ID: 1985-03.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Richard H. Lucki -- Peugeot, U. S. Technical Research Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard H. Lucki U.S. Factory Representative PEUGEOT U.S. Technical Research Company 33 Garland Way Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1985, concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response. You noted that sections S4.1.2.71(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) of the standard require a seat belt warning system that conforms to S7.3 of the standard to be installed at each front outboard seating position of automatic restraint-equipped cars that have manual belts also at those positions. You pointed out that S7.3, however, only sets requirements for a warning system for the driver's seating position. You asked whether the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) can be met by providing a warning system conforming to S7.3 at only the driver's seating position. The answer is that those requirements can be met by a warning system for the driver only.

In December 1974 (39 FR 42692), the agency amended Standard No. 208 to establish new safety belt warning system requirements for vehicles manufactured after February 24, 1975. As discussed in the preamble, the agency decided against requiring a warning system at both the driver's seating position and the right front passenger's position. Instead, the agency adopted a requirement in S7.3(a) for a warning system at only the driver's seating position. (In July 1977 (42 FR 34299), the agency renumbered S7.3(a) to become the current S7.3).

In July 1976 (41 FR 29715), the agency proposed language concerning the safety belt warning system in automatic restraint-equipped cars. The proposed language was subsequently adopted, an July 5, 1977 (49 FR 34299), in S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The agency explained in the preamble of the July 1976 notice that the proposed safety belt warning system was to parallel the existing requirements for passenger cars. Thus, the intent was to require a warning system for only the driver's position. Requiring a warning system for the driver's position only is also consistent with the separate warning system requirement set in S4.5.3.3(b) for automatic belts. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a warning system only for the driver's position.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

March 7, 1985

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Paragraphs 4.1.2.1(c)(2) and 4.1.2.2(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 requires a seat belt warning system which conforms to paragraph 7.3 at each front outboard seating position.

Paragraph 7.3 requires that a seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position shall be equipped with a warning system and conditions activation of the audible signal to use of the driver's belt.

We request confirmation that the requirements of S.4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S.4.1.2.2(d) are met by providing a warning system conforming to S.7.3 at the driver's seating position only.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, Richard H. Lucki U.S. Factory Representative PEUGEOT

USTR/RHL/jg/070

ID: 1985-03.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

This responds to your two letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. We apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your December 6, 1984 letter asked about paragraph S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217 and the ellipsoid used to measure the unobstructed opening of a pushout window or other emergency exit. To simplify matters, I will refer to the illustration you attached with your letter. You asked whether you may rotate the ellipsoid in such a way that axis C-D may be horizontal instead of axis A-B.

By way of background information, I would like to explain that NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letters.

Paragraph S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217 states that:

After the release mechanism has been operated, each push-out window or other emergency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall...be manually extendable by a single occupant to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches.

Since the language of section S5.4.1 requires only that "a major axis" of the ellipsoid to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the emergency exit, you are not prohibited from positioning the ellipsoid with only a single major axis, such as C-D, horizontal. If there is unobstructed access of the ellipsoid through the opening, with major axis C-D horizontal, then the emergency exit meets the requirement of S5.4.1 as that section is written.

Even if the design of the exit would not violate S5.4.1, however, we urge you to ensure that the design would not complicate efforts of the passengers to use the emergency exit. It appears that the intent of the agency was for the plane generated by the major axes to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the exit. Otherwise, since a major axis of the ellipsoid will at all times be horizontal, no matter how the ellipsoid is passed, the benefit of such a requirement would be reduced. Further, the opening to the emergency exit could be significantly reduced when the only horizontal major axis is C-D.

The agency issued an opinion in April 1977, stating that S5.4.1 and S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 require the long side of a rectangular roof exit to be parallel to the center line or the side wall of a bus. That opinion interpreted S5.4.1 as requiring the ellipsoid to be passed through the exit with more than one of its major axes horizontal. That interpretation relied on the intent of the standard, but not the language of S5.4.1.

This letter reconsiders the 1977 opinion and holds that the language of S5.4.1 requires only one major axis of the ellipsoid to be horizontal.

The two questions in your December 13, 1984 letter dealt with an outside release mechanism for pushout rear emergency windows. In a telephone call to this office on February 25, 1985, you said that the rear emergency pushout windows would be on school buses and buses other than school buses. You also asked whether an outside release mechanism may be installed on rear emergency doors on buses other than school buses.

Your first question was whether the following interpretation was correct:

FMVSS 217 does not require emergency exits to have outside release mechanisms, except for school bus emergency doors. Therefore, if we provide an outside handle to operate a pushout rear emergency window, it does not have to meet any force level or type of motion requirements.

You are correct that Standard No. 217 does not require emergency exits on school buses to have outside release mechanisms, with the exception in S5.3.3 for school bus emergency doors. We assume that there are release mechanisms for the pushout rear emergency windows located within the bus which meet all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. If the emergency exit meets all applicable requirements of the standard, an outside release mechanism for a pushout rear emergency window, that is provided in addition to the release mechanisms required by the standard need not meet any force application and type of motion requirements.

Your second question was whether the outside handle on the pushout rear emergency window could be equipped with a key operated mechanism that disengages the handle from outside the bus for security purposes. The handle, even when locked from the outside, does not ever prevent operation of the window's release mechanisms from inside the bus. The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 217 does not prohibit the type of handle you described when all applicable requirements of the standard can be met.

Our answers given above apply to outside release mechanisms on pushout rear emergency windows on school buses and buses other than school buses.

An outside release mechanism on rear emergency doors on buses other than school buses would likewise not have to meet any force application and type of motion requirements, if the emergency door meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. The outside release mechanism can be equipped with the locking device you described, provided that Standard No. 217's requirements are met.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CPR Part 517.217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Dear Mr. Berndt:

For purposes of FMVSS 217 the unobstructed opening a pushout window or other emergency exit, not required by S 5.2.3, must provide is defined as follows:

"...an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches."

When applying this requirement to a side pushout window with an adjacent seat, as shown in Figure 1 attached, we initially interpreted this requirement to mean the major axis A-B which is parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the major axis that must be kept horizontal. This interpretation required placing of the adjacent seat so that a 20 inch horizontal opening was maintained at the height the ellipsoid passed out the opening.

In certain body/capacity combinations, it requires uneven spacing of the seats to provide this clearance at pushout window locations required in certain states. Upon restudying the requirements, we have realized that the requirement is for a major axis to remain horizontal at all times. Since the ellipsoid is generated by rotating an ellipse about its minor axis, it is a circle in the top or bottom plan view and, therefore, has a multitude of major axes including A-B, C-D, E-F, as shown in the top view of Figure 1. Based on this, it is allowable to rotate the ellipsoid about axis C-D as shown in the side view of Figure 2 as long as axis C-D is kept horizontal at all times.

We feel rotating the ellipsoid about any major axis is allowed by the standard's wording as long as a major axis is kept horizontal, and that lt meets the intent of the standard and does not compromise safety in any way. We seek your confirmation of this interpretation as it will permit us to better meet our customer's needs by providing more flexibility in positioning seats adjacent to pushout windows.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and your early reply.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

dh/2057 Attachment

c: FMVSS 217 Correspondence File Jim Moorman David Carter

"INSERT GRAPHIC"

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CFR Part 571.217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to make a correction in our December 6, 1984 letter discussing unobstructed opening requirements of FMVSS 217 and to request other interpretations regarding this standard. First, the reference in our December 6 letter should have been to 49 CFR Part 571.217 instead of 517.217. Please make this correction and accept our apology for any confusion this error may have caused.

Second, we request your confirmation of two interpretations regarding pushout rear window release mechanisms as follows:

1. FMVSS 217 does not require emergency exits to have outside release mechanisms, except for school bus emergency doors. Therefore, if we provide an outside handle to operate a pushout rear emergency window, it does not have to meet any force level or type of motion requirements.

2. Since an outside handle is not required on a pushout rear emergency window, we could provide a handle, with a key operated mechanism that allows the outside handle to be engaged or disengaged with the pushout window release mechanisms. Disengagement of the outside handle allows locking of the bus for security purposes but does not ever prevent operation of the release mechanism from inside the bus. We feel such a device therefore, meets the letter and intent of FMVSS 217.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Very truly yours, Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

fvc c: FMVSS 217 Correspondence File Jim Moorman David Carter

ID: 1985-03.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Corporal Frank Browne

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, concerning Federal regulations on safety belts in your patrol vehicles. You specifically asked about regulations affecting either the removal of the shoulder belt portion of a lap-shoulder belt system or the replacement of lap-shoulder belt systems with lap belt only systems. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to all new motor vehicles sold in the United States. We have issued Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the installation of crash protection systems, such as safety belts, in the front and rear seats of motor vehicles. We have also issued Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance requirements for safety belts used in motor vehicles. A copy of each standard is enclosed for your reference. As you know, each new motor vehicle sold to your Department must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including Standards Nos. 208 and 209.

The alteration of a safety belt system in a used vehicle is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. A copy of that section of the Act is enclosed. That section 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, none of those commercial businesses could alter or replace the safety belts in your vehicles, if by doing so they would "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle or the safety belt system with Standard Nos. 208 and 209. Removal of a portion of a belt system or the substitution of a lap belt for a lap-shoulder belt would have that effect. Note that Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Therefore, your Department can remove or alter your safety belts in any manner without violating Federal law. Such removals or alterations could be affected by State law.

I urge you to carefully consider the effects of altering or removing safety belts, even though Federal law would not prohibit you from making such modifications yourself. Our accident and test data show that lap-shoulder belts are very effective in reducing deaths and injuries in vehicle crashes. Particularly since your officers face the possibility of pursuit situations, we believe that it is important that they have safety belt systems that will effectively protect them in a crash.

I hope this information is of assistance. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

CITY OF SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA

OCC-0924

July 5, 1985

Frank Browne Santa Ana Police Department

Dear Sirs,

We would appreciate receiving any information including laws, codes and provisions regarding passenger safety belts in our patrol units.

Our new units, as with all new vehicles, are equipped with lap and shoulder harnesses. We are interested in what the Federal codes states as to the possibility of removing either only the shoulder harness leaving the lap belt or removing the entire safety belt assembly and installing only a lap belt. In addition, we would also be interested in the laws regarding safety belts for the rear seats. If possible, we would appreciate a copy of the laws regarding safety belts.

Cpl. Frank Browne Supervisor- Property Services

ID: 1985-03.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mr. William Pesce; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Pesce

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your May 18, 1985 letter inquiring about the existence of any Federal safety requirements applicable to your projected sale of colored windshield wiper blades.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, applicable to new motor vehicles. While this standard does not regulate wiper color, it does, among other things, require that a wiping system clear a minimum percentage of a vehicle's windshield.

In addition, Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, also applies to new motor vehicles. This standard specifies reflecting surface requirements for certain components, including windshield wiper blades, in the driver's field of view. Its purpose is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces will hinder safe and normal operation of the vehicle.

If a new vehicle equipped with your blade did not comply with Standard No. 104 or Standard No. 107 due to some aspect of that blade, the sale of that car to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1) (A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.

As to used vehicles, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle under Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Care should be taken that the installation of your product would not have that effect. A rendering inoperative might occur if, for example, your blade were not large enough to enable the wiping system to clear a sufficient area of the windshield. We urge you therefore to ensure that the substitution of your blade for an original equipment blade provided by a vehicle manufacturer would enable the wiping system to continue to perform as required by Standard No. 104, and would not produce unacceptable glare in the driver's field of view, as required by Standard No. 107.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLS.

OCC-0747

Department of Transportation

May 18, 1985 We propose to offer for sale to the public a colored windshield wiper blade.

Our blade attaches to existing windshield wiper arms.

It does not alter in any way the speed or rythem of an operating wondshield wiper.

It is not made of floresent, or as they are called HOT colors nor is it reflective in any way.

We have been unable to find any safty restrictions which would apply to our product. If such restriction do, or do not exist we would appreciate receiving this information by return mail in the envelope provided.

William Pesce B P Origionals

ID: 1985-03.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Warren F.B. Lindsley, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/22/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Leo Kagan

TEXT:

Warren F. B. Lindsley, Esq. Camel Square Suite 200E 4350 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85018

This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of my staff, with reference to the center high-mounted stop lamp, in which you have asked "whether a light which pulsates a few times and then assumes a steady state meets the requirements of the code."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, a center high-mounted stop lamp installed as original equipment on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1986, must be steady-burning in use, but is permitted to flash automatically with the hazard warning system. As of September 1, 1986, original equipment lamps must only be activated upon application of the service brakes, and can only be steady-burning. A "light that pulsates a few times then assumes a steady state" would not fulfill this requirement.

The standard does not cover aftermarket equipment for vehicles not originally manufactured with the center high-mounted stop lamp. For this application, the law of each State where a retrofitted car would be operated would determine the legality of a pulsating/steady state lamp. The agency, of course, would prefer that aftermarket equipment conform as closely as possible to original vehicle equipment specifications. We believe that standardization of rear signals minimizes the possibility of creating confusion to following drivers in situations where immediate action is essential to avoid a rear end collision.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

(See 8/22/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Leo Kagan)

July 3, 1985

ATTN: Attorney Taylor Vincent

Re: High Mounted Rear Brake Light Title 49 Revised October 1, 1984 Pages 243-244

Dear Mr. Vincent:

I appreciated talking with you recently about the above subject wherein you told me that the code required, after September 1, 1986, a steady state light in the rear of the car, not a flashing light.

My clients have asked me to inquire of you whether a light which pulsates a few times and then assumes a steady state meets the requirements of the code.

It is their position that initial short pulsating or flashing of the light followed by a steady state condition would alert the driver of a following vehicle quicker than a constant steady state condition.

Since an answer to this question is important to my clients, and has a bearing on their financial investment in the development of such a light, I would appreciate receiving your comments in the near future.

Very truly yours,

Warren F. B. Lindsley Patent Attorney

WFBL/mc

Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

ID: 1985-03.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/85

FROM: JOHN LOVSTEDT -- HAWAII DOT MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OFFICE

TO: JERE MEDLIN -- OFFICE OF RULEMAKING NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/12/85 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LARRY HIROHATA, REDBOOK A28, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Medlin:

We request a clarification to the final rule for modulating headlamps on motorcycles, which was published in the July 22, 1985, Federal Register.

The amendments to 49 CFR 571-108 shall permit the headlamps and side marker lamps to be wired to flash for signalling purposes. Does this mean that the headlamps on any motor vehicle can be wired to operate as a turn signal light in conjunction to general illumination of the area immediately ahead of the vehicle?

We question the requirement because the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J580 defines a sealed beam headlamp assembly (J580, Section 2.1) as: "A major lighting assembly which includes one or more sealed beam units used to provide general illumination ahead of the vehicle". Also, SAE standards J588f, entitled, "Turn Signal Lamps" and J1221, entitled, "Headlamp - Turn Signal Spacing", both recommend that the spacing between the turn signal lamp and headlamp lower beam be at least four inches apart.

49 CFR, Section 393.22(b)(1), entitled, "Prohibited Combinations" (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety) states in part: "A turn signal lamp must not be combined optically with either a headlamp or other lighting devices or combinatin of lighting devices that produces a greater intensity of light than the turn signal lamps."

Hence, we conclude that the headlamps of a motor vehicle should not be wired to incorporate the turn signal system or provide other functions when lamps are required to be illuminated during hours of darkness.

Your prompt response to this request is appreciated. Please send your response to:

Larry Hirohata

Vehicle Equipment Safety Specialist

Department of Transportation

Motor Vehicle Safety Office 79 South Nimitz Highway

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours very truly,

ID: 1985-03.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Rod Nash, P.E. -- Corporate Engineering, Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rod Nash, P.E. Corporate Engineering Collins Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 58 Hutchinson, KS 67504-0058

This responds to your May 20, 1985 letter to Mr. Francis Armstrong of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

You asked whether you are correct in certifying a van as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) if the van carries less than 10 passengers but has the lighting and identifying marks of a school bus. The answer to your question is yes.

I would like you to keep in mind that NHTSA has two sets of regulations, issued under different acts of Congress, which have a bearing on your situation. The first of these is the regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, issued by us under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The second set of regulations is the highway safety program standards issued by us under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The highway safety program standards cover a wide range of subjects and are considered for Federal funding of state highway safety programs. The yellow paint and black markings of school buses are features of school bus safety covered by the program standard for pupil transportation safety.

We promulgated the following definition of a MPV, as found in 49 CFR S571.3, under the authority of the Vehicle Safety Act:

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.

You are thus correct in certifying a van as a MPV if it carries less than 11 persons, including the driver. This is the case even if the MPV has the yellow paint and black trim of a school bus. You must certify your MPV as meeting all motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's. You may also voluntarily manufacture the MPV in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

New vans carrying 11 or more persons (i.e., 10 or more passengers) are "buses" under NHTSA's definition of a "bus." We define "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons" (49 CFR 5571.3). Regardless of how they are painted or marked, new buses that are sold for purposes that include carrying school children must be certified as meeting our school bus safety standards.

You should also note that the color and other identifying features of a school bus are aspects of school bus safety covered by Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the highway safety program standards issued by NHTSA for their own highway safety programs. A state's implementation of HSPS No. 17 would affect the operation and identification of school vehicles to the extent of its implementation of the standard's recommendations. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your information.

Please contact me if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Francis Armstrong, Administrator National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

I am writing to request a letter of interpretation on the National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration position regarding the appropriate vehicle classification for a yellow van with warning lights but set up to carry less than 10 passengers. In Public Law 89-563, a school bus is defined as:

A passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.

Part 571 says a school bus means:

A bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying student to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Since a bus is defined as a vehicle to carry 10 passengers, I understand the two definitions to be talking about the same type vehicle.

From time to time, we receive orders for our small school bus equipped with a handicapped lift and floor planning for 5 to 10 passengers. We have been calling this type vehicle a multipurpose passenger vehicle on its certification sticker. The yearly production of vehicles with this type seating is small. Typically, our small school buses have seating capacities from 12 to 20 passengers and are clearly school buses.

We would appreciate your referring this letter to the office of Chief Counsel for the correct interpretation. Specifically, the question centers on a vehicle that is painted yellow, has black horizontal stripes, red and yellow warning lights on each end, and has designated seating positions for 6 to 10 passengers.

Thank you for your attention to these questions.

Sincerely, Rod Nash, P.E. Corporate Engineering COLLINS INDUSTRIES, INC. /mw

ID: 1985-03.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert D. Bagg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Federal regulations that might affect a product you have developed. The information submitted with your letter describes the product as a collapsible partition that attaches to the rear of the front seat in a motor vehicle. The purpose of your product is to keep heat within the front portion of a car. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued several standards that apply or affect the use of your product. First, we have issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used in an interior partition. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highway," of the American National Standard Institute. A copy of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z-26 are enclosed for your reference.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also regulates the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard. Under the requirements of this standard, an interior partition to be used on a passenger vehicle at locations requisite for driving visibility, such as the device you have developed, may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, Item 11A, or Item 14 glazing materials.

Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (i.e. those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraph S6.1 of the standard. In addition, section 6.3 of the standard requires each item of motor vehicle equipment to be certified pursuant to section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, new motor vehicle equipment, such as interior partitions, must comply with applicable safety standards prior to sale. The manufacture, sale, or installation of a partition that does not conform to the standard, or the installation of a partition in a new vehicle in a location that is not authorized in Standard No. 205, would be in a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109(a), anyone who sells motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Installation of your device could also be affected by Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Section 3.2 of Standard No. 201, sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to protect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. A copy of Standard No. 201 is enclosed for your reference. Therefore, if your device were installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, as equipped, complies with all standard including Standard No. 201.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment. That section 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 equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add your product to a motor vehicle, if that action would "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners can, themselves, add your product to their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, installation of your product by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under Sections 151 et seg., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. Again, Section 109(a) imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in motor vehicle equipment. A copy of the Vehicle Safety act and an information sheet outlining the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers is enclosed.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

ENCLS.

7/5/85

Dear Mr. Each,

In a mush as I didn't talk to you over phone, I'm sending this copy of Invention What I would like to know is, would this most the gov't requirement legally to use in vehicles. Before the manufacture and what. I would like advise.

RoBagg

OHEONTA, N.Y.

Dat# 3,002,784

OCC 0944

FIG.1.

FIG.2.

FIG.4.

FIG.3.

FIG.5.

(Graphics omitted)

INVENTOR.

Robert D. Bagg

By: L. S. Saulsbury.

ATTORNEY

Robert D. Bagg An Automobile Heat Saver Partition (One Sheet of Drawing)

This invention relates to an automobile heat saver partition.

It is the principal object of this invention to provide a collapsible partition for automobiles adapted to be located in the automobile and attached to the rear of the front seat so as to keep the heat of the automobile within the front seat space thereby eliminating the necessity of heating the rear seat space when vacant so that the driver will be supplied with adequate heat during cold weather with below zero temperatures.

It is another object of the invention to provide a partition for automobiles which has a transparent top piece so that the partition while located in the rear of the driver will not impair the visibility of the driver through the rear view mirror.

It is still another object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles that is collapsible so that it can be stored easily in the trunk of the automobile when not in use or even left standing in a collapsed condition in rear of the front seat when not in use.

It is a further object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles that can be attached to the rear of the front seat and supported therefrom by a simple strap.

It is a still further object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles which will be made up in the form of a kit of few tube parts which can be readily assembled and fitted to one another and attached to the front seat of the automobile, and that is easy to disassemble and put into storage, the same consuming little space when disassembled.

Other objects of the invention are to provide a collapsible heat saver partition for automobiles, having the above objects in mind, which is of simple construction, inexpensive to manufacture, has a minimum number of parts, light in weight, easy to assemble, durable, of pleasing appearance, effective and efficient in use.

For other objects and a better understanding of the invention, reference may be had to the following detailed description taken in connection with the accompanying drawing, in which

Figure 1 is a side elevational view of a heat saver partition installed in an automobile upon the rear of the front seat thereof and constructed according to one form of the invention.

Fig. 2 is a perspective view of the partition and the seat to which it is attached by a strap,

Fig. 3 is an enlarged vertical sectional view of the partition as viewed on line 3-3 of Fig. 2 with illustration made as to the manner in which the partition may be collapsed,

Fig. 4 is a vertical perspective view of a heat saving partition formed of a plurality of tube parts according to another form of the invention, and

Fig. 5 is an exploded view of the partition shown in Fig. 4 and illustrating the manner in which they are assembled to one another.

Referring now particularly to Figs. 1 to 3, 10 generally represents the collapsible partition constructed according to one form of the invention comprising a bottom section 11 and a top frame 12 with a transparent window 13 therein and hingedly connected to the upper end of the lower section by hinges 14 and 15 so that the upper frame section 12 can be collapsed downwardly over the rear face of the lower section 11 at times when the rear seat space is to be heated as illustrated in Fig. 3 at 12' or when the partition is to be stored in the trunk space. Strap parts 16 and 17 are extended about the front seat to hold the partition against the rear face of the front seat. The window frame section 12 is held in its elevated position by a turn knob 18 secured to the lower section 11 on a pivot pin 19 near to the upper edge thereof and adapted when turned to overlie the lower edge to extend upwardly over the lower edge of the frame section 12 whereby the upper section will be held in its extended and raised position. The lower edge of the section 11 is cut away at 20 to accommodate the shaft hump in the floor of the automobile. The partition may be made of cardboard, plywood, plastic or metal.

Referring now particularly to Figs. 4 and 5, the partition is made up of aluminum tube parts. Pipe leg supports 22 and 23 have fitted to their upper ends thereof a transverse member 24 by its sockets 25 and 26 to the upper ends of which there is fitted legs 27 and 28 of a U-shaped member having a top portion 29. An elongated transparent plastic sleeve 30 shaped to conform to the U-shaped member is slid downwardly over the top portion 29 to provide a window partition through which the drivercan see. Plastic sleeve 30 is closed at the top and shaped to conform to the rounded ends of the top portion 29 of the U-shaped member. Separable straps 31 and 32 are respectively secured to the leg extensions 22 and 23 and can be fastened together by a buckle 33 about the front of the automobile seat in the manner illustrated in Fig. 4. In both forms of the invention the upper section or part of the partition is contoured to conform to the upper interior of the automobile.

It should now be apparent that there has been provided a heat saver partition for automobiles that can be collapsed or disassembled when not being used and which can be easily assembled, upon the rear of the front seat by simply connecting together straps about the front seat.

The legs and the transverse member constitute a lower section and the U-shape member with the transparent sleeve 30 constitute the upper section.

While various changes may be made in the detailed construction, it shall be understood that such changes shall be within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims.

WHAT IS CLAIMED IS:

1. A heat saver partition for automobiles comprising a lower section, strap means for detachably securing the lower section to the rear of and about the front seat of the automobile, a transparent second section releasably connected to the lower section and adapted to be elevated or lowered therefrom to provide a closure for the upper portion of the automobiles interior, said upper section conforming generally thereto.

2. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 1, said upper section being hingedly connected to the upper edge of the lower section and adapted to be collapsed downwardly thereover, and latch means for securing the upper section in its elevated position from the lower section.

3. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 2, and said lower section being cut away to accommodate the shaft hump on the floor of the automobile.

4. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 1, and said lower section formed of vertical pipes and a transverse member having sockets fitted to the upper ends of the pipes, and said upper section comprising a U-shaped member having legs adapted to be tight fitted into the sockets of the transverse member, and a transparent member conforming to the shape of the U-shaped member and slide fitted downwardly thereover.

ID: 1985-03.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/85 EST

TITLE: FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103 (D), VSA SECTION 108 (A)(2)(A); LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTING, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES, REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, N0A-30; LETTER DATED 04/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; 7/30/90 LETTER FROM P. J. RICE TO B. DITTEMORE (A35; STD. 205); 6/14/89 LETTER FROM B. DITTEMORE TO NHTSA (0CC 3633)

TEXT: The increasing popularity of window tinting in recent years has led to many questions on the effect of Federal auto safety laws on this practice. Is tinting allowed? If so, by whom and how much? And what about state tinting laws? The following discussion provides a brief explanation of the Federal laws in this area.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorized 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 a vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including vehicle windows.

In 1967, the agency issued Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials in new motor vehicles and those sold as replacement equipment. In addition to establishing some new provisions, Standard No. 205 incorporates a widely recognized industry standard on the subject -- the "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Under the ANSI standard, window tinting is permitted, subject to specified performance requirements on light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing.

Windows in New Vehicles

A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that the glazing used in its vehicles conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 205. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to any safety standard is subject to civil penalties and recall action under the Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, all windows required to driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, must meet all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance and abrasion resistance. The agency considers all windows in a passenger car, and the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, to be requisite for driving visibility.

Likewise, if a dealer or other person places tinting film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of tinting film 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 abrasion resistance and other requirements in the standard.

2

Windows in Used Vehicles

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. The 1974 amendment (15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (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, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add tinting to windows in a motor vehicle, if that tinting would "render inoperative" the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties (of up to $ 1000 per violation) for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard. If any of those commercial businesses added tinting material which reduced the light transmittance of the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility to a level below 70 percent, the agency would consider that action's a "rendering inoperative" of the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. The statute does not prohibit tinting by commercial businesses, but it does limit the use of tinting.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners may, themselves, add any level of tint to the windows in their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, tinting done by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.

Effects on State Law

Federal law generally preempts any inconsistent state laws on the same subject covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)) provides:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment [,] any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Thus, States may not establish provisions regarding tinting or other vehicle window requirements which are either more or less stringent than those provided by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. For example, a State law which specifies a transmittance level less than 70 percent for windows requisite for driving visibility in new vehicles would be preempted. The adoption or retention of such a State law would have no effect on the Federal prohibition of such an installation. Further, any

3

State law or regulation permitting manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses to install tinting materials on a vehicle after its first sale in violation of Standard No. 205 would also be preempted.

States may establish and enforce requirements identical to any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, including Standard No. 205. They may also, as part of their motor vehicle inspection regulations, prohibit vehicle owners from modifying their windows, through tinting or otherwise, in any way that would violate Standard No. 205.

ID: 1985-03.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mike Landgraf -- Land Design Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mike Landgraf Land Design Group 685 Lakebird Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Thank you for your letter of May 21, 1985, concerning Federal regulations that might affect a cargo system for hatch back cars that you are developing. You requested confidentiality for your specific product description and drawing. Since your design has not been marketed as yet, we are granting your request for confidentiality. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have not issued any standard that directly applies to a cargo system such as yours. However, use of your system could be affected by Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors) which sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors; a copy of the standard and an information sheet discussing the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers under our regulations is enclosed for your reference.

Standard No. 111 provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. If the field of view of the inside mirror in a new vehicle is obstructed by anything other than head restraints or seated occupants, then an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger's side of the vehicle. Thus, if your product were installed in a new vehicle by a manufacturer or dealer prior to its sale to a consumer, and if installation of your product would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to ensure the vehicle was equipped with the necessary additional mirror required by Standard No. 111.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle by adding section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section 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, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business adds your product to a used vehicle and if its installation would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to install an outside passenger side mirror. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Thus, under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any equipment they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that equipment would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the performance requirements of Standard No. 111. They would, of course, still have to comply with any applicable State laws.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures