ID: 8088

Mr. Frank E. Timmons
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Timmons:

This responds to your letter about our November 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce. In that letter, NHTSA discussed Federal requirements for tires sold in the United States for passenger cars and other "motor vehicles." You wish to ensure that the Under Secretary understands that the term "motor vehicles" only refers to vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on highways."

We are glad to clarify the meaning of the term "motor vehicle." "Motor vehicle" is defined in 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (Emphasis added.) Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

This agency has issued many interpretations of what is and what is not a "motor vehicle." In general, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Likewise, vehicles that are designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of its customers actually would use them on the highway.

Vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are considered motor vehicles. Furthermore, even if the majority of a vehicle's use will be off-road but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, this agency has interpreted that to be a motor vehicle.

We appreciate your interest in this matter and will provide the Under Secretary with a copy of this letter. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce ref:109#119#571#574 d:2/11/93

ID: nht91-3.27

DATE: April 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 4-1-91 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1991, to the Administrator attaching a copy of a letter dated December 14, 1990, and commenting that you hadn't received a response to it. The reason you didn't receive a response to the letter is that the agency has no record of receiving it.

Your letter requests a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for an electric minibus currently being operated in Allentown, Pa. The temporary exemptions granted by this agency are not retroactive, and cover only vehicles manufactured on and after the date of grant. Thus, it is not legally possible to exempt a vehicle after its manufacture. In the event Electric Vehicles, S.A., might be interested in obtaining exemptions for future vehicles, I enclose a copy of the agency's regulation on temporary exemptions, 49 CFR Part 555, as your letter of December 14 was not adequate for this purpose.

Our importation regulations make an exception from compliance for the importation of vehicles that are used for demonstration projects such as the one you have outlined in your letter. Under 49 CFR section 591.5(j), a nonconforming minibus may be imported for a period of up to 5 years (and longer, if the Administrator grants a request for an extension) if the purpose of its importation is "research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations or training." According to your letter, your electric bus is being used as part of a joint test and evaluation program between your company, a regional transportation authority, a State energy office, and a public utility. The importation of the bus for this use is within these exceptions to compliance. This exception would appear to cover the importation of any further electric minibuses imported for the same purpose, provided that the information specified in section 591.5(g) is supplied.

ID: 86-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ron Luce, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/14/77 letter from F. Berndt to Sergio Campanini, The Berg Manufacturing Co.; 8/27/79 letter from F. Berndt to the Berg Manufacturing Co.; 9/30/77 letter from R. L. Carter to R. W. Hildebrandt, The Bendix Corp.

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Luce President International Transquip Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 590169 Houston, Texas 77259

This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You asked several questions relating to whether vehicles equipped with "Mini-Max" brakes, a type of brake produced by your company, comply with the standard. Your questions are responded to below. We note that while Question 4 was not asked directly by your letter, the question is implicit with respect to one of the questions you did ask.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicle 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 or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Question 1: Is delayed mechanical parking permissible under section S5.6.3 as long as the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 are satisfied?

The second sentence of section S5.6.3 provides that "(o)nce applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means." As discussed by a recent notice granting a petition for rulemaking submitted by the California Highway Patrol (copy enclosed), there are at least two issues relating to whether a braking system such as Mini-Max complies with these requirements.

The first issue is whether the system meets the requirement that once applied, the parking brakes must be held solely by mechanical means. As currently designed, the Mini-Max parking brake can be held by air and not by mechanical means, solely or otherwise, for many hours. Indeed, since a driver will often park the vehicle for a period of time shorter than that required to obtain mechanical holding, there will be many instances when the vehicle is parked and the parking brake never is held by mechanical means. The second issue is whether the parking brakes are held in the applied position. With the current design of the Mini-Max braking system, the air pressure leaks down over time until the mechanical lock is activated. Since the position of the brake components necessarily changes during this time, resulting in reduced parking brake force, there is an issue whether the parking brake is being held in the applied position.

While NHTSA has never concluded that a brake system resulting in false parking is safe or provided an interpretation that the current Mini-Max system complies with section S5.6.3, we recognize that some past interpretations, as well as one issued by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, could contribute to ambiguity concerning whether some of the features incorporated in the Mini-Max design are permitted by the standard. In light of that ambiguity and for the other reasons discussed in the grant notice, NHTSA decided to grant the CHP petition to initiate rulemaking on the delayed mechanical park issue rather than issuing an interpretation whether or not such a braking system complies with these requirements.

Question 2: Is an external pressure separation assembly consisting of a two-way check valve and accompanying steel hex nipple considered to be a component of a brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3 if the assembly is "permanently bonded" to the housing?

The answer to this question is no. Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part that "(t)he parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing)." (Emphasis added.) The dictionary defines "housing" as "a fully enclosed case and support for a mechanism." See Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). Thus, the term "brake chamber housing" refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. An external pressure separation assembly does not become part of the brake chamber housing merely because it is attached to the housing, whether by "permanent bonding" or some other means. However, a brake chamber housing could be cast or molded to include a fitting, serving the same purpose as the external pressure assembly, as an integral part of the brake chamber housing.

Question 3: Is an internal assembly consisting of a diaphragm within the brake chamber housing considered to be a component of the brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3?

The answer to this question is no. As discussed above, the term "brake chamber housing" refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. A diaphragm within the brake chamber is not a component of the case enclosing the brake chamber.

Question 4: Does section S5.2.1.1 require that capability of release must be unaffected or that air pressure in the tank must be unaffected?

Section S5.2.1.1 provides that "(a) reservoir shall be provided that is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system." (Emphasis added.) The word "unaffected" refers back to "reservoir". Thus, the required reservoir is not permitted to be "affected" by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system, i.e., it must be protected. A reservoir would not meet this requirement if a loss of air pressure in the service brake system resulted in a loss of air pressure in the reservoir, even if the reservoir was still capable of releasing the parking brakes.

Question 5: If the emergency brakes on trailers can be modulated so as to provide a driver with several applications and releases to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system, is it unnecessary for an S5.2.1.1 reservoir to be capable of releasing the brakes?

The capability of modulation after activation of the low air warning system does not satisfy the requirements of section S5.2.1.1 (quoted above). That section requires that the reservoir not be affected by loss of service air, i.e., that it be protected, and that, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i. (a pressure that corresponds to the lower end of the range of pressures maintained by compressors), it be capable of releasing the parking brakes at least once. A vehicle's emergency brakes could be capable of modulation after activation of the low air warning system and not meet either of these requirements.

In addition to the notice granting the CHP petition, we are enclosing copies of interpretation letters concerning the Mini-Max system addressed to Navistar, P.T. Brake Lining Company, and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures August 20, 1985 U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 ATTN: Duane Perrin

Subject: Our letter of August 6, 1985 and Docket No. 75-16: Notice 27. Request for immediate interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121.

Dear Mr. Perrin:

After our July 31, 1985 meeting in Washington, DC and subsequent to my letter of August 6, 1985 I have requested, received and reviewed copies of all information contained in all volumes of the "Red Book" of 121 interpretations maintained in the document section of the D.O.T. After review of this information it is very evident that the NHTSA has offered several interpretations with respect to delayed mechanical parking that clearly allows this means of parking to satisfy the requirements of S5.6.3 as long as either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 can be achieved. The references are as follows.

1. Berg Mfg. Co. letter dated February 9, 1977 that describes a system that is air applied on initial emergency or parking application and is held by spring application only in the event of service application pressure loss. The NHTSA response N40-30 (TWH) dated March 14, 1977 does not allow all design features of the Berg system but does clearly allow delayed mechanical parking as stated in the last sentence of the reference letter.

"In other respects the system you described does not appear to violate the requirements of Standard No. 121. The use of service air pressure to actuate the parking brakes has been used in certain bus applications and is permissible as long as a source of energy to apply the parking brakes is usable at all times and is unaffected by any single failure in the service brake system."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit A".

2. Berg. Mfg. Co. letter dated June 28, 1979 that describes a parking brake system that employs delayed mechanical parking. This system, I believe, was later denied because of non compliance to section S5.2.1.1 because emergency springs were released by supply air rather than from a protected reservoir. However, the NHTSA interpretation is clear with respect to application by service air and subsequent spring application as the air supply is depleted. The NHTSA response NOA-30 dated August 27, 1979 covers this point in the second paragraph.

"You first ask whether section S5.6.3 allows the use of service air to apply the parking brakes as long as a source of energy to supply the parking brakes is available at all times and is unaffected by a single failure in the service brake system. The answer to this question is yes. On August 9, 1979, the agency published in the federal register a notice amending section S5.6.3 of the standard to permit the type of parking brake system that you outlined in your letter."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit B".

3. Bendix letter dated September 14, 1977 that explains the many benefits of delayed mechanical parking by use of service air for initial application and spring application only after service pressure has depleted. This system also was later determined to not be in compliance to S5.2.1.1 because no reservoir was provided for release of brakes. However it clearly describes the delayed mechanical parking mode. The NHTSA response dated September 30, 1977 states in the last paragraph:

"You also requested written confirmation that the interpretation of S5.6.3 of FMVSS No. 121 given by NHTSA to Motor Coach Industries Inc., on April 14, 1976, would pertain to the air/spring parking brake system described in your letter. Your assumption is correct, and this letter constitutes such written confirmation."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit C".

Upon review of the information presented we respectfully request written confirmation that our assumption is correct that our delayed mechanical system as outlined in the information provided with our August 6, 1985 letter does comply with S5.6.3 of the 121 Standard.

We also request an interpretation with respect to the use of an external pressure separation assembly detailed in the information provided with our August 6, 1985 letter. Is our assumption correct that both the external and internal assemblies are a component of the brake chamber housing in this unique brake chamber design.

We further request an interpretation with respect to S5.2.1.1. Is our assumption correct that as discussed in our August 6, 1985 letter and detailed in the enclosures with the same letter that our "system" complies to section S5.2.1.1 of the 121 Standard. Without considering the above, in our letter of August 6, 1985 page 6, we also disclosed the fact that our trailer system allows modulation of emergency brakes. Are we correct in assuming that if we are able to modulate emergency brakes on trailers, this improvement in safety would also dictate that no release is necessary because a modulated emergency system provides a driver with several applications and releases of the emergency brake system to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system. We understand that this would not exempt us from the requirement that "a reservoir shall be provided..." however it should remove the release requirement in emergency situations and would result in improved vehicle safety.

Please respond as quickly as possible to these requests for interpretations. We again point out that the absence of compliance checks at the OE level have placed us at an extreme disadvantage when compared to systems that were being marketed prior to discontinuation of compliance inspections. Thanks again for your assistance and early reply.

Regards, Ron Luce enc.:

See 3/14/77 letter from F. Berndt to Sergio Campanini, The Berg Manufacturing Company. See also 8/27/79 letter from F. Berndt to The Berg Manufacturing Company. See also 9/30/77 letter from R.L. Carter to R.W. Hildebrandt, The Bendix Corporation.

ID: nht79-2.39

DATE: 06/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. H. Latshaw, Jr., Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1979, to John Womack of this office on behalf of your client Ennova, Inc. Ennova wishes to market a "back rack carrier", and you have asked several questions with respect to its legality under Federal requirements. The photographs which you enclosed show that the carrier structure is attached to both the front and rear bumpers, and that loads may be carried on the top of the vehicle as well as on a shelf directly behind the vehicle's rear bumper.

Your questions and our answers are:

"1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?"

An equipment carrier that attaches to a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), and your client is a "manufacturer" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover this type of motor vehicle equipment, and, therefore, a State is not preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) from prescribing its own safety standards for it. If a safety related defect were discovered in the "Back Rack", Ennova would be responsible for notification and remedy of it, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.

"3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any Federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? Is so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment."

Your questions concern our jurisdiction over a vehicle before and after its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. A dealer has the responsibility to deliver to its owner a new vehicle in full compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any "additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment . . . that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Paragraph S4.3.1 requires that "no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its photometric output at any applicable group of test points specified in Figures 1 and 3 [Standard No. 108], or prevent any other lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable "SAE Standard on Recommended Practice". Therefore, a dealer could not deliver a new car with the Back Rack installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the car's lamps or reflectors or impairs photometric output. After sale, a dealer (or distributor or manufacturer, but not the vehicle owner) has a responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) of not "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." In the context of Standard No. 108 we have equated a rendering inoperative with impaired effectiveness or impaired photometrics so that the same consideration would apply; a dealer could not install the Back Rack on a used vehicle if it affects compliance with Standard No. 108.

The installation of the Back Rack appears to present some compliance problems. Based upon an informal review and the photographs you submitted, the front part of the carrier may reduce headlamp candlepower output below the required minimum at several test points, as for example, at test points HV, H-3R and 3L and H 9R and 9L on the upper beam, and at test points 1 1/2 D-2R, 1/2 D-1 1/2 R on the low beam.

Looking at the turn signals which are required to have an 8.0 square inch minimum projected luminous area, the carrier support design may mask them to the extent that the direction of the turn signal might not be clearly understood. The carrier support location may not allow these lamps to provide an unobstructed effective projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, of at least 2 square inches, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This requirement must also be met by the taillamps. Further with respect to the taillamps, with the carrier in place, they may not be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left and/or right, as Standard No. 108 requires.

The design location of the carrier supports may reduce the minimum effective projected luminous area of the stop lamps below the 8 square inch minimum of Standard No. 108.

As for backup lamps, the visibility requirements are complex, those of SAE Standard J593c as modified by S4.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108, but in essence the lamps must be "readily visible" to use your phrase.

These interpretations are based upon the photographs you supplied, and are meant to be illustrative as there are many different lighting configurations on vehicles, and we do not know that the Back Rack would affect compliance in all instances.

"7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?"

Dimensional requirements of headlights conform to SAE J571d, Dimensional Specifications of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units, June 1966, parking lights, SAE J 222, Parking Lamps (Position Lamps) December 1970, directional lights (turn signals) SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps (Rear Position Light), August 1970. Copies of the foregoing SAE Standards are attached. In addition, the minimum and maxima of lens visibility requirements for parking lamps, turn signal lamps and taillamps are set forth in these SAE Standards. The minimum and maximum photometric requirements of headlights are set forth in SAE J 579a, August 1965 and J 579c, December 1974, as well as the design parameters of rectangular headlamps units SAE J 1132, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles (copies also attached).

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

March 13, 1979

John Womack, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Transportation

Re: The Back Rack T.M. Carrier by Ennova, Inc.

Dear John:

I have taken the liberty of forwarding this letter and the enclosure herewith to you so that you may channel same to the proper individual for inspection. Your involvement in this matter will produce better results than if I sent the material to the Department generally.

Our client, Ennova, Inc., seeks to market and arrange for the distribution of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier to dealers for installation on privately owned motor vehicles. Prior to the production of the carrier, I would like to determine if the Department of Transportation can detect potential regulatory obstacles or other problems with the product. In addition, I would be pleased to entertain any suggestions which the Department may have.

I have enclosed six (6) photographs (two with detailed measurements) plus a letter explaining the Carrier written by the designer. Those materials are for the sole use of the Department of Transportation in its consultations with the above-referenced lawfirm. The information and specifications contained within the enclosures will be divulged to the public only upon the Department's receipt of a carefully constructed, detailed and specific request for same. This request must meet the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act before the Department is obligated to release the requested information.

My questions in reference to the Back Rack T.M. Carrier are as follows: 1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?

3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? If so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act? In particular, does the Carrier violate in any manner the provisions of Section 103 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

6. What is the minimum amount of ascertainable candle power required to be visible from each vehicular light subsequent to sunset? Must back-up lights be readily visible?

7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment.

Please arrange for your Department to have someone consider the Carrier and these questions carefully. I would appreciate it if the Department would contact me personally or in writing with a concrete response to this inquiry within one (1) month.

If there are any procedures which I can follow to obtain a letter of approval indicating that the Carrier does not structurally violate any federal standard, please apprise me of same.

In addition, please forward me the name of the DOT representation assigned to respond to this inquiry.

Thank you for your kind cooperation in this matter.

John H. Latshaw, Jr.

ENCLS.

cc: RICHARD R. CHUTTER -- PRES., ENNOVA, INC.

PRODUCTION MODEL WILL BE 50 DEGREES

(Graphics omitted)

COPYRIGHT (C) Ennova. Inc. 1978

BACK RACK TM Carrier by Ennova

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 24100.ztv

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865





Dear Mr. Yousry:

This is in reply to your e-mails of February 21 and 22, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You referenced S5.1.1.18 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which states that a backup lamp is not required to meet minimum photometric values at each test point specified in Table 1 of SAE Standard J593c if the sum of the candlepower measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 2 of Standard No. 108 is not less than the group totals specified in that figure. You have tested a backup lamp that exceeds the 300 cd maximum at test point H-V by 80 cd, but meets the group total requirements, and ask whether the lamp is acceptable.

The answer is no. Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 require back up lamps to be designed to conform with SAE Standard J593c, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under the SAE Standard, when one or more back up lamps are used, the maximum intensity at any point in each lamp must not exceed 300 cd.

The SAE standard establishes 22 discrete test points. Figure 2 of Standard No. 108 clusters these test points into six groups and totals the minimum photometric value of each test point in the group for a group total. If a manufacturer tests a back up lamp for photometric conformance and the lamp does not meet the minimum value specified at any one of the 22 test points, under S5.1.1.18, the lamp will pass the photometric test if the value measured at the failed test point, when added to the measured value of other test

points in the group, results in a total that equals or exceeds the total required for the group as a whole. But Figure 2 in no way affects the limitation of 300 cd imposed by SAE Standard J593c.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/4/02

ID: nht93-5.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1993 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Gail Lindsey -- Hillsborough County Public Schools, Risk Management and Safety Department, Tampa, Florida

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/23/93 from Gail Lindsey to Ron Engles (OCC 8807)

TEXT:

Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle of the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply.

You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You, therefore requested information on "crash safety standards" of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter.

For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992; Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992; Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988; a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations; a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan.

The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations.

Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht75-4.41

DATE: 10/01/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1975, in which you asked whether Standard No. 217 requires a minimum retention or force in pushing out an emergency exit window after activation of the release mechanism.

You should note that the force applications specified in S5.3.2 for operation of the release mechanism and subsequent extension of the exit by an occupant are maximum requirements. Therefore, a push-out window which only requires enough force to lift the glass and subframe following operation of the release mechanism complies with the requirements of S5.3.2 and S5.4 as long as that force does not exceed the levels specified for the particular reach distance of the release mechanism.

The standard specifies no minimum force requirements for either the operation of the release mechanism or the extension of the exit following release.

SINCERELY,

September 11, 1975

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation

I am writing on behalf of one of our commercial clients, who has requested a legal interpretation of one point of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217).

The point in question pertains to paragraph S5.3.2 where a maximum force is quoted for window push out after the emergency release mechanism has been actuated. Our client has designed a side window system where, after the emergency release mechanism is activated, only hinges at the window top retain the window. Thus, no push-out force is required other than that to overcome the weight of the glass and sub-frame. The question of interpretation arises as to whether some form of retention is required at the bottom of the window after actuation or if a minimum push-out force at the proper access region applies.

I trust that the above information satisfactorily describes our problem and anxiously await your reply.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY, INC.

John Lomash Product Engineering Sales

ID: nht92-1.45

DATE: 12/02/92

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, TIRE DIVISION, RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO FRANK E. TIMMONS (A40; STD. 109; STD. 119; PART 574); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER (DATE ILLEGIBLE) FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.

TEXT: Your November 13, 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce Kuwait has just been brought to my attention (see attached). There are two statements in your letter that are incorrect. If the Kuwait government does not realize this, it is possible that US tire manufacturers could be adversely affected.

In your third paragraph, starting on line 3, you state" . . .all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119)." This is not true. Only those tires designed and offered for sale for use on highway vehicles, other than passenger cars, must be certified as being in compliance with FMVSS 119.

The other misstatement in your letter is in your response to their question No. 1. "Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the 'DOT' mark?". Your answer - "Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles." is not correct. Only those tires intended for use on highway vehicles must be labeled with the DOT mark. NHTSA has stated in the past on more than one occasion that the DOT may not be labeled on tires that do not have an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

It is requested that NHTSA send a follow-up letter to Kuwait clarifying that your response applied only to motor vehicles and their tires that are designed primarily for use on the highway.

As mentioned to Walter Myers of your staff yesterday, I will ask Mr. Ed Wunder to discuss this with his contacts in Kuwait. Mr. Wunder is stationed in Saudi Arabia and is supported jointly by industry and the Department of Commerce (NIST) to help US manufacturers sell their products in the Gulf countries.

ID: 1985-01.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jerry D. Williams -- Senior Vice President, American Transportation Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President American Transportation Corporation Highway 65 South Conway, Arkansas 72032

This is in further response to your December 12, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning our definition of a school bus. Your specific question asked, "Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multipurpose passenger vehicles?" As explained below, a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons (i.e., 10 children and a driver) to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus. A vehicle carrying 10 or less persons would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Under the definitions section of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 571.3), vehicles carrying 11 or more persons which are sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events are "school buses." Under our regulations, a vehicle which is designed to carry less than 11 persons would considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Such a vehicle would be certified as complying with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Ms. Deirdre Hom of my staff informed your associate, Mr. Joe Clark, of the above in a telephone call on December 14, 1984. This letter confirms the information given to Mr. Clark in that conversation.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel December 12, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 407 Street S.W. , Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

We, as a manufacturer school bus bodies, have for some time now been operating with the understanding that vehicles built to transport ten (10) passengers or less came under the vehicle classification designated as a multi-purpose vehicle. For this reason, we have refrained from building school bus bodies with capacities of ten passengers or less. (Please see the attached bulletin we published on this matter.)

It is recently been brought to our attention that this interpretation, which we are recently following, is not a shared practice by every manufacturer. Although we do not have actual verification of the fact, we understand NHTSA has advised some bus body manufacturers that the multi-purpose vehicle definition does not serve the intent of the public law, specifically as it relates to the transportation of ten school aged passengers or less.

We, therefore, wish to have clarification of this matter and specially to the question: Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multi-purpose vehicles?

We have a bid pending for several units and would appreciate your telex response by Friday, December 14, 1984. I am afraid we will lose this bid unless we can respond positively in the same manner is our competitors have responded.

Sincerely,

Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President Marketing

JDW:jj

Attachment

TO: All AmTran Dealers FROM: Joe Clark, National Sales Manager

DATE: March 25, 1983

SUBJECT: Minimum Capacity Ratings for School Use Vanguard and Minuteman Model Bus Bodies

In order to certify a Vanguard or a Minuteman model bus body as a school bus, we must observe the federal minimum passenger capacity rating which is now set at ten (10) passengers. This minimum passenger rating does not include the driver. In the case of a lift-equipped bus, the passenger rating would translate to two (2) wheelchair passengers and eight (8) passengers seated in the fixed seating area.

For your information, if a Vanguard or Minuteman order is requested with a rating less than ten (10) passengers we must certify the bus to what is know as a multi-purpose vehicle standard. To meet this standard, other federal standards come into effect which are very stringent and extremely expensive to comply with. For this reason, we request your cooperation in always observing the minimum passenger capacity criteria of ten (10) passengers.

JCC/jj

ID: 2253y

Ms. Linda B. Kent
Senior Account Executive
Market Development
Fasson Specialty Division
250 Chester Street
Painesville, OH 44077

Dear Ms. Kent:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the use of a product on motor vehicles would violate Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). This product, called "Contra Vision," is designed to display messages or advertising materials on windows and other clear surfaces, so that viewers on one side of the clear surface will see the message displayed, while viewers on the other side of the surface will see an essentially transparent surface without any message visible. According to your letter, this product "will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses." You asked for our opinion of whether this product complies with Standard No. 205.

Some background on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulation affect this product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Your letter indicates that you are already aware that NHTSA has issued a safety standard that applies to the windows installed in motor vehicles. Specifically, Standard No. 205 requires that all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must comply with certain performance requirements. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with Contra Vision installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and the Contra Vision must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install Contra Vision on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install Contra Vision if the addition of Contra Vision 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 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install Contra Vision 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.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, 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

Enclosure ref:205#VSA d:l/9/90