ID: 2510y

Mr. Raymond D. Strakosch
President
Safety Premiums
87 Broadway
P. O. Box 1031
Newburgh, NY 12550

Dear Mr. Strakosch:

Thank you for your letter to John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125). You indicated that you have for many years produced and sold a "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On," which you described as a "dangling safety tag which attaches to the car mirror to alert passersby of emergency needs." These warning devices are made of a reflective plastic material designed with a clip attachment, and come in eight different shapes, including a triangular configuration. These products are slightly more than four inches high.

You also stated that, pursuant to a request from a customer, your company has developed a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror. You have provided a prototype of this new larger size "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle, that is approximately 6" at the base and 5 1/2" in height. You stated that, as your warning triangle gets larger, you "wish to make sure it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in Standard No. 125." Additionally, you stated that you wanted to be certain that the instructions for this larger size warning triangle "in no way conflict with the standard." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. Section S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.)

This language in S3 of Standard No. 125 makes clear that the standard's requirements are not limited to devices used by large trucks; that is, Standard No. 125 does not apply only to a "roadside truck version" of a warning device. Instead, the standard applies to all devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, from the smallest motorcycle to the largest truck, if the device satisfies the other conditions set forth in S3 of the standard.

One of the conditions set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance, are not subject to Standard No. 125. Examples of such devices include a rag tied on a radio antenna and a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade. By the time approaching traffic sees one of these non-warning devices, the traffic would already be aware that the vehicle displaying such a device was stopped.

Your "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" product appears to be designed and to function in the same way other non-warning devices do; i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. If this is the case, the "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the larger "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle may be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." It appears from the promotional material enclosed in your letter that this larger triangle is intended to serve the same purpose as what you call "truck warning triangles." We assume that you are describing warning devices that are certified as complying with Standard No. 125. If your larger triangle is to serve this function, it would be subject to Standard No. 125 and would have to conform to all the requirements of the standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the larger triangle must conform include minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Further, the Safety Act provides that NHTSA has no authority to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. To comply with any applicable legal obligations, especially in connection with the manufacture of the larger size warning triangle, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard 125 and consider the design, marketing, and intended use of the new larger warning triangle. You should also be aware that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers and remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:125 d:6/5/90

ID: 571-208--low risk deployment--Toyota

ID: 3061yy

Mr. Samuel Albury
President
Three Wolves and Associates, Inc.
7124 Temple Hills Road
Suite 169
Camp Springs, Maryland 20748

Dear Mr. Albury:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1991 concerning whether your company would be considered the manufacturer of certain vehicles. Your company is planning to use jeep conversion kits on Chrysler Corporation jeeps. Under one approach, your company would purchase the basic stripped down model jeep from Chrysler and add the body, stereo, air conditioning, tires, running lights, carpeting, and high visibility seats. You state that the body would be one solid piece and that your company would add wheel wells, doors, a solid or canvas top, and a windshield. Alternatively, your company would purchase the chassis, with engine and transmission, from Chrysler and add the above items.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act), 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 Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

I will address the responsibilities of your company under the Safety Act in each of the situations you described. First, if your company purchased a stripped down vehicle from Chrysler and made the modifications described, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified . . . other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale . . . .

As an alterer, your company would be required to certify compliance of its vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567. The only exception would be if:

1. The modifications consisted solely of "readily attachable components;" or

2. The modifications were only "minor finishing operations."

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. In the past, the agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. Without extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve "readily attachable" components.

If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label would state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. Alterers also are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Second, as an alternative, your company is considering buying a chassis from Chrysler. In that case, your company would likely be considered a final-stage manufacturer. Under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, a final-stage manufacturer is defined as:

A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.

Under the regulation, incomplete vehicle is defined as

An assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

As a final-stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer;

3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

After receiving this document from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, your company would be required to certify compliance with the safety standards. In addition to these certification requirements, a final-stage manufacturer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means a final-stage manufacturer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. In addition, final-stage manufacturers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:567#568 d:7/l2/9l

ID: 3082o

Mr. N. Bowyer AIR MAIL
Senior Engineer
Homologation and Legislation
Land Rover UK Limited
Lode Lane, Solihull
West Midlands B92 8NW
England
UNITED KINGDOM

Dear Mr. Bowyer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: "A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209."

Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: "A seat belt assembly that meets [the dynamic testing requirements] of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right'] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)]."

You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that the labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed "into inappropriate vehicles." However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that also comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b)of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This section contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b).

You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicle. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case.

We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves; it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehicle combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900; November 23, 1987.

With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898, at 44907; November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for these dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said:

NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804; March 21, 1986.

The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those belt systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which it would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of Standard No. 209.

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. D. Bruce Henderson Legislative Programs Manager Range Rover of North America 4390 Parliament Place P.O. Box 1503 Lanham, MD 20706

/ref:208#209 d:l0/l4/88

ID: 1983-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Young; Member of Congress

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Robert A. Young Member of Congress 4150 Cypress Road St. Ann, MO 63074

Dear Mr. Young:

Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the potential hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the use of opaque glass in automobiles. Through the exercise of its motor vehicle safety authority, the agency has addressed a part of this potential problem. However, given the limitations on the agency's authority, additional State action is needed to eliminate this potential problem.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which 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 cars) and abrasion resistance. The specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

In past interpretation letters, the agency has said that solar film and other materials used to make windows opaque are not glazing materials themselves and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to the first sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter the vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting or other film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not the installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed to comply with a Federal safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a tinting or other film on a vehicle for an owner if that action would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance perfomance of the vehicle's glazing. Violation of the render inoperative provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to ,000 for each violation.

State law, rather than Federal law, governs the operational use of vehicles by their owners. Thus, it is up to the States to preclude owners from applying tinting or other films to their vehicle windows. A number of States have already adopted such laws. The agency would be glad to provide technical assistance on glazing requirements to the appropriate Missouri highway safety officials working on this problem.

I hope this explains the agency's authority to address the potential problems posed by tinting and other films. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

Ms. Diane Steed Administrator-Designate National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed,

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. James Stewart, Director of the National Institute of Justice, in regard to potential safety hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the presence of opaque glass in automobiles. As you will note, Mr. Stewart feels your Agency might be of some assistance in this matter.

I would appreciate your review of the potential dangers of this situation. Please advise me of your findings by writing my district office in St. Ann, Missouri.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Robert A. Young Member of Congress

RAY:wv

Enclosure

The Honorable Robert A. Young House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Young:

This is in response to your letter on behalf of Overland Police Chief Eddy Williams concerning the problem of opaque glass in automobiles.

As a former chief of the detective division of the Oakland, California, Police Department, I can appreciate Chief Williams' concern about this possible hazard to law enforcement officers. At present, the National Institute of Justice has no information on this problem. However, I have asked my staff to look into the matter and will keep you apprised of our findings.

Meanwhile, I would suggest that Chief Williams contact the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, regarding this growing danger. The NHTSA conducts programs relating to the safety of motor vehicles and provides Federal matching funds to assist States with their motor vehicle safety programs. Perhaps the NHTSA could help in alerting States and automobile manufacturers to the danger opaque glass in autos presents to police officers who must stop and approach such vehicles without being able to see the persons inside.

Thank you for your interest in the well being of the Nation's public safety officers. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

James R. Stewart Director National Institute of Justice

ID: nht81-2.49

DATE: 07/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation; Michigan

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 30, 1981 letter pertaining to the mounting of an old school bus body on a new chassis. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has stated that such a mounting constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle and must comply with all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of that manufacture. This statement comes from previous agency interpretations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and from the rationale underlying the provisions of section 571.7(e) of our regulations. You state that section 571.7(e) applies only to trucks and, accordingly, has no application to school buses.

The agency has had a longstanding position that a vehicle combining an old body and new chassis is a new vehicle. This position was developed and applied long before the proposal of section 571.7(e) in May 1975. See, for example, the enclosed 1972 letter of interpretation and the discussion of pre-proposal interpretations in the enclosed copy of the May 1975 proposal.

The codification in section 571.7(e) of the agency's position as regards trucks did not alter its simiar position as regards other vehicle types. I am enclosing a 1978 interpretation stating that school buses will be treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in the same fashion as trucks are under section 571.7(e). The reason for this interpretation is the similarity of the practice of manufacturing school buses and trucks on new truck chassis. Accordingly, the agency has applied the same rationale in determining those vehicles, e.g., buses, that are to be considered newly-manufactured.

In light of these existing interpretations and in the interest of safety, the agency is retaining its position that vehicles using old bodies and new chassis be treated as newly manufactured vehicles.

ENCLS.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

March 30, 1981

Roger Tilton, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

The State of Michigan is in the grips of a financial crisis which is now threatening the children of this State through the local school's inability to provide new school buses to replace those which have reached the end of their life expectancy.

New school bus purchases are off by about 75% due to budget constraints which have also reduced the State's assistance to the school district from 68% during the last reimbursement period to an expected 30% for the 80-81 fiscal year. In this State, we turn over 1,900 school buses each year.

As a means to provide safe, dependable and economical school bus transportation, the local school districts are contemplating rehabilitation of these older school buses.

Rebuilding an old school bus is easy and economically rewarding. However, there are many old school bus bodies (approx. 20% or 350 each year) that would better serve the fleet if they were mounted on new chassis.

We, in the State of Michigan, are fully aware of previous interpretation of Part 571.7(e) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which relates to combining new and used components. The interpretations which are printed for all who ask, come from Joan Claybrook's office and from Frank Berndt do not say one shall not put an old school bus body on a new chassis, BUT that when an old school bus body is placed on a new chassis, the entire re-manufactured vehicle must comply with all of the FMVSS's in effect on the date of re-manufacture. The interpretation leads us to Part 571.7(e).

The Part 571.7(e) relates to "TRUCKS" and does not address "BUS" or school bus. Since there is "TRUCK" listed in definitions, Part 571.3 and the word "BUS" is also in definitions Part 571.3; we contend that 571.7(e) does not apply to Bus or School Bus since 571.7(e) does not refer to "BUS" in its content.

We do not accept the interpretation provided by Joan Claybrook or Frank Berndt. We completely understand that by allowing these used buses manufactured prior to April 1, 1977 to wash out of the system that in a few years the only buses on the road will be those which were manufactured in compliance with 220, 221, & 222.

The Part 571.7(e) also tells us that the re-manufactured truck must meet the current FMVSS "unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle." Therefore, if we in Michigan make these drive line changes we do not have a re-manufactured truck and we can continue to use a pre April 1, 1977 school bus body which still does not meet 220, 221, & 222; while mounted on a post April 1, 1977 chassis.

I submit to you that your office, NHTSA, is saying that we may not put a pre April 1, 1977 school bus body on a post April 1, 1977 chassis unless the body is updated to meet the post April 1, 1977 FMVSS 220, 221, & 222, OR instead of updating the body, we may install a used engine, transmission, and rear end in the new chassis; two of those three components must come from the same used vehicle.

Your interpretation is illogical and seemingly does not apply where school buses are concerned. We respectfully request a new interpretation keeping in mind that it is President Reagan's philosophy that those Federal Regulations which are non-productive, yet require great expense in order to comply; are Regulations with which we need to deal.

The State of Michigan, the State Department of Education, and I personally feel bound to comply with Federal Law; however, we do not feel bound to comply with an interpretation which smacks of pressure from the manufacturers and dealers who are in the business to sell new bodies.

We eagerly await your response.

Larry Louderback, Safety Specialist Pupil Transportation

cc: PHIL O'LEARY - SAFETY & TRAFFIC PROG; MR. WEINHEIMER - MICH. SCH. BD. ASSOC.; MR. TEBBE - UNION CITY SCH. DIST.; SENATOR DON RIEGLE; ROD LAMORE - GRAND RAPIDS STATE POLICE; DREW LEWIS - TRANS. SEC.; NHTSA

ID: nht80-4.17

DATE: 10/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Coded Electronics Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1980 asking whether your emergency hazard signaling system conforms with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You also asked as to the steps necessary to make it mandatory.

From the specifications provided in your letter, it appears that both modes of operation (hazard and distress) would comply with the flash rates and the percent of current "on" time required by SAE J945, the standard for hazard warning signal flashers incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If your device meets all other requirements of SAE J945 and SAE J910, the standard for hazard warning signal operating units also incorporated by reference, it should comply with Standard No. 108.

I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, setting forth the procedures under which you may petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would require a distress signaling system on vehicles.

SINCERELY,

FROM: (Illegible Lines)

TO: (Illegible Word)

SUMMARY: (Illegible Lines)

STATUS OF REPLY / REMARKS

DATE ON CORRES.: (Illegible Words)

DATE RECEIVED: (Illegible Words)

NHTSA CONTROL: (Illegible Words)

SUSPENSE DATE: (Illegible Words)

Based on the times stated in the "Product Specification for the Code II," the flash rates and the percent of current "ON" time will meet the requirements of SAE J945 and FMVSS 108 for both modes. For the hazard signal mode the flash rate will be 70 FPM for a normally closed type flashes and the current ON time is 59%. For the emergency distress signal mode, the flash rate will be 71 FPM for a normally open type flashes with an average current ON time of 65%. SAE J945 requires an average of at least three consecutive cycles. If this flashes meets all the other requirements of SAE J945 and J910, and maintains these flash rates, it should qualify.

John (Illegible Word) 9/23/80

MARKETING & MANUFACTURING DIVISION

CODED ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

August 20, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Legal Division N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

During my recent visit to Washington, I met with Taylor Vincent, Attorney, of N.H.T.S.A. Legal Division. The purpose of that meeting was to introduce an inovation to the Emergency Hazard Signaling System, which my company is presently preparing for promotion and distribution throughout the United States and foreign countries. Mr. Vincent was very receptive to the product and suggested that I submit information to you for your review.

Due to the product's specific nature, the primary function does conform to current D.O.T. Standards, however, the secondary function which provides an additional feature, is not regulated by any D.O.T. Specifications. Enclosed, I have provided the product's discriptions, application, and specification. After reviewing this material, it would be greatly appreciated if you could send to me your interpretation of its acceptability and also the steps necessary for Federal Manditory Legislation.

I would like to thank you for your time; and if you have any questions or would like to discuss any facet of the product, please feel free to call me at (415) 441-2411.

Robert A. Belcher President

ENC.

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Coded Electronics Corporation is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of a Dual Signal Emergency distress and hazard flasher. The flasher is currently called "CODE II" and refered to from time to time as the product.

The product was developed to utilize the existing 4-Way Hazard Flash system standard on most vehicles in use today. The basic feature that the product provides is that a motorist will now have the option to designate his immediate situation as to a "warning," i.e. stopped to read a map, or "stranded/distressed." i.e. out of gas, or illness of some sort.

The distinction between the Hazard signal (primary function) and the Distress signal (secondary function) is simply a variation in the distress mode. Basically the Distress signal is a modification of the International Distress Signal, the "S.O.S." and is described in the specifications, i.e. short flash, long flash, short flash . . .

The product poses the ability to increase auto safety by clearly defining the existing situation of a stopped vehicle with a maximum of visual via the 4-way lights. It also provides the physically handicapped motorist the ability to designate his situation without having to leave his vehicle, and with a minimum of physical effort.

Our recent efforts have us in contact with California Law Enforcement Agencies which are willing to introduce and acknowledge the additional emergency signal provided by the product along with the hazard signal. Also, we are currently in final negotiations with a major National Auto Accessories Distributor and project introduction to the marketplace within the next few months.

PRODUCT APPLICATION

CODE II, Emergency Distress and Hazard Signal Flasher, is applicable to most vehicles with a standard 4-Way Hazard Signal Flash System.

CODE II installs simply by removing the existing Hazard Flasher, placing the CODE II Flasher in the place of the standard flasher and attaching the Signal selection switch provided with the flasher.

CODE II is a state-of-the-art all electronic flasher designed to meet all existing regulations and to exceed them in reliability and dependability.

Simply, CODE II requires no alternation of the electrical system and utilizes the Hazard Flashing Signal as the primary function along with the optional Distress Signal as the secondary function.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

CODE II

Dual Signal Emergency Distress & Hazard Flasher

HAZARD SIGNAL FLASHER (Primary Function Mode)

A = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.36

B = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.5

Hazard Signal Flash is within D.O.T. Standards. CODE II also meets and exceeds D.O.T. specifications for reliability.

EMERGENCY DISTRESS SIGNAL FLASHER MODE (Secondary Function)

C = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.30

D1 = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.36

D2 = ON Time in seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.92

(Graphics omitted) NOTE: All on and off duration times can vary +/- 10% at most, and can be programmed for any sequence of flashes or any duration of flashes due to its sophisticated electronic design.

ID: nht81-1.21

DATE: 03/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vehtek Marketing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 3, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Michael J. Klein Vice President Vehtek Marketing Inc. 2795 Townline Road Alden, New York 14004

Dear Mr. Klein:

This responds to your February 12, 1981, letter requesting information concerning any Federal requirements that would be applicable to a water injection system used to increase the efficiency of vehicle fuel systems. Your company's water injection system is sold as aftermarket equipment which is attached to a vehicle's carburetor to increase gas mileage.

For your information, I am enclosing a synopsis of agency interpretations which sets forth the general Federal implications of installing auxiliary fuel tanks in vehicles or of converting vehicle fuel systems. This information explains in detail the responsibilities of a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1979 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), in relation to a vehicle's fuel system. Although your product is not an auxiliary gas tank and does not require a conversion of the fuel system, the stated principles are applicable to your product since it is motor vehicle equipment. Following is a summary of the most pertinent aspects of that material as it relates directly to your water injection system.

Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, is applicable only to completed new vehicles and would, therefore, not be directly applicable to your motor vehicle equipment. It may be indirectly applicable, however. The standard specifies performance requirements for fuel systems by limiting the amount of fuel leakage which may occur after a barrier impact crash test of the vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any of these persons would be prohibited from installing your product on a vehicle fuel system if that installation would cause the vehicle to no longer be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. Since your letter indicates that the water injection system is not directly attached to a vehicle's fuel system, it is not likely that installation of the product would render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. However, your company will have to determine whether in fact the installation would affect compliance. I have enclosed a copy of Safety Standard No. 301 for your information.

Under 49 CFR Part 579, your water injection system would be considered "motor vehicle replacement equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in performance, construction components, or materials of motor vehicle replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Vehicle Safety Act, any manufacturer who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect in its motor vehicle equipment is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Therefore, it is your responsibility to determine that your water injection system contains no safety-related defects. For example, if your system would cause a vehicle's engine to stall, this could be considered a safety defect by the agency.

In closing, I would state that you do not need any prior approval from the agency before marketing your product. All the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act are placed directly on the manufacturer. I hope you will find this information helpful. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 12, 1981

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th. Street - South-West Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As per my telephone conversation Wednesday, February 11th, 1981, with Steven Wood, I am writing concerning a water injection system we manufacture for automotive use. We recently had some experience with State of New York owned vehicles where we were told that we need D.O.T. approval in order to be legal.

After two days of long distance telephone calls I reached your office. I was told that our situation may involve standard 301, and to mention that to you. Also let me state that we do not tap into the gasoline system or its passage.

Our system is relatively simple in operation. It was patented in 1973 (patent number 3778039) by its inventor, Al Dore, who worked with venter injection since the 1930's. We insert into the boost venturi of the carburetor a brass tube through which the water is drawn in - in much the same way as the gasoline is drawn in - the greater the engine speed, the greater the amount of water. We have a water reservoir mounted in the vehicles engine compartment which when low on water activates a water pump which draws water from a five gallon (D.O.T. 2E rated) container which is mounted, at the customers discretion, in a remote location. I have enclosed a brochure which depicts the system as I have described it. I would like to add that by design no water is drawn into the engine at speeds of below approximately 1500 RPM, as a safety precaution. The system is much more sophisticated than I describe, but for purposes of explanation that is how it works. It uses water at about the rate of one gallon of water to twenty gallons of gasoline.

We have several testimonial letters attesting to considerable mileage increase; above 10%. Most of these average 30%. We give a written money back guarantee of a minimum of a 10% increase in gas mileage! No other water injection manufacturer gives a similar warranty, and there are approximately forty-two other units on the market today. We know our unit works and we're proud to be manufacturing an American made energy saving device. I would appreciate your written comments at your earliest convenience so we may pursue government owned vehicles with the confidence of being legal. I would like to extend my appreciation for your time and efforts.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Klein, Vice President

MJK/JR

ID: nht78-2.17

DATE: 06/08/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1978, to Howard Dugoff requesting confirmation of two interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have cited our letter of December 29, 1976, to your Mr. Weil as support for your views.

With respect to your first concern, you have stated your understanding that in a multiple compartment taillamp the manufacturer has the option of using one or more compartments to meet the minimum photometric requirements specified for taillamps, but when the intensity ratio of the turn signal lamp to the taillamp is computed, the ratio must be determined with all taillamp compartments lighted.

As we interpret Standard No. 108's requirements for taillamps (SAE Standard J585d, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Light), August 1970), a single compartment lamp may be used as a taillamp, but if a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements, S3.1 of J585d requires that the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding numbers of lighted sections (Table 1, J585d) in those instances where the distances between filament centers do not exceed 22 inches for two-compartment or lamp arrangements, and 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements. If these distances are exceeded, each compartment or lamp must comply with the photometric requirements for one lighted section. Therefore your interpretation is incorrect that a manufacturer may use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp when considering compliance with the photometric requirement for taillamps.

Your second concern is the requirement for multiple lamps in excess of three. You have noted that Table 1 of SAE J585 makes no provision for candlepower requirements where there are more than three lighted sections. Noting that the maximum candlepower permissible rises in increments of 5 per section (15 for one section, 20 for two sections, 25 for three sections) you have asked for confirmation of your opinion that "it appears logical that the allowable candlepower for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower."

Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for compartments or lamps in excess of three. If you wish to use a four compartment or lamp system you are legally free to distribute the candlepower as you deem appropriate. Accordingly we have no objection to your belief that 30 candlepower is allowable provided that the multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamp arrangement meets all other requirements of J585d.

SINCERELY,

CHRYSLER CORPORTION May 4, 1978

Howard Dugoff Deputy Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dugoff:

Re: MVSS 108 - Requirements for Multiple Cavity Tail Lamps or Multiple Tail Lamps

The NHTSA provided interpretations of certain requirements of MVSS No. 108 as applied to photometric test requirements for multiple cavity and multiple lamp configurations in a letter of December 29, 1976. Our further review of MVSS No. 108 has uncovered two additional points pertaining to tail lamps on which we would appreciate your advice.

I. Photometric Requirements

MVSS No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Recommended Practice J585d which specifies the photometric requirements for tail lamps. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J585d provides that multiple compartment lamps (or multiple lamps) may be used to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp. Additionally, paragraph 3.1 describes how multiple compartments or multiple lamps are to be treated if they are in fact used to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp.

Our understanding of these requirements is that the manufacturer has the option to use one or more compartments of a multi-compartment lamp (or one or more lamps of a multiple lamp system) to meet the photometric requirements specified. In cases where the manufacturer uses only one compartment of the lamp to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp, compartments or lamps not used are considered as "supplemental lamps" and are not required to meet test requirements except for the differential values discussed in the next paragraph.

The above is consistent with your letter of December 29, 1976 that stated that the NHTSA interprets MVSS No. 108 as requiring that the ratio of the turn signal lamp to the tail lamps must be computed with all the lamps lighted when multiple compartment and multiple lamp configurations are used. Such a requirement, of course, maintains the differentiation between the turn signal and the tail lamps.

The net result of the above as we interpret the regulation is that where there is a multiple compartment tail lamp (or where there are multiple tail lamps) it is necessary to measure the output of all tail lamps in determining the ratio between tail lamp intensity and turn signal intensity. However, it is permissible to use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp (or one lamp from a multiple lamp system) when considering compliance with the photometric requirements for tail lamps; other lamps or compartments would be merely "supplemental."

II. Multiple Lamps in Excess of Three

Section 3.1 of SAE J585d further provides that if one or more lamps of a multiple compartment lamp (or multiple lamps) is used to meet the prescribed photometric requirements for tail lamps the maximum candlepower for the combination of all the compartments (or lamps) must not exceed those set forth in Table 1 of SAE J585d for the corresponding number of lighted sections. The candlepower values specified in Table 1 are 15 for a one lighted section, 20 for two lighted sections, and 25 for three lighted sections. Use of lamps with four or more compartments or lamps are not prohibited. However, the Table does not contain a progression of maximum candlepower values for lamps with additional compartments beyond three. While not specified in the standard, in keeping with the progression of higher values in the Table for one, two, and three compartment lamps, i.e., 15, 20, and 25 candlepower, it appears logical that the allowable candlepower for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower.

We would appreciate your confirmation of our interpretation of these provisions of MVSS No. 108 set forth in Section I and Section II above.

Thank you for your assistance.

R. O. Sornson Manager Environmental Relations

ID: nht78-4.15

DATE: 01/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 17, 1977, request for confirmation that the brake system of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus to be imported by AM General conforms to S5.1.4, S5.3.3, S5.3.4, S5.4, and S5.6.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. An October 17, 1977, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to Mr. Shillinger of AM General has already answered your question concerning S5.1.2.3 of the standard.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) requires, among other things, that no person manufacture or sell any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard. As the manufacturer of AM General Transit buses, I am sure you are aware that this provision makes it impossible for the NHTSA to "approve" the compliance of a brake system in advance of manufacturer of the vehicle because there can be no certainty that the vehicle as manufactured will actually comply.

In response to your statement that the bus must be tested to S5.4, @ 108(b)(2) of the Act provides that @ 108(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to any person who establishes that he did not have reason to know, in the exercise of due care, that a vehicle is not in conformity with an applicable standard. The NHTSA has always interpreted "due care" to mean that a manufacturer is free to use whatever method is reasonably calculated to assure itself that its products, if tested, would conform to the standard's requirements. Thus, dynamo-meter testing of the brakes on each bus would not be necessary if the manufacturer can, in the exercise of due care, assure itself on a reasonable basis, such as engineering calculations, that its products are capable of complying with the standard.

The NHTSA can confirm that S5.3.1 specifies that the tested vehicle be capable of stopping at least once in six stops in the specified stopping distance, within the 12-foot wide roadway, and without lockup of any wheel above 10 mph other than "controlled lockup." Section S5.3.1 specifies "no lockup" performance and can be met by any design, including one which incorporates "load sensing devices" that provide the specified performance.

Section S5.1.4 specifies "[a] pressure gauge in each service brake system . . . that indicates the service reservoir system air pressure." In the case of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus, each of the three service brake circuits must be monitored by a gauge readily visible to the driver. The agency takes no position on the wisdom of deleting pressure gauges that monitor brake chamber air pressure.

Section S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 specify minimum actuation and release times for the service brakes, measuring the time to achieve 60 p.s.i. during actuation and the time to drop from 95 p.s.i. to 5 p.s.i. during release. While these 60- and 95-p.s.i. benchmarks appear in the standard, an interpretation of them has been issued because at least one manufacturer is using a maximum air pressure that is less than the benchmarks. I enclose a copy of the clarification to answer your question.

Your question about S5.6.4 is unclear, but the NHTSA can confirm that the control lever that you showed to the NHTSA appeares to be identified in manner that specifies the method of control operation. As we understand it, the arrow suggesting clockwise rotation of the handle, in conjuction with the word "park", are intended to identify how to apply the parking brake. This interpretation only addresses an arrangement in which parking brake release is the opposite of parking brake application.

SINCERELY,

October 17, 1977 NHTSA Handling & Stability Division

Dear Mr. Perrin:

I am expressing my gratitude for your cooperation and assistance during our meeting on September 8, 1977 with Mr. Scott Shadle, M.A.N. Representatives and Westinghouse Representatives.

The following is a list by paragraph of items of FMVSS #121 discussed: S5.1.2.3 Check Valves - The use of a four-circuit protection valve in lieu of check valves as interpreted, meets the intent of the law. However, the location must be approved by NHTSA. S5.14 Gages - As interpreted, the three individual systems must have an air gage in driver's compartment.

Gages which show actual chamber pressure not required. As agreed, each of the three systems will incorporate a gage in driver's compartment and gages showing actual chamber pressure will be deleted. S5.3.3 Brake Actuation Time - As discussed, the require- ment of 0 to 60 psi in 0.45 seconds has been changed to 0 to 70% of maximum attained pressure (psi) in 0.45 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to actuation time. S5.3.4 Brake Release Time - As discussed, the release time 95-5 psig in 0.55 seconds has been changed

to maximum attainable pressure to 5 psi in 0.55 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to release time. S5.4 Service Brake System - Dynamometer Test Required to be conducted. S5.6.4 Parking Brake Control - This is related to con- figuration which will be used by Seattle-approved.

Discussion on anti-skid versus non-anti-skid:

It was pointed out that the interpretation by NHTSA that driver modulation is permissible, only one of six attempts must meet distance, 12 ft. lane and no-wheel lock up. Further, it was interpreted that load sensing brake system will meet intent of law.

I am anxiously awaiting your Department's letter indicating that the brake and air system on the Articulated Bus as discussed, to the best of your knowledge, meets the intent of FMVSS #121. However, we will ensure that certification testing is in conformance.

AM GENERAL CORPORATION

R. E. Billman Project Engineer

Attachments - 81.52100.8211 Sheet 1 81.52100.8193 Sheet 1 81.51400.8144 Sheet 3 81.99231.8779