ID: nht89-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/89

FROM: SAMSON HELFGOTT -- HELFGOTT AND KARAS

TO: ERICA K. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERICA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108(A) 2(A); REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNI NG LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL IN FORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST; SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS H-85-30 ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

My client, Harold A. Caine, and the Safety Autodrivers Foundation for Education (S.A.F.E.) of Freeport, New York, have come up with a proposal for an amber (SAE approved) lamp that would be placed adjacent to the center high mounted brake lamp of a ve hicle. The amber lamp would have its own independent wiring and separate compartment so as not to interfere in any way with the operation of the center brake lamp. The amber lamp would be illuminated upon ignition and remain on until such time as the b rake lamp is illuminated so that the two lamps would be mutally exclusive and the following driver would be presented with either an amber or a red lamp, but not both together.

Accordingly, there would be no confusion between these lamps. We believe that there would be no impairment of the center brake lamp and that the amber lamp would not render the center brake lamp inoperative in any way, since it would operate independ ently thereof. We also do not believe that there would be any impairment from any other existing lamps.

We would appreciate knowing whether such amber lamp would be acceptable both for original equipment as well as for the after-market sales, under terms of Standard #108.

In a test conducted by Dr. A. James McKnight of the National Public Services Research Institute (Attachment A), he has found that with the presence of such amber lamp,

the improvement in breaking response time was between 0.2 sec. and 0.3 sec.

We believe that this improvement may occur for a number of reasons. Firstly, the presence of the amber lamp adjacent to this center brake lamp and preferable directly below the center brake lamp, focuses the attention of the rear driver to the center of the leading vehicle so that when the brake lamp turns on, it saves some time from the rear driver having to first focus his attention onto that center point at the back of the leading vehicle. Secondly, the illumination of an amber lamp psychologica lly gives a "warning" effect to the trailing driver so that he is already in a state of awareness and readiness when the brake will be applied and the red lamp is turned on. Thirdly, the lamp provides the effect of a rear running light as is supported b y the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (Attachment B).

One feature of the amber light system is to include the use of a photo-electric cell that would control the brightness and prevent glare, based on existing ambient lighting conditions. The brightness would be within the minimum and maximum range of S tandard #108. The areas of red and amber illumination will also comply with the Standard #108 requirements.

It has additionally been found that the amber color is better perceived than either the green or the red color and, especially at greater distances, the amber lamp will be more easily visible. In addition, the amber lamp illumination will not be subj ect to chromeostereopsis errors in distance judgment by any part of the driving population, whereas green or red could be subject to a significant error in judgment of its distance.

In support of these explanations, I am also enclosing an affidavit from Dr. Merrill J. Allen, Professor of Optometry at Indiana University, together with some biographical information about him (Attachment C). This affidavit was originally submitted in the United States Patent and Trademark Office as part of the prosecution of a patent application to Mr. Caine. The application has been allowed and is shortly expected to issue.

We would appreciate receiving your response on this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely yours,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 30, 1990

FROM: G. Nick Routh -- President, American Energetics

TO: Connie Mack -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from J.M. Fish to C. Mack (A35; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from G.N. Routh to NHTSA c/o J. Medlin

TEXT:

I have a small business that is engaged in the selling and distribution of solar control films throughout the United States. These films are designed to reduce radiant heat gain through windows thereby lowering the energy costs. Over the past ten years or so, the market for auto window film has grown significantly. The demand for these films has increased year after year due to the features they provide for automobiles. As you are aware, the design of cars has changed dramatically due to fuel use co nsiderations and other factors. Cars have become smaller with smaller engines and more glass has been added to give a more spacious feeling. The additional glass and smaller engines have placed a greater load on the air conditioners in automobiles. Th e use of film on auto windows helps reduce the heat gain through the glass area and allows the cars to be more efficient and more comfortable for the occupants. It also reduces the effects of ultra-violet rays on the interior, reduces glare, and makes t he glass more shatter-resistant.

The purpose of this letter is enlist your assistance in a very serious matter that could gravely affect our industry. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), through the U.S. Justice Department, has filed suits against six companies involved in the installation of film on autos in the state of Florida. The six companies named in the suits are all in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area. The basis for the suits is that these companies have violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Statute # 2 05 (FMVSS #205). This statute states that there must be a minimum of 70% visible light transmission through driver and passenger windows of new automobiles and cannot be tampered with even after first sale of the automobile since these windows are consi dered a safety aspect of the vehicle. The problem is that the State of Florida has a law on the books which allows companies to install film on automobiles as long as the film has a visible light transmission of 35% on the driver and passenger windows. Various other Sunbelt states have adopted laws similar to Florida's with no increase in accidents or additional problems with law enforcement officers. Our problem appears to be one of a "jurisdictional" nature in that NHTSA allowed the states to write laws that allowed these six companies and some 5,000 other businesses throughout the United States to be engaged in the business of applying films to automobiles and they are now saying that their statute preempts the state laws that are different from t he statute. I have enclosed a copy of a letter that I have sent to the people at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which will hopefully shed more light on the situation.

Basically, the suits that NHTSA have filed endanger the livelihoods of some 5,000 installers across the country along with some 30 distributors

and 7 manufacturers. We feel that this is an issue that is best left to the discretion of the individual states with regard to the use of film in the automotive aftermarket. In the states that allow darker film than FMVSS #205 would allow, there is no evidence that traffic safety has suffered or law enforcement personnel have been placed in any greater danger than they normally face in the pursuit of their duties. What has happened is that some half-million consumers per year are enjoying the benefit s of a product that is sorely needed in the automotive aftermarket.

Our industry has petitioned NHTSA to change their standard to more correctly reflect what is going on in many states which is the allowance of 35% visible light transmission film on the driver/passenger windows. While this may be one way to address the p roblem we currently face, it would seem to me that the simplest way to address this problem would be for NHTSA to address itself to the standards necessary for the manufacture of new automobiles and let the individual states legislate the requirements of items that are going to be added to automobiles after the car has been purchased and registered in a state.

I would humbly request that you look into this matter at your earliest convenience to see if you can determine what would be the best solution to this problem that is fair to all concerned.

ID: nht90-3.90

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harold Williams

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-3-90 from H. Williams to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 4640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements on marketing your product, an aftermarket mirror wiper for truck mirrors that hooks into the truck's air system. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had requ irements for materials to be used with such a product. You also requested the agency send any regulations about such a product. The following discussion and the enclosed information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Equipm ent" explain your responsibility under NHTSA's regulations.

As way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product or particular materials; the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary perf ormance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this provision in the law, NHTSA cann ot approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

Although NHTSA has no safety standard directly about a mirror wiper, the agency has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR S571.111; co py enclosed). This means that vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 111.

As for installation of your device on mirrors in the aftermarket, such installations are limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair b usiness from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as Standard No. 111. If installation of your mirror wiper resulted in a vehicle no lon ger complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed the mirror wiper would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed on the vehicle in compliance Cwith Standard No. 111. To a void a "rendering

operative" violation, you should examine your product to determine if installing your mirror wiper would result in the mirror no longer complying with the Standard's requirements.

Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the "render inoperative" provision.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any device they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whethe r that device renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

Other statutory provisions in the Safety Act could affect your product. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your mirror wiper are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) on the recall and remed y of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of th e safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

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

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: 1985-04.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: EPL Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James L. Loden President, EPL Incorporated 200 Campus Drive, RD Pemberton Farms Research Campus Mt. Holly, NJ 08060

Dear Mr. Loden:

Thank you for your July 16, 1985 letter inquiring about the existence of any Federal safety requirements applicable to your projected sale of heated windshield wiper blades. You also asked if Federal testing or research testing or research is being conducted on windshield wiper systems.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems and No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, which are applicable to new motor vehicles. While these standards do not regulate the heating component of wipers, they do, among other things, require that a defrosting or 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 sets limits on the glare from certain metal 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. Copies of these three standards are enclosed.

If a new vehicle equipped with your blade did not comply with Standard No. 103, 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 or defrosting system to continue to perform as required by Standard No. 103 and No. 104, and would not produce unacceptable glare in the driver's field of view, as prohibited by Standard No. 107.

Copies of the windshield compliance test reports for Standard Nos 103 and 104 are available from the agency's Technical Reference Division. Copies of these reports can be purchased by contacting Mr. Robert A. Hornickle (202-426-2987).

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

E P L Incorporated 200 Campus Dr. RD 1 Pemberton Farms Research Campus Mt. Holly, NJ 08060

July 16, 1985

Mr. Steven Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

During a recent conversation, Edward Jetner, Staff Engineer for the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, suggested I contact you for information on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as they apply to a new product we intend to manufacture.

Our company, EPL Incorporated, is starting to manufacture a heated windshield wiper blade. We call it "Thermoblade", and it is designed for use on motor vehicles of all types. Thermoblade is an important safety item as it prevents snow and ice accumulation on the wiper blade and enables it to clean the windshield and provide good visibility for the driver even under the most severe weather conditions.

Is the product we intend to manufacture covered by certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards? Has any Federal testing been done, or are any of our Government's testing laboratories involved in any research and development on windshield wiper systems?

Any information you can give us which will help us launch our new product will be very much appreciated. Should you need more information, please call me at 609-261-6000.

Sincerely,

James L. Loden President

ID: 86-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Yueh-An Chen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Yueh-Am Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Company, Ltd. P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan Taiwan 330 Republic of China

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1986, asking questions about features of motor vehicle headlighting systems.

Your first question is "to which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A." The regulation that applies to motor vehicle headlighting assemblies is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Its official citation is Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 571.108. Standard No. 108 incorporates various materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) pertaining to headlamps, such as photometric performance.

With respect to sealed beam headlamps, you have asked whether "it is necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e. the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?" The standard requires that all headlamps, whether sealed beam or not, must be capable of mechanical aim, that is to say, with an aiming device placed in front of the lamp unit without the removal of any vehicle parts. However, the actual aim adjustment device such as a screw or knob may be located anywhere.

With respect to replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether there is any regulation "regarding the maximum degree of the inclination" of the lens, such as a 20 degree maximum. No, there is no regulatory limitation. However, the headlamp must comply with the minimum photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 with the lens in its design position, and it must be mechanically aimable using equipment designed to interface with the three aiming pads required to be located on the headlamp lens. The degree to which inclination may be limited is influenced by the design of mechanical aiming equipment available in the field for aim inspection and aiming. Consequently, you should contact manufacturers of such equipment to be sure that your headlamps are designed to be mechanically aimable as required by law.

You have also asked if there is any regulation regarding the necessity of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e. do not need to open hood." No, there is no such U.S. regulation.

Finally, you have asked "If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAP, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle" is such a configuration permissible. The answer is yes, as long as the headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements as shaded by that part of the vehicle, and as long as any replacement headlamp units produced by you or others can also meet the photometric requirements in the shaded location.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 23, 1986

NHTSA 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We are the largest automobile manufacturer in Taiwan, R.O.C. In order to make our newly designed model satisfy the U.S.A. regulation, we are now confronted by some troubles in the part of headlight system. If it is possible, please provide us with the following informations:

1. To which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A.

2. If adopting sealed beam headlamp unit, is it necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e., the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?

3. If adopting replaceable-bulb headlamp unit, not sealed beam, is there any regulation regarding the maximum degree of the inclination of glass lense, e.g., must be less than 20o (inclination degree (A) as showed in Fig)?

4. Is there any regulation regarding the necessary of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e., do not need to open the hood:

5. If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAE, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle, then, could it pass the regulations or not?

Your kind assistance and earliest reply will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division

ID: 86-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ann Boriskie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION !PAR=AUTHOR

TEXT:

Ms. Ann Boriskie 6738 Firelight Lane Dallas, TX 75248

Dear Ms. Boriskie:

Thank you for your letter of June 2, 1986, asking for approval of a device you have invented which is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle of a safety belt. As you requested, the agency will not disclose the details of your proprietary product. Although we understand your concern that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985)

Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)12)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have issued two safety standards which affect safety belts. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, requires the push-button release for a safety belt to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business would be prohibited since it completely covers the safety belt push-button. In addition, Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that a safety belt no longer met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

I am returning, under separate cover, the samples of your device that you sent the agency. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 2785y

Sgt. Cal Karl
Minnesota State Patrol
District 4700-Commercial Vehicle Section
100 Stockyard Rd., Rm. 252
So. St. Paul, MN 55075

Dear Sergeant Karl:

This is in response to your letter to Marvin Shaw of my staff seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). Specifically, you asked how S5.2.3.2, which applies to school buses, would affect the installation of certain designs of "vandal locks" on school buses. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this safety standard for you.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information. Throughout this letter, I will use the term "vandal lock" to describe locking systems installed for the doors and emergency exits of school buses intended to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the school bus through those exits when the bus is unoccupied and unattended. S5.2.3.2, the relevant provision of Standard No. 217, reads as follows:

The engine starting system of a school bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus. For purposes of this requirement, "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated by a person at the door without a special device such as a key or special information such as a combination.

Your first question was whether S5.2.3.2 prohibits the use of a vandal lock system that, although it must be unlocked for the bus to start, can be relocked once the bus is started. The answer is that such locks are not prohibited by Standard No. 217. I have enclosed a copy of a December 7, 1982 letter to Mr. M. B. Mathieson in which NHTSA addressed this issue. As stated in that letter, "Nothing in Standard No. 217 prohibits the installation of locking doors [on a school bus] as long as the vehicle cannot be started with the [emergency] door in the locked position." In other words, the prohibition in S5.2.3.2 focuses exclusively on whether the vehicle can be started when any emergency exit is locked. If the school bus cannot be started when an emergency exit is locked, the bus complies with S5.2.3.2, even if an emergency exit can be locked once the bus is started.

Your second question was whether S5.2.3.2 allows a vandal lock to be relocked after the vehicle is running without the use of a key or special information. The answer to this question is yes. As stated above, the prohibition in S5.2.3.2 focuses exclusively on whether the vehicle can be started when any emergency exit is locked. If the school bus cannot be started when an emergency exit is locked, the bus complies with S5.2.3.2, even if an emergency exit can be locked once the bus is started. Nothing in S5.2.3.2 requires that any locks on emergency exits be relocked only by means of a key or some special information after the vehicle is started.

I appreciate your concern about potential problems that might arise if emergency doors are locked after a school bus is started. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make or should have made some provision to prevent emergency exits on school buses from being relocked once the bus is started, it is not possible to interpret the language of S5.2.3.2 as including such a provision. Since an interpretation cannot add or delete requirements in the language of a safety standard, the only way whereby the standard could include a provision to prevent emergency exits on school buses from being relocked once the bus is started would be for this agency to undertake a rulemaking action to amend the current language of S5.2.3.2.

We are unaware of any safety need to commence such a rulemaking. We do not have any indication that there have been deaths or injuries to school bus occupants as a result of an emergency exit being relocked once the bus was started. Moreover, the potential hazards to school bus occupants absent any Standard No. 217 requirements on this subject seem minimal. School bus doors, including emergency doors, should not be locked when the bus is in operation, and we believe that, in practice, they remain unlocked when the buses are in use. It is also our understanding that the vast majority of school buses with emergency doors that can be locked in this fashion are voluntarily equipped with warning buzzers that alert the driver to the fact that the doors have been relocked.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:2l7 d:ll/27/90

ID: 2790y

Mr. Danny Pugh
Engineering Manager
Utilimaster Corporation
65266 State Rd. 19
P.O. Box 585
Wakarusa, IN 46573

Dear Mr. Pugh:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). More specifically, you asked about the requirements for safety belts at the various seating positions in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating under 10,000 pounds that you called "van conversions."

You first asked whether a "van conversion" would be classified as a passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Vehicles commonly called "vans" may be classed in four different vehicle categories (set forth at 49 CFR 571.3) for the purposes of our safety standards, depending on the configuration of the particular "van." Most cargo vans are classified as "trucks" under our safety standards, because those vehicles are "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." Most passenger vans are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles," because they do not meet the definition of a "truck", but are "constructed on a truck chassis." Those vans that have eleven or more designated seating positions are classified as "buses," because they are "designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Finally, one minivan (the Nissan Axxess) was certified by its manufacturer as a "passenger car," because it was "designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

Additionally, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. If you are interested in the appropriate classification for a particular van conversion, we will offer our tentative opinion if you will provide us with detailed information on the van conversion in which you are interested.

You next asked on what date safety belts were required in "van conversions," what type of safety belts, and at what locations those belts were required. As explained above, we do not class vehicles as "van conversions" for the purposes of our safety standards. If the vans were classed as passenger cars, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the car. Beginning December 11, 1989, passenger cars were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. Since September l, l989, all passenger cars are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection for outboard front-seat occupants.

Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the vehicle. Beginning September 1, 1991, vans classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles or trucks (other than motor homes) must have lap/shoulder belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions. Motor homes manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 will continue to be required to have lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. In addition, effective September l, l99l vans must meet dynamic crash test injury criteria for the front outboard seating positions.

If the vans were classed as buses, buses manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder or a lap-only safety belt at the driver's seating position. Beginning September 1, 1991, buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less (except school buses) must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at all front and rear outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position.

Also, the agency has proposed extending the automatic crash protection requirements mentioned above to these other vehicle classifications.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208#571 d:12/13/90

ID: 9478

Mr. Ted H. Richardson
Fleet Coordinator
Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 1540
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75456-1540

Dear Mr. Richardson:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to this office asking our opinion regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Your letter referenced a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff about the applicability of FMVSS 120 to your product. As Mr. Myers informed you, the answer to your question depends on whether your product, the "Wishbone Carriage" used to position and carry the "Priefert livestock chute" is a "motor vehicle" (i.e., trailer) under our Safety Act and regulations. Based on the information we have, we believe the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles. Section 102(3) (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) of the Safety Act defines motor vehicle as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA further defines "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Your letter enclosed a brochure containing pictures and other information relating to the livestock chute (Priefert Squeeze Chute, Model 91). The chute is farm equipment. The upper 2/3 of the chute is constructed of steel bars, while the lower 1/3

is composed of steel panels on both sides that can be lowered or removed. The chute comes with such accessories as head gate, tail gate, and calf table. The chute is positioned on the ground in a barnyard, feed lot, pasture, or field. It is used to channel livestock or, with the head and/or tail gate in place, to immobilize an animal for medicating, branding, tagging, and the like. Your information also describes the carriage that transports the chute. The Wishbone Carriage is a 2-wheeled U-shaped dolly which is designed to be manually attached to special fittings on the chute. With the carriage thus attached, the chute can be towed by vehicle to the next job site. Once at the next job site, the wheeled carriage is detached and the chute is once again placed on the ground for use.

Whether the Wishbone Carriage is a motor vehicle (trailer) depends on its on-road use. This agency has consistently held that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining equipment, are not considered motor vehicles even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, as well as equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

We have determined that the Wishbone Carriage is not a motor vehicle, because it appears it will be primarily used to transport the chute from job site to job site on the farm. Not being a motor vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including FMVSS No. 120, would not apply to your product.

Please note, however, that if the Carriage is regularly used to carry the chute from farm to farm on public roads, or is used more frequently on the public roads than the use we anticipate, the agency may reexamine the determination that the carriage is not a motor vehicle. Also, you may wish to consult your attorney for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and use laws and product liability.

I hope this information is helpful to you. We have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 120 and provided you our definition of a trailer, as you requested. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:120#VSA d:4/12/94