ID: nht88-3.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/88

FROM: MELVIN KREWALL -- DIRECTOR TRANSPORTATION SECTION FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION OKLAHOMA STATE DEPT OF EDUCATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/31/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MELVIN KREWALL, REDBOOK A33 (2), PART 571.3

TEXT: Dear Sir:

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Oklahoma asked me to submit two questions to your office for your consideration.

1. May a transit coach-type vehicle, manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, be used on a public school bus route to transport students to and from school?

2. What must be done to a transit coach-type vehicle to bring it into compliance as a standard Type "D" school bus?

We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/18/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- GENERAL COUNSEL IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CLIFFORD ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP; REDBOOK A34 [4]; INTERP SECTION 101 [3]; PART 571 [A]; LETTER FROM CLIFFORD T. ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP TO NHTSA DATED 09/07/88; OCC 2529; BROCH URE FROM ARROWPOINTE; DRAGOON PATROLLER ARMORED RESCUE AND SECURITY VEHICLE; 5/19/88 letter from Raymond M. Momboisse to Bwayne Vance

TEXT: Dear Mr. Momboisse:

Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver "exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchase d directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation."

This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured f or, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for you r request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, t he Border Patrol will save $ 5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs.

This agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). If a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicab ility of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 571(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be "motor vehicles" required to comply with the standards.

2

Under 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), a "motor vehicle" is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. . . ." The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibi kes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public ro ads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads.

You have informed us that the Hummer will "generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas." However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to c onsider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a "motor vehicle." However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operati ons and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original mil itary specifications.

Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that on e of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has becom e of paramount importance in the "war against drugs." In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-14 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United Sta tes, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a componen t of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the

3

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufacturers and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/19/88

FROM: JIM BATES -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/23/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA TO JIM BATES -- CONGRESS, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Steed:

I was recently contacted by a constituent, Angelo R. Collica, regarding a plan he has developed for a lighting safety device which is not currently authorized for motor vehicles.

Essentially, this device will promote driving safety, relieve lane changing tensions and create a more relaxed atmosphere on the highways. I would appreciate your providing me with information as to the requirements necessary to install lighting devices on motor vehicles. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Alice Lara of my district office at (619) 691-1166.

Thank you for your assistance. Please respond to me at 430 Davidson Street, Suite A, Chula Vista, California 92010.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/88

FROM: LANCE E. TUNICK -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL MASERATI AUTOMOBILES INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Maserati Automobiles Incorporated (MAI) requests an interpretation of the requirements in S.4.1.3. of FMVSS 208 concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with passive restraints. More specifically, because the s tandard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. and because, under Section 108 (b) (5) of the Safety Act, the standard does not apply to vehicles intended solely for export, MAI assumes that if, during a "phase-in" period, vehicles that we re previously imported into the U.S. by MAI are exported to Canada (where we have one dealer) would be deducted from the U.S. production total to arrive at the base figure to which the phase-in percentage would apply.

We would greatly appreciate your confirming this interpretation as soon as possible, so that we can report under 49 CFR Part 585.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht88-3.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 21, 1988

FROM: BRADLEY J. BAKER -- PRESIDENT, CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC.

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNCIL, U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO AUGUST 31, 1989 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, TO BRADLEY J. BAKER, CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC.; [A34; STD. 108]

TEXT: Our company currently manufactures a Recreational car dolly used to tow a vehicle behind motorhomes. It is also used by car dealerships to retrieve cars and trucks.

We have a question regarding the 3 bar light cluster on the back of this unit. Is it a necessity? So far, we have to guess at our interpretation of the Federal laws. We don't know if this is considered a motor vehicle under FMVSS 108; 49 CFR 571.108. The National Truck Equipment Association could not answer this question and recommended we write to you.

We would appreciate your opinion on this matter. I can be reached at the following address:

Classic Manufacturing, Inc. 21900 W. U.S. 12 Sturgis, Mi 49091 Attn: Brad Baker (616) 651-9319 Fax No.(616) 651-2921

Thank you for your help in advance

Sincerely

ID: nht88-3.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- TU-GROOVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-14-85 TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA, FROM ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- DIRECTOR, KALLMAN MARKETING; LETTER DATED 2-8-88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, ATTN: SUSAN SCHRUTH, FROM ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- TU-GROOVES, OCC1569; TECHNICAL RESEA RCH CENTRE OF FINLAND INSTRUMENT LAB, RESEARCH REPORT NO. KOJ914, DATED 5-4-79, TEST NO. A310-78; TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND CHEMICAL LAB. RESEARCH REPORT NO. A901/75, DATED 2-4-75, STRENGTH OF THE GLASS, FROM K. HEINONEN; PATZIG TESTING LABORA TORIES CO. INC., REPORT ON 1/4 INCH CLEAR, LAMINATED, SAFETY GLASS, AS 1 WITH SAFETY GROOVES FOR USE ANYWHERE IN MOTOR VEHICLES, DATED 10-30-85, LAB NO. 219766

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking for further clarification of a March 1, 1985 letter to you from the Chief Counsel of this agency. Your company is marketing a process in which parallel grooves are ground into the lower portion of the windshield of ve hicles. In our March 1, 1985 letter to you, we set forth a general description of the requirements that would apply if the process were used on new vehicles or new windshields sold as an item of replacement equipment, and those requirements that would a pply if the process were used on vehicles that had already been sold to the first purchaser or windshields that were already installed in vehicles. Your letter explains that your company now uses this process only on vehicles that have already been sold to a first purchaser and windshields already installed in vehicles. You asked for clarification of several issues in your letter.

1. Your company has obtained test reports from two laboratories on the process of grinding these parallel grooves into the lower portions of windshields. One of these reports specifically states that windshields with these grooves fully comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR $ 571.205). You asked whether the steps your company has taken are "sufficient to show compliance with Standard No. 205."

Response: The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not permit this agency to assure any person or entity that its products or processes comply with all applicable requirements or to "approve" some product or process . Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 205 requires that the windshields installed in new vehicles and new windshields sold as replacement equipment to meet certain performance requirements, and requires the windshield to be certified as complying with those requirements. You ha ve stated that your company's process of grinding grooves into windshields will not be used on new

vehicles or new windshields. Standard No. 205 does not require that windshields be certified as continuing to comply after being treated by aftermarket processes, such as your company's grooving process. Accordingly, if your grooving process is used on ly in aftermarket applications, your company is not required to certify that those windshields continue to comply with Standard No. 205 after grooves have been ground into the windshield. However, continued compliance with Standard 205 is important, for a different reason, discussed below.

Even though Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to your process, and your company does not have to certify continued compliance with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) does impose an obligation on manu facturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses including your licensees, with respect to aftermarket processes. That section provides: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inopperative i n whole or in part any divice or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ."

In this case, a number of elements of design have been installed in the windshield of motor vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 205, including impact and penetration resistance, optical deviation limitations and limitations on visual distortion. If grinding grooves into the windshield by means of your company's process would cause the windshield to no longer comply with these or some other requirements of Standard No. 205, grinding the grooves into the windshield would be a violation of the "rende r inoperative" provision of the Safety Act.

The Safety Act imposes a responsibility on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to ensure, in the first instance, that none of the aftermarket operations they perform will result in a violation of the "render inoperative" provision . NHTSA reexamines the initial determinations made by any of these parties only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. If your company has concluded that the test reports enclosed with your letter show no "rendering inoperative" when grooves are ground into windshields, NHTSA will not express any view on that conclusion unless and until the agency begins some enforcement proceeding to examine this grooving process.

In keeping with this statutory scheme, neither our March 1, 1985 letter nor this letter expressed any agency opinion as to whether dealers using your company's process to grind grooves into windshields of vehicles would or would not render inoperative th e windshield's compliance with Standard No. 205. Instead, both these letters are intended only to alert your company to the elements of design that might be rendered inoperative by grinding grooves in windshields by your process.

2. Would it be possible for your company to indicate on the windshields in which you grind these grooves that your company has "shown compliance with Standard No. 205," for example, by affixing a clear sticker to that effect?

Response: As explained above, only new windshields or windshields installed in new vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 205. There is no requirement that windshields subjected to

aftermarket processes be certified as still complying with the standard. If your company voluntarily chooses to provide some indication of continuing compliance, it is free to do so. NHTSA has long said that the only restriction on voluntary markings i s that those markings must not obscure or confuse the meaning of any required markings on the product. Assuming that your voluntary markings will not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required markings on the windshield, the voluntary marking would not violate any Federal requirements. You should be aware, however, that some State laws restrict stickers and other items placed on automobile windshields.

3. Is your company required to show continuing compliance with Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting (49 CFR $ 571.212) for vehicles whose windshields have grooves ground in accordance with your company's process?

Response: The vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that each of its new vehicles complies with the requirements of Standard No. 212. There is no obligation for any person that performs aftermarket operations on the vehicle or its windshiel d to certify continuing compliance with Standard No. 212.

As explained above, the only requirement applicable to aftermarket operations on a vehicle is that manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard, inc luding Standard No.212. Standard No. 212 requires a vehicle to retain a specified percentage of the windshield periphery. To avoid violating the "render inoperative" prohibition, I suggest that you carefully examine the process by which grooves are gro und into windshields and determine whether the installation of those grooves in accordance with your company's process would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 212. Your company is obliged to determine that this grooving process will not result in a rendering inoperative violation with respect to Standard No. 212. As explained above, NHTSA will not express any views about your company's determination except in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.

ID: nht88-3.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/88

FROM: THOMAS A COZ -- NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES LAW DEPARTMENT

TO: JIM LUTES -- KENTUCKY TRAILER

TITLE: CALIFORNIA CITATIONS-HIGH MOUNTED TRAILER STOP LAMPS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/88 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. LUTES; REDBOOK A33 [4]; VSA 102; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/09/88 FROM JAMES A. LUTES TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Jim:

I understand you spoke by telephone on Friday, October 28, 1988, with Jack Sawrey, Vice President of NAVL's Fleet Service Division, concerning traffic citations which NAVL owner-operators have received in the state of California for pulling NAVL trail ers with high mounted lamps. Copies of four tickets are enclosed.

Based upon my conversation with Jack, I understand that you plan to contact the U.S. Department of Transportation and obtain written correspondence from DOT to the State of California regarding this issue. Specifically, I hope DOT is willing to write a letter which says that high mounted trailer stop lamps/turn signals are legal under federal laws and regulations. A question has been raised by California, for example, concerning the legality of such high mounted lamps under the terms of Federal Mot or Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in soliciting such a letter from DOT. If possible, please send a copy of whatever letter is finally generated to both Jack Sawrey and to me at our NAVL address listed above.

Sincerely,

Enclosures [4 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL TRAFFIC TICKETS OMITTED]

ID: nht88-3.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: HIROSHI KATO -- MMC SERVICES INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM HIROSHI KATO TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC - 1916

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kato:

This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1988, concerning whether a Mitsubishi Motors Corporation SH27 lightweight industrial truck that you intend to offer for sale in the United States should be classified as a motor vehicle under Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"). You stated that this vehicle is intended for "general or carrier work for off-road applications," and that it is capable of a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. You further expla ined that your company planned to advertise, promote, and market this vehicle as an off-road vehicle. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the SH27 would not be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" 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.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicl es and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a max imum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with

special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which th e vehicle is to be operated.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks, can be registered for use on the highways of several foreign countries, and can obtain a a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. These factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you stated that this vehicle is intended to be used only for off-road applications and that this vehicle will be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only and will contain four warning labels stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only." These factors suggest that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

You noted that several foreign countries including Japan and Taiwan register for on-road use the general export configuration of this vehicle. This suggests that your vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle. You attempted to distinguish this fa ct by stating that the vehicle to be sold in the United States has different specifications than the general export vehicles. The differences are that the United States version has a maximum speed of 25 mph while the general export version can achieve s peeds of greater than 55 mph, the engine displacement in the United States version has an engine of 548 cc rather than the 796 and 783 cc for the general export version, and the United States version has an hourmeter (similar to agriculture vehicles) rat her than a speedometer. You stated that these differences mean that there is little basis for assuming that the experience in other countries would correlate to the likelihood of States permitting the vehicle to be registered for highway use in the Unit ed States. Since the vehicle closely resembles a small truck for highway use, we believe it is likely that States would permit it to be registered for highway use, just as other countries have. Therefore, this factor suggests that your vehicle should b e considered a motor vehicle.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

You stated that your advertising and promotional materials will state that your vehicle should be used only for off-road purposes and will not depict or suggest that the vehicle can be used on-road. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

You stated that your dealers will be instructed that this vehicle is to be used solely for off-road purposes and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in this country. Your company also will s tate on any ownership document that this vehicle is not intended for on-road use. Therefore, this factor would indicate that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

You stated that this vehicle will only be sold by dealerships that sell vehicles other than motor vehicles, such as material handling equipment like lifts and agricultural equipment. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a mo tor vehicle.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

You stated that four warning labels will be affixed to the interior and exterior of the vehicle body. Labels stating "Off Road Use Only" will be applied to the exterior front panel of the cab, the rear gate, and the instrument panel. Additionally, a label stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only" will be affixed to the exterior rear panel of the cab. This factor would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

Based on the representations in your letter, the agency believes that the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight truck does not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht88-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PAUL SCULLY -- VICE PRESIDENT PETERSON MANUFACTURING CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/22/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM PAUL SCULLY RE INTERPRETATION OF EFFECTIVE PROJECTED LUMINOUS AREA, OCC - 1946

TEXT: Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 1988, asking for a clarification of a letter that this Office sent Wesbar Corporation on March 16, 1988, with respect to the term "effective projected luminous area."

Wesbar had asked whether it could include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" (Wesbar's language) in its calculation of the 12 square inch minimum effective projected luminous area required by S4.1 .17 of Safety Standard No. 108. We replied that it could, assuming that the light shines through the reflector. You have pointed out that although a small amount of light escapes through a reflex reflector, the reflector is designed to return light fro m an outside source, rather than to direct light from a source inside the lamp, and that heretofore agency interpretations (e.g. on October 28, 1970, and October 28, 1979) had expressly excluded reflex reflectors from areas included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. Reflex reflectors are also excluded from the term by SAE J387 Terminology.

We appreciate your calling this matter to our attention. Previous interpretations by this Office clearly indicate that a "reflex reflector" is not to be included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. We also note that the SAE definit ion (paragraph 2, SAE J594f,

January 1977) is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, stating that this item of equipment is one that provides an indication of vehicle presence by reflected light (rather than projected light). We are providing a copy of this letter to Wesbar so that it will be apprised of our reevaluation, and our conclusion that the reflex reflector portion of a lens cannot be included in the calculations of the projected luminous lens area.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CLARENCE M. DITLOW -- EXEC. DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 9-9-88 TO ERIKA JONES, NHTSA, FROM CLARENCE M. DITLOW, EXEC. DIR., CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, OCC-2525; LETTER DATED 8-02-88 TO CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY FROM JOANNE P. DELL'AQUILA

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking us to "investigate" a service bulletin issued by General Motors to its dealers regarding rear seat lap/shoulder belt kits to be retrofitted in models from earlier model years. You objected to General Motors' decision not to provide retrofit kits for all models, because all earlier models have shoulder belt anchorages and because you question the statement in General Motors' service bulletin that rear seat lap/shoulder belts in certain models would not offer better pr otection for rear seat occupants than lap belts alone. You concluded by alleging that General Motors' "refusal to provide shoulder belt kits for selected models is effectively frustrating" the purpose of requiring anchorages for rear seat shoulder belts to be installed in cars made since 1972 and our policy of encouraging manufacturers to provide retrofit kits for rear seat lap/shoulder belts in older vehicles.

I disagree with your allegations. Let me begin by emphasizing that we continue to support the use of rear seat lap belts, the restraint system found in most cars on the road today. While rear seat lap/shoulder belts may be even more effective, numerous studies have confirmed that rear seat lap belts are effective in reducing the risk of death or serious injuries to occupants. Therefore, NHTSA continues to urge all motorists to use the available safety belt systems in their vehicles.

However, we are encouraging vehicle manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for those consumers who desire them, such as Ms. Dell'Aquila. General Motors has indicated to us that such a retrofit kit is available for Ms. Dell'Aquila's 1988 Buick Regal. However, General Motors' bulletin to its dealers appears to indicate that retrofit kits are not available for those cars. To clear up any confusion, we have forwarded a copy of Ms. Dell'Aquila's letter to General Motors for their response.

2

The allegations in your letter, however, go far beyond Ms. Dell'Aquila's situation to suggest erroneously that her experience shows some failure of our efforts to ensure that rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits are widely available. As you were to ld in Administrator Steed's April 28, 1987 letter to you on this subject, NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to require all manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for all older models. Absent such authority, t he agency has sought the voluntary cooperation of the manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them. The vehicle manufacturers' voluntary positive response to our encouragement is demonstrated by the current availabil ity of retrofit kits for a wide variety of model lines. In fact, the General Motors Information Bulletin enclosed with your letter shows that company has retrofit kits now available for more than 50 models of its cars, trucks, and vans.

The fact that retrofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy. If a manufacturer makes a good faith determination that it is not ap propriate to make retrofit kits available for certain of its past models, that determination presumably reflects a thoughtful consideration of the characteristics of those individual models. We have no reason to question General Motors' determination wi th respect to a few of its past models.