim ination of parts and improved aesthetics at a reasonable cost. Field prototypes of the STM will be available by early spring, 1991.

The basis for this product is the observation that vehicle rear view mirrors are placed such that they are quite visible to operators of following vehicles. This same placement is ideal for high visibility stop and turn signals. The STM takes advantage of this geometry by functioning as mirror and a stop/turn lamp.

The STM contains a carefully designed filter and a directional film; these allow the STM to appear as a mirror to a vehicle's driver while appearing as a lamp to the operator of a following vehicle. The filter is a multi-layer dielectric coating applied to the interior surface of the glass to form a dichroic beam splitter or cold mirror. This allows the mirror to reflect a majority of the visible spectrum while transmitting a majority of a discrete band (in this case, red). The directional film conta ins tiny "microlouvers" which allow light rays to radiate directly aft and outboard towards following vehicles. The lamp is actuated by the same circuitry that actuates the standard brake and turn lamps.

Since the STM has an average reflectivity in excess of 65%, it appears to conform with FMVSS 111 requirements for minimum mirror reflectivity.

In some applications, it is anticipated that the STM will directly satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 108, thereby qualifying as a replacement for the standard CHMSL. In other applications, the STM may fulfill the intent of FMVSS 108 without meeting it's explicit requirements. In these cases, the STM may be used in conjunction with an approved CHMSL as an enhancement.

The K.W Muth Company Inc. has applied for US and foreign patents on the STM.

ID: 03076Dashney_type1_positioningbelt

Mr. Howard Dashney
Executive Director
Michigan Association for Pupil Transportation
6250 W. Michigan Avenue
Lansing, MI 48915

Dear Mr. Dashney:

This responds to your December 19, 2002, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and subsequent phone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, concerning the application of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the installation of "positioning belts" on large (over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating) school buses. You inquire on behalf of the Michigan Association for Pupil Transportation (MAPT), which represents various school bus fleet administrators, including public and private school bus fleets, private contractors, and Head Start fleet operators.

You explained that MAPT members have been informed by the Michigan Department of State Police, Motor Carrier Division (MCD), that they will no longer be able to use positioning belts in their school buses. You explain that positioning belts are used to hold special-needs students upright in their seats when they cannot remain upright on their own, and/or to control the movement of students with behavioral problems. You state that the belts are attached to the seat frames or seat backs of the school bus seats and "are not meant for or used as protection in a crash." You further explain that MCD inspectors have prohibited the use of the belts because they believe that the belts do not comply with Federal standards. You ask two questions regarding this situation.

I note that we have also received a related inquiry from Sgt. Sharron Vancampen of the MCD, asking about use of the positioning devices on school buses. Because your letters ask about the same situation, we will respond to you both simultaneously and will copy you both on our responses.

First, you ask whether large school buses must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to buses. The answer is yes. Under our definitions of motor vehicles (49 CFR 571.3) a "school bus" is a type of "bus." Thus, a school bus must meet all FMVSSs applying to "school buses" and those applying to "buses." Second, you ask if the MCD is correct in its interpretation of our standards.^[1]

Based on the information you provided in your letter and on the phone, generally speaking, few NHTSA requirements apply to the situation presented. We assume that the positioning belts are being installed on used (not new) buses by MAPT members.

The installation of the belts is not in itself a violation of NHTSA requirements. According to the information you provided, the belts presumably meet all applicable requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for seat belt assemblies, FMVSS No. 209. Thus, the sale of these belts to your members did not violate Federal requirements.

The belts are being used to restrain and/or position children, some of whom weigh 50 pounds or less. As such, there is an issue as to whether the belts are "child restraint systems" subject to FMVSS No. 213. We believe the answer is no, because the belts are Type 1 seat belt assemblies (i.e., lap belts), and Type 1 seat belts are excluded from the definition of "child restraint system" in S4 of FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

Your members installation of the positioning belts is not directly regulated by an FMVSS. Safety standards that apply to installation of seat belts, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, are "vehicle standards" applying only to new vehicles. The general rule is that installation of aftermarket equipment is not subject to the requirements set forth in vehicle standards.

However, there is another statutory provision that might affect MAPT members installation of the belts. If a vehicle is modified after its first sale, 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides, in pertinent part:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

School buses are certified as meeting Federal school bus safety standards. Seats on a large school bus are certified to the "compartmentalization" requirements of FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The compartmentalization concept calls for sturdy yet yielding well-padded high-backed seats to protect passengers. With respect to Standard No. 222, the compartmentalized school bus seats are elements of design installed in compliance with this safety standard. The "make inoperative" prohibition requires any entity listed in 30122 to ensure that the school buses will continue to afford the occupant protection required by Standard No. 222, even with the positioning belts attached to them.

Note, however, that the make inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply to a situation where MAPT members installed the belts in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. Nonetheless, NHTSA urges owners to exercise care in modifying their vehicles so as not to degrade the safety provided by the original systems. Further, States have the authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles, including the manner in which school buses are modified and operated.

Note also that, notwithstanding your intent in using the belts only as "positioning belts," as a practical matter the belts could act similarly to "lap belts" in a crash. NHTSA recommends that lap belts be installed only on "seat belt ready" school bus seats (seats that are able to withstand the forces generated in a crash), and also in a manner that meets FMVSS No. 210.

To summarize, the sale of the seat belts to MAPT members did not violate the FMVSSs. The installation of the belts on the school bus seats by the MAPT members was not subject to an FMVSS, if the members modified their own vehicles. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business modified the vehicle, the modifier must be sure not to make inoperative any part of the school bus seat installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 222 or any other Federal safety standard. We recommend that lap belts be properly installed on "seat belt ready" seats on school buses.

Please contact Deirdre Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#209#213
d.4/9/03