ID: 9128

Mr. Christopher S. Spencer
Engineering
4100 Troy Road #206
Springfield, Ohio 45502

This responds to your letter about the brake reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are developing a new reservoir design to improve reservoir volume without increasing the need for space. You asked how to test your reservoirs since you believe that "(t)he safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The standard's reservoir requirements for trucks and buses are set forth in section S5.1.2. That section requires these vehicles to be equipped with one or more service reservoir systems that meet specified performance requirements. Section S5.1.2.2 specifies the following:

Each reservoir shall be capable of withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500 psi, whichever is greater, for 10 minutes.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an air brake system reservoir has a minimum level of structural integrity. NHTSA has long interpreted the term "withstand" to require that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceeding one percent. At one point, the agency issued an interpretation concluding that the term "withstand" meant that a reservoir can deform only slightly and must contain the applied pressure with only a limited pressure drop at any time during the test. However, NHTSA later withdrew that interpretation because it inadvertently increased the severity of the requirement. See 42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977, and 43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978.

You asked about this requirement in connection with a reservoir design that includes a bushing on the inside of an endcap. A weld is placed around the bushing.

You describe two different procedures you have used to seal the reservoir. In what you describe as "Test Criteria 1," a socket head plug is put into the bushing with 3 full wraps of tape. With this first method, you state that as the pressure is applied to the reservoir, the endcap starts to expand out. The bushing stretches with the endcap, and as the bushing stretches the threads are pulled away from the plug. The plug must therefore be retightened several times before the required pressure is reached. In your "Test Criteria 2," you state that a rubber grommet or washer is placed on the inside of the bushing and forced to expand to seal the bushings from the inside. You stated that this method checks the weld but removes the threads from the test. With the second method, you state that there was no failure at over five times the working pressure.

While Standard No. 121 does not specify a particular test procedure for this requirement, the language of S5.1.2.2 makes it clear that a reservoir must "withstand" for 10 minutes a condition where the reservoir is pressurized at the specified level. Therefore, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would pressurize a reservoir to the specified level. This would necessitate sealing the reservoir.

In considering how a particular reservoir would be sealed, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to evaluate the reservoir's structural integrity and ability to withstand pressurization. I can offer you the following comments on the two alternative test methods you described. The first method (Test Criteria 1) would appear to evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization. The threaded plug would appear to reasonably approximate how the reservoir would be sealed in an actual use situation. I note that the mere fact that the plug needs to be tightened during the test to achieve the specified level of pressure would not indicate a failure but would simply reflect minor air leakage around the plug.

The second method (Test Criteria 2) would not fully evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization, since it would, as you recognized, remove the threads from the test, thereby creating an artificial seal. It is our opinion that a reservoir would not be capable of "withstanding" the specified hydrostatic internal pressure if the threads failed under such pressurization. This would represent a structural failure equivalent to a rupture.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121 d:4/25/94

ID: Spelcast5635

Mr. Derek Fletcher
Snug Seat
12801 E. Independence Blvd.
PO Box 1739
Matthews, NC 28106

Dear Mr. Fletcher:

This responds to your e-mail letter and phone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, in which you requested a temporary exemption from the child restraint anchorage system requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. The agency does not have authority to grant exemptions to equipment manufacturers. However, in this limited instance, we will exercise our discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to the Spelcast special needs child restraint system (CRS).

In your letter, you explained that the Spelcast is specifically designed to safely transport children in hip spica casts or with other lower extremity casting. You stated that typically, a child only uses the Spelcast for a period of 6 to 8 weeks while in a cast. According to your letter, hospitals temporarily loan the Spelcast to individuals with children in casts. You describe the loans as being administered by trained hospital staff, who provide instruction on the restraints installation and use.

Under FMVSS No. 213, all CRSs (except harnesses, car beds, and belt-positioning seats) manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, must be equipped with a means of attaching to a vehicles child restraint anchorage system [1] . This requirement, along with vehicle anchorage requirements, improves the compatibility of vehicle seats and CRSs and provides a universal system for installing CRSs. Increasing the ease of installation reduces the instances of incorrectly installed restraints. Improved compatibility and proper installation increase the effectiveness of a CRS in preventing death or injury.

You indicated that the Spelcast is currently not offered for sale because it does not meet the LATCH requirements of FMVSS No. 213. However, you stated that when the Spelcast was sold, it was primarily sold to hospitals and child passenger safety agencies and was not available through any retail outlet. You stated that there are currently no other CRSs available that accommodate the needs of children in casts and that the only alternative is ambulance transport.

As a CRS, the Spelcast must meet all applicable provisions of FMVSS No. 213, including those for the child restraint anchorage system attachments. When a Federal motor vehicle safety standard contains a requirement applicable to a product, Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new product that does not comply with that requirement. See, 49 U.S.C. 30112. The Federal law governing our agency does not explicitly provide for exempting manufacturers of equipment items, such as CRSs, from the application of the standards.

However, we believe that flexibility is called for to accommodate the special medical needs of the individuals who rely on your product. The Spelcast provides a transportation option for a small population that has very limited alternatives. One of the objectives of the LATCH requirements is to minimize improper installation of CRSs. Because of the distribution methods for the Spelcast, users receive personal instruction from qualified staff. This instruction, combined with the limited and controlled distribution of the child restraint, reduces the chance that a Spelcast will be improperly installed. However, to continue to ensure that only properly instructed individuals would use these seats and to prevent the seats general use, a system is needed to ensure that a loaned seat is returned to the hospital or agency once a child can be accommodated by a CRS certified to all the requirements of FMVSS No. 213.

In your phone conversation, you explained that the seat is being redesigned in cooperation with another CRS manufacturer to comply with the LATCH requirements, but that the availability of the new seat is still about 8 months away. Based on this and other information mentioned in this letter, we will exercise our discretion not to enforce the child restraint anchorage system requirements of FMVSS No. 213 against the Spelcast for a period of 8 months from the date of this letter. This will provide an alternative to ambulance transport until the redesigned seat is available. Note that this determination applies only to the child restraint anchorage provisions of FMVSS No. 213 and that the Spelcast must still comply with all other relevant portions of the standard.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.10/1/03





---

[1] This is commonly referred to as the LATCH (lower anchors and tether for children) requirement.

ID: nht95-5.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Chuck Chvala -- Wisconsin State Senator

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/24/95 LETTER FROM DOUG BURNETT TO DOROTHY NAKAMA

TEXT: Dear Senator Chvala:

This responds to a letter from U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold on your behalf, asking whether a pending redefinition of Wisconsin's "school bus" definition would violate Federal law. Senator Feingold contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because our agency administers the Federal requirements for school buses.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns. As explained below, my review leads me to conclude that Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus would not conflict with Federal law, insofar as the redefinition relates to the operation of school buses. However, an area of possible conflict relates to the requirements for mirrors on school buses.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSS's on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The legislation requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting the school bus FMVSS's. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state regulation.

NHTSA defines a "school bus" as a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, and defines a "bus" as a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons. 49 CFR 571.3.

We understand that the new definition contemplated by Wisconsin would exclude some vehicles that are school buses under our definition. Information from Mr. Doug Burnett of your staff indicates that the new definition would define a school bus as "a motor vehicle which carries 16 or more passengers (in addition to the operator)." Thus, a motor vehicle that can carry 11-16 persons (including the driver) would be a "school bus" for Federal purposes, but apparently not for Wisconsin's purposes.

Since the States, and not NHTSA, regulate the use of vehicles, the inconsistency would be immaterial with regard to requirements adopted by Wisconsin pertaining to the use of school buses. Wisconsin may set the operational requirements for those vehicles the State defines as "school buses" without regard to our school bus definition.

However, the inconsistency would matter at the point of sale of a new school bus. The FMVSS's specify requirements for school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR part 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. A decision by Wisconsin to adopt a definition other than the Federal definition of a school bus has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to a vehicle. Any person selling a new "bus" (a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school must sell a certified "school bus," regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under Wisconsin law. The vehicle would have to be equipped with the safety features NHTSA requires for school buses.

The information provided by Mr. Burnett indicates that Wisconsin would redefine "school bus" for two purposes. First, Wisconsin would prohibit the operation of a "school bus" -- a vehicle with a capacity of 17 persons (including the driver) -- unless the bus has a specific type of mirror. (Section 347.40) As explained above, this requirement would not affect NHTSA's requirement that vehicles considered to be "school buses" under our definition must be equipped with the mirrors and other safety features we require for school buses, even if the vehicles are not "school buses" under Wisconsin law.

Chapter 301 further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). A State standard for mirrors that is not identical to the Federal standard is preempted unless it imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use (e.g., public school buses). Wisconsin's requirements for school bus mirrors could be preempted, depending on the type of mirror required and whether the vehicles equipped with it are public buses.

We understand that the second purpose of Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus is to require privately-owned vehicles carrying 15 or fewer students to be insured by a policy providing specified minimum coverage. (Section 121.555). This provision concerns matters wholly within State law and would not conflict with Federal law.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact me or Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.41

DATE: 11/09/92

FROM: MARION C. BLAKEY ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TO: HONORABLE JOHN D. DINGELL -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COPYEE: MR. AARON GORDON

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-17-92 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL TO MARION C. BLAKEY

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1992, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Aaron Gordon concerning seat belts on school buses. You requested comments on Mr. Gordon's letter and on H.R. 896, a bill referred to in Mr. Gordon's letter.

The issue of safety belts on school buses is an important topic which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has thoroughly studied for many years. School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Every year, approximately 370,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.5 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since NHTSA began tracking traffic fatalities in 1975, an average of 16 school bus occupants per year have sustained fatal injuries. While each of these fatalities is tragic, the number of school bus occupant fatalitie is small compared to the number of occupant fatalities to children in other types of vehicles. For example, in 1989 there were 5,287 deaths among children aged five to 18 in vehicles other than school buses.

In 1977, NHTSA issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum crash protection levels for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. The effectiveness of "compartmentalization" has been confirmed by independent studies by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under the current requirements of Standard No. 222, small school buses, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

In 1987, the NTSB completed a study of the crashworthiness of large school buses, and concluded that most school bus occupant fatalities and serious injuries were "attributable to the occupants' seating position being in direct line with the crash forces. It is unlikely that the availability of any type of restraint would have improved their injury outcome."

In 1989, NAS completed a study of means to improve school bus safety and concluded that "the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. The funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries." The NAS pointed out that since children are at greater risk of being killed in school bus loading zones (i.e., boarding and leaving the bus) than on board school buses, "a larger share of the school bus safety effort should be directed to improving the safety of bus loading zones." A summary of the NAS report is enclosed.

In response to the recommendations from the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several rulemaking actions, such as improvements to school bus visibility by the driver and requiring stop signal arms on school buses, designed to improve the safety of students in school bus loading zones. Besides the actions taken in response to the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several other rulemaking activities to improve further the safety of school buses, e.g., increasing the number of emergency exits, establishing wheelchair securement/occupant restraint requirements, and improving the body joint strength requirements.

While there are no Federal requirements for safety belts on large school buses, states are free to install them if they feel it is in the best interest in their state. However, as noted in the NAS report, if the safety belts are to be beneficial, "states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly."

In summary, the safety record of school buses is outstanding. As such, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that safety belts would provide even higher levels of occupant crash protection. Also, the agency agrees with the conclusion from the NAS report, that there is insufficient reason for a Federal mandate for safety belts on large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ATTACHMENT TRB REPORT SUMMARY, DATED MAY, 1989, ENTITLED SPECIAL REPORT 222-IMPROVING SCHOOL BUS SAFETY. (TEST OMITED)

ID: nht92-2.48

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: G. THOMAS OWENS -- SENIOR ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVE, AETNA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-9-92 FROM G. THOMAS OWENS TO OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 7764)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards. Specifically, you requested a book or pamphlet containing the requested information.

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National "Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to promulgate Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. In 1974 Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which, by amending section 121 of the Safety Act, directed the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, applicable to all school buses. Those standards became effective on April 1, 1977 and are included, along with the rest of the agency's safety standards, in 49 CFR Part 571.

The Safety Act defines a school bus as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA further defines a school bus as a motor vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more persons, including the driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR 571.3.

It is a violation of Federal law for any person knowingly to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. On the other hand, once a vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, it may be used to transport school children without violating Federal law, even though it may not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. That is because individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. Therefore, to ascertain whether one may use noncomplying vehicles to transport school children, one must look to state law. It is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children.

Please find enclosed a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Specifically, the following standards include requirements for school buses:

Standards 101 through 104;

Standards 105 (school buses with hydraulic brakes)

Standards 106 through 108; Standards 111 through 113;

Standard 115;

Standard 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brakes);

Standards 119 and 120;

Standard 121 (school buses with air brakes);

Standard 124;

Standard 131 (effective September 1, 1992);

Standards 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 205;

Standards 207 through 210;

Standard 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 217;

Standard 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 220;

Standard 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds);

Standard 222;

Standards 301 and 302.

Some of the above-listed standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, such as Standards 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard 131 was promulgated on May 3, 1991 and may be found at 56 Federal Register 20370. It requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992, to be equipped with stop signal arms. Standard 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard 221 establishes strength requirements for school bus body panel joints. Standard 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants of school buses. Under the provisions of Standard 222, small school buses, that is those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must be equipped with lap belts. For large school buses, those with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through "compartmentalization," a concept which calls for strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats.

Should you wish copies of our safety standards, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet prepared by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

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

ID: nht92-3.10

DATE: October 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul D. Barron -- Professional Technologies International Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/25/92 from Paul D. Barron to Paul Jackson Rice and Marvin Shaw (OCC-7685)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about this agency's requirements that are applicable to your product, a "UV Heat Shield." Your sales literature explains that this product is a UV protective window film that permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front Windshield. You state that the UV Heat Shield blocks ultra-violet radiation from entering the vehicle's occupant compartment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not however approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (e.g., 70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install your window film over the glazing, that subsequent manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 with the window film installed. I note that while you state that your window film permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front windshield, it is the windshield with your product installed that would be required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by S108(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 from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any applicable safety

standard. This provision means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. If you are interested in further information on the provisions on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

In addition, under the Safety Act, the UV Heat Shield would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone 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: nht90-4.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Danny Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 to Chief Counsel, NHTSA from Danny Pugh (OCC 5214)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). More specifically, you asked about the requirements for safety belts at the various seating positions in vehicles with a gross vehic le 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 S571.3) for the purpose s 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 purpos e 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 cl assified 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 classifica tion 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 conver sion, 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 sta ndards. 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 p osition. Since September

1, 1989, 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 o r 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 seati ng 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/shoulde r or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. In addition, effective September 1, 1991 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 we ight 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.

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: nht92-7.41

DATE: April 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brad Beach

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/10/92 from Brad Beach to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6982)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff, inquiring about Federal safety standards that apply to objects designed to be attached to the rear and side windows of passenger automobiles. Although you did not specify what this object is, you described the object as being "not transparent," rectangular in shape, with dimensions of 12 inches in width by 18 inches in length. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your product.

Some general background information on the Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and 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 Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that might affect your product. These are Standards No. 205, Glazing Materials, and No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger automobiles). Standard No. 111 sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors. The standard provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle.

Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standards No. 205 and 111. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install a device that was not readily removable over the glazing and that impaired the field of view to the rear of the vehicle, that subsequent manufacturer or dealer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and 205 with this additional device installed.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, none of these commercial entities may

legally install a sun screen device or other device on a vehicle, if the device would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and/or 205.

In addition, any, manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as a device that is mounted on the glazing of motor vehicles and that is not readily removable, is responsible for the recall and remedy of all such devices, if it is determined that the device contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

You should note that the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108 (a) (2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their own vehicles as they please, without violating any provision of Federal law. Thus, Federal law would not prohibit you, as an individual vehicle owner, from installing any devices you wish in the windows of your own vehicle, even if such installation causes the vehicle to n longer comply with Standards No. 205, No. 111, or any other of our safety standards. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of the safety features designed into their vehicles.

However, you should also note that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles by their owners and modifications owners can make to their own vehicles. Each of the States have exercised this authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered and operated within their borders. I cannot advise you about the laws established by each of the States. If you wish to learn whether Virginia or any other State prohibits the installation of your device in a vehicle, you may wish to contact the Department of Transportation for those States in which you are interested.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.