ID: 1983-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gold Bug

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1983, letter asking about the compliance of a device that you manufacture with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The device is a head support for children which has several uses, one of which would be in a car seat. You specifically ask to obtain the Federal seal for use on your package.

Only those items of equipment to which specific Federal safety standards apply are marked with the DOT symbol which indicates that they are in compliance with applicable safety standards. From our analysis of your product, it is not a piece of equipment subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Since your device does not need to comply with any of our requirements, you would not need, nor would you be permitted to use, the DOT symbol.

We would recommend, however, from a product liability point of view that you ensure that your product complies with flammability requirements. I am enclosing a copy of our flammability standard that you might use as a guideline, although as I stated earlier, you would not be required to comply with this standard.

ENC.

February 9, 1983

Diane Steed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed,

Your name was given to us by Diane Emrick of the Colorado Division of Highway Safety.

We manufacture a product called Head Up. We are enclosing a sample for your inspection.

We would like to put the National Seal on the package. As you can see the Colorado Division has approved this item.

Please let me know the procedures for acquiring the National Seal. Thank you.

Robert P. Eschino, Vice President

ID: nht94-4.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vincent Ugoletti -- Chief Engineer, Great Lakes Communications, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/7/94 FROM VINCENT A. UGOLETTI TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10335)

TEXT: This responds to your September 7, 1994 letter to this office in which you stated your intention to modify a "conversion" van into a "production" van by replacing the original front seats with seats that swivel. You stated in an October 4 telephone conv ersation with Walter Myers of my staff that the vehicle in question is a 1994 cargo van. The vehicle has two front seats, and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 9,680 pounds (lbs.). You also explained that the work will be done by a commercial veh icle modification shop. You asked us about the requirements for swivel front seats.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, each person selling a new ve hicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as complying with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA has five safety standards, described below, applicable to motor vehicle seats. The original seats and seat belts on your van were required to meet the requir ements of those standards when the new van was sold to you.

The five standards set performance criteria ensuring that seats and seat belts provide safety benefits in a crash. Standard No. 207, Seating systems (49 CFR section 571.207), establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Th e standard does not prohibit the installation of swivel seats in vans. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), specifically section S4.2.3, sets forth occupant protection requirements at the various seating positions in vehicles su ch as yours manufactured after September 1, 1991, and with a GVWR not greater than 10,000 lbs. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), sets strength, durability, and other requirements for seat belts. Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assemb ly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), specifies the flammability resistance of the seats and seat belts. Copies of those standards are enclosed, as well as a fact sheet explaining how to obtain copies of all FMVSSs.

Generally speaking, once a motor vehicle is sold to its first retail purchaser, its use and any modifications made to it become a matter of state interest. Thus, owners of used vehicles may personally make any modifications or alterations they want to th eir vehicles without regard to the FMVSSs, subject only to applicable state requirements.

There is, however, a limitation on modifications of used vehicles by commercial entities. 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of des ign installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an FMVSS. Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design that were installed in your van in compliance with applicable FMVSSs (particularly the five standar ds listed above), a business listed in section 30122 cannot modify the vehicle in such a manner as to remove the seats and/or safety belts from compliance. Accordingly, the vehicle modifier should ensure that the swivel seats and any seat belts it insta lls are installed in accordance with the requirements of the standards.

You indicated that Great Lakes Communications wishes to maintain the safety of the original seats and seat belts. We commend that decision. NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the performance of the safety systems on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers or Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10335

Vincent Ugoletti, Chief Engineer
Great Lakes Communications, Inc.
3514 State St.
P.O. Box 860
Erie, PA 16512

Dear Mr. Ugoletti:

This responds to your September 7, 1994 letter to this office in which you stated your intention to modify a "conversion" van into a "production" van by replacing the original front seats with seats that swivel. You stated in an October 4 telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff that the vehicle in question is a 1994 cargo van. The vehicle has two front seats, and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 9,680 pounds (lbs.). You also explained that the work will be done by a commercial vehicle modification shop. You asked us about the requirements for swivel front seats.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, each person selling a new vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as complying with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA has five safety standards, described below, applicable to motor vehicle seats. The original seats and seat belts on your van were required to meet the requirements of those standards when the new van was sold to you.

The five standards set performance criteria ensuring that seats and seat belts provide safety benefits in a crash. Standard No. 207, Seating systems (49 CFR section 571.207), establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. The standard does not prohibit the installation of swivel seats in vans. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), specifically section S4.2.3, sets forth occupant protection requirements at the various seating positions in vehicles such as yours manufactured after September 1, 1991, and with a GVWR not greater than 10,000 lbs. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), sets strength, durability, and other requirements for seat belts. Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), establishes strength and location requirements for

seat belt anchorages. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), specifies the flammability resistance of the seats and seat belts. Copies of those standards are enclosed, as well as a fact sheet explaining how to obtain copies of all FMVSSs.

Generally speaking, once a motor vehicle is sold to its first retail purchaser, its use and any modifications made to it become a matter of state interest. Thus, owners of used vehicles may personally make any modifications or alterations they want to their vehicles without regard to the FMVSSs, subject only to applicable state requirements.

There is, however, a limitation on modifications of used vehicles by commercial entities. 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an FMVSS. Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design that were installed in your van in compliance with applicable FMVSSs (particularly the five standards listed above), a business listed in section 30122 cannot modify the vehicle in such a manner as to remove the seats and/or safety belts from compliance. Accordingly, the vehicle modifier should ensure that the swivel seats and any seat belts it installs are installed in accordance with the requirements of the standards. You indicated that Great Lakes Communications wishes to maintain the safety of the original seats and seat belts. We commend that decision. NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the performance of the safety systems on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers or Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure Ref:207#208#209#210#302 d:11/14/94

ID: nht95-3.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1995

FROM: William Meurer -- President, Green Motorworks

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO WILLIAM MEURER (PART 591; RED BOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Our firm has been selected to be the Agent for Service of Process and the United States importer for the Norwegian electric vehicle manufacturer PIVCO AS. Attached please find the original document affirming our designation and acceptance as agent for process.

As you requested, I attach herewith the Statement of Work and the BART Executive Summary which summarize the demonstration program that we will be administering. Five (5) separate California and U.S. agencies have united to provide funding for this p roject as a prelude to the development of manufacturing of the PIVCO City Bee EV in California. We seek to import the first 12 vehicles under section 591.5(J) and the subsequent 28 vehicles will be fully compliant. The actions we request are:

1) Please withdraw our previous request for a temporary exemption at this time.

2) Permission to import twelve (12) City Bee electric vehicles under CFR section 591.5(J).

3) A waiver from section 591.7(C) which would then allow us to operate these vehicles on the public roadways.

These vehicles will be fully insured and used by a control group of drivers to evaluate the various aspects of this demonstration project. It is vital that these vehicles be allowed to operate on public roads in order to demonstrate the station car c oncept as proposed in this program. After the two year demonstration project is completed, the non-FMVSS compliant vehicles will either be destroyed or exported under section 591.5(J)(3).

The testing of these electric cars is in the public interest because of the development of a zero emission vehicle and the near term creation of the U.S. manufacturing of it. Attached herewith is the letter of intent between CALSTART and PIVCO defini ng the goals and stipulations of this collaboration.

Our first shipment of eight (8) vehicles will leave Oslo, Norway on August 30, 1995. I greatly appreciate your prompt attention to our request. Thank-you.

attachments: Letter assigning Agent for Service of Process, Statement of Work, BART Executive Summary, Vehicle Specifications, CALSTART Letter to PIVCO.

Enclosure 1

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, DC 20590 USA

Oslo, 9 June 1995

Dear Mr. Administrator:

PIVCO AS hereby designates Green Motorworks, Inc. as our United States agent upon whom service of all processes, notices, orders, decisions, and requirements may be made on our behalf as provided in section 110(e) of the national Traffic and Motor vehicl e Safety Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 718) and in section 551.45 of the code of Federal Regulations.

PIVCO AS is the manufacturer of the CITY BEE electric vehicle and is located at: PIVCO AS Stanseveien 4 0975 Oslo Norway tel: + 47 22 25 20 50 fax: + 47 22 25 41 20

Our agent for service of process is: Green Motorworks, Inc. 5228 vineland Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91601 tel: (818) 766 3800 fax: (818) 766 3969

Sincerely yours,

PIVCO AS

Jan-Otto Kingdal Manufacturer

Accepted for Green Motorworks, Inc. William Meurer, President Date 6/9/95

Enclosure 2

Statement of Work

The San Francisco Bay Area Station Car Demonstration

Summary:

Green Motorworks, Inc. (GMW) is the United States Importer and Agent for Service of Process for PIVCO AS, Norway. In the context of the San Francisco Bay Area Station Car Demonstration, GMW will act as the leasing agent to BART and administer the dep loyment of all vehicles in the program.

BART will enter into a lease agreement with Green Motorworks, Inc. (GMW) to provide 40 electric station cars for a 24 month period. GMW will provide insurance, NHTSA compliance, driver training, vehicle maintenance and complete towing & repair servic es.

Three vehicles will be held in reserve for a spare for any of the users. Each user will be charged between $ 100 to $ 150 per month per vehicle depending on the extent of use. GMW reserves the right to modify the monthly charge at its discretion.

Purpose:

The purpose of this program is to assess the visability of station cars in use for both home to transit, transit to work, and company pool applications. Vehicle operational costs, user price sensitivity, corporate support, multi-user program viability and vehicle technical assets and failings will be evaluated.

Overview of Vehicle Roll Out Phases

PHASE I, October 1995: Ashby & BART Headquarters

GMW will deliver 12 PIVCO City Bee electric cars. These cars will be the European version which meets all European standards and has a top speed of 40-50 mph.

The cars stationed at the Ashby BART station will be offered to employees of Sybase Systems and Ashby area residents. GMW will administer the user agreements in coordination with the City of Emeryville Projects Coordinator Ignacio Dayrit, Sybase syst ems and BART Project Manager Victoria Nerenberg.

October 15, 1995: (8) PIVCO EVs

Site # 1: Ashby BART Station 5 user cars Site # 2: BART Oakland 2 cars to be used for testing & Police Dept.Headquarters Program Office: Alameda Naval Air 1 spare car Station

December 15, 1995: (4) PIVCO EVs

Site # 1: Ashby BART Station 4 cars to add to fleet PHASE II, Summer 1996: Ashby, Walnut Creek & Colma

GMW will deliver 28 cars with upgraded U.S. manufactured drive trains that will allow these vehicles to reach freeway speeds. These vehicles will be fully compliant with all 1996 NHTSA FMVSS safety requirements. All of these vehicles will be equippe d with air-conditioning.

Summer 1996: (28) PIVCO EVs

Site # 1: Ashby BART Station 10 user cars Site # 3: Walnut Creek BART Station 8 user cars Site # 4: Colma BART Station 8 user cars & 1 spare car Program Office: Alameda Naval Air Station 1 spare car

Ashby- 11 vehicles delivered to increase fleet to 20. Applications for people requiring a vehicle for a transit to home location commute will be sought. One vehicle to held as spare.

Walnut Creek- BART & PG&E Employees will utilize 8 vehicles stationed at the Walnut Creek BART Station. The cars will be used to demonstrate the commute between the station to home, and the station to workplace.

Colma- GMW will deploy 8 cars to be stationed at the Colma BART station. The vehicles will be used by BART and PG&E employees.

Scope of Services

Vehicle Importation & Validation: GMW will administer the importation of all vehicles to the Port of Oakland, perform pre-delivery inspection and cycle battery systems for proper operation. All data acquisition systems will be installed by PG&E or CALST ART. GMW will prepare and provide to BART all data required by the funding sources.

Administration: William Meurer will serve as the 'Operations Manager' who will be responsible for the following areas: 1) All areas of program 2) Selection of drivers and processing of paperwork. 3) Training and success of drivers. 4) Supervision of Vehicle Service Supervisor 5) Supervision of outside vendors.

GMW will hire a 'Vehicle Service Supervisor' who will work out of space leased with other CALSTART participants at the Alameda Naval Air Station. GMW will provide a gas-powered mobile service/tow vehicle for supervisor. The supervisor will have both a cellular phone and a beeper. A 24-hour Vehicle Service Technician will also be hired to respond to service calls on a 7 day/week 24-hour basis.

Summary of Services & Milestones

Battery Warranty: GMW will administer all battery warranty claims in a timely manner. PIVCO is responsible for all battery upgrades in PIVCO vehicles. GMW is not responsible for assigned battery suppliers to provide replacement batteries within prescri bed delivery schedules.

Walk Home Ratio: GMW will provide 24-hour service for failed vehicles to insure that program users will never have to walk home if a vehicle fails. Zero tolerance for walk homes.

Data Retrieval: GMW will monitor data acquisition systems and provide data to PG&E and CALSTART. Other reporting data will be given to a BART selected employee for reporting.

Program Duration: 24 Months starting October 15, 1995 and ending September 15, 1997.

Delivery Schedule: Vehicles 1-8 Delivered to Sites # 1 & # 2 by October 15, 1995 Vehicles 9-12 Delivered to Site # 1 by December 15, 1995 Vehicles 13-40 Projected delivery to Sites # 1, # 3, # 4 by Summer, 1996

User Fees: All user fees will be collected by GMW to apply to the cost of vehicle insurance.

Enclosure 3:

BAY AREA STATION CAR DEMONSTRATION

Executive Summary

The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District has attracted $ 1.441 million in outside funding to support the demonstration of 40 electric station cars for two years. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has granted $ 700,000 from AB434 fund s (Transportation Fund for Clean Air). Through CALSTART, the project is receiving $ 521,000 from the U.S. Department of Defense (ARPA). Other contributions are $ 100,000 (plus in-kind) from the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), $ 90,000 from the Ca lifornia Energy Commission (CEC), and $ 30,000 from the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS).

The purpose of the demonstration is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by BART patrons. BART will contract with Green Motorworks, Inc. of southern California to lease 40 two-passenger electric vehicles manufacture d by the Personal Independent Vehicle Company (PIVCo) of Norway. Twelve non-freeway capable cars will be in operation by December 1995, and twenty-eight freeway capable cars will be in operation by the summer of 1996. The use of the cars will be demons trated in a variety of settings: home to BART station; station to work site; and pool cars for worksites. Other short trips are allowed.

The program will attempt to maximize pollution reductions per electric vehicle by giving priority to carpoolers. Carpool teams, individuals or their employers will pay Green Motorworks $ 100 to $ 150 per month to use a vehicle (cost depends on the exten t of use). An added personal cost would be recharging at home, if needed (the cost should average less than a dollar per night).

BART statistics show that thousands of commuters drive all the way to work each day and end up a mere one to five miles from a BART station. The link from BART to their work site is not well served by either public transportation, taxis, company shuttle s or any other service. This untapped commute market is ideal for a station car service, especially if offered in cooperation with major employers who are mandated by statutory air quality regulations to implement employee trip reduction programs.

BART and PG&E will install 20 charging outlets at the Ashby BART station, 8 at the Walnut Creek station, 10 at the Colma station, and 2 at BART headquarters.

Meters will record the amount of electricity used at each station. Data acquisition instrumentation will be on each vehicle as well as personal-use logs. Three vehicles will be held in reserve to be used as replacement cars if necessary.

The delivery of the first eight cars will be by October 15, 1995, four by December 15, 1995, and the subsequent twenty-eight vehicles by August 1996. The cars will be used by BART and PG&E employees and selected public/private participants.

Enclosure 4

PIVCAL Inc. DRAFT 11.06.95

SPECIFICATIONS 12 Vehicles, 8 shipped 30th Aug. 95 Vehicle: 1995 PIVCO, City Bee, Prototypes Color: Blue, red, green Body/frame Thermoplastic, mass colored body/ aluminum space frame, both easily recyclable. Dimensions: L: 9.2 feet, W: 5 feet, H: 5 feet Decals: Provided by BART, can only be placed on side and rear windows. Safety Certificat.: European standard 1994 Weight, Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR): approximate: 2200 lb. Curb Weight: 1750 lb. Capacities: Passenger capacity - 2. Turning diam.: 26 feet Brakes: Disc front w/regen., drum rear. Steering: Rack and pinion. Propulsion Sys: Motor: Solectria or Brusa with AC induction, 3-phase, 2-pole, with optical encoder and peak power of 22 kW. Controller: Solectria or Brusa Control Systems, DC to three- phase AC inverter. DC/DC Conv.: Curtis 12V 35A Charger: On board 110V AC, or 208V AC 15A Battery Pack: Traction battery voltage full charge, nominal 120 volts DC. Batteries: Maintenance-free, sealed lead acid battery, Optima or an equal battery. Charging Port: Located at front of vehicle w/ retractable cord Transmission: Single speed, non-shift drive. Wheels/Tires: Aluminium 13" x 5"/All-season steel- belted radial tires. HVAC: 1.5 kW electric heating and defrosting Radio: FM/AM Comment: Passenger seats are situated higher than in a conventional car and together with a deep dash and a wide windshield this gives the driver a good view and a comfortable feeling. This adds also to the safety.PERFORMANCE Top speed: 50 MPH Range: Constant 40 MPH 45 miles. Adverse driving conditions (Stop and go) 35 miles Acceleration: 0 - 30 MPH 14 seconds 0 - 50 MPH 25 seconds Charging: 5 to 6 hours, 208 Volts AC 7 to 10 hours, 110 Volts AC

SPECIFICATIONS 58 Vehicles 1996 Vehicle: 1996 PIVCO, City Bee, Pre-series Color: To be determined Body/frame Same Dimensions: Same Decals: Same Safety Certificat.: FMVSS 1996 Weight, Sameapproximate: Capacities: Same Turning diam.: Same Brakes: Same Steering: Same Propulsion Sys: Motor: Advanced D.C. Motors, Inc. and Solectria to be considered. Controller: Curtis or Solectria DC/DC Conv.: Curtis 12V 35A Charger: To be determined Battery Pack: Same Batteries: Same plus others to be considered Charging Port: Same Transmission: Same Wheels/Tires: Same HVAC: Same plus Air conditioner to be determined Radio: Same Comment: SamePERFORMANCE Top speed: 65 MPH Range: Constant 40 MPH 55 miles. Adverse driving conditions (Stop and go) 40 miles Acceleration: 0 - 30 MPH 9 seconds 0 - 50 MPH 18 seconds Charging: 5 to 6 hours, 208 Volts AC 7 to 10 hours, 110 Volts AC Enclosure 5

August 1, 1995

Mr. Jan Otto Ringdal Managing Director PIVCO A/S Stanseveien 4 0975 Oslo, Norway

Dear Jan:

This letter expresses our mutual intention with respect to the proposed collaboration between CALSTART, Inc., a California non-profit corporation, and PIVCO A/S, a Norwegian company ("PIVCO"). The goals of our collaboration are two-fold: (1) to enable P IVCO to successfully penetrate the United States market with a "purpose-built" electric vehicle such as the "City Bee" that is both popular and desirable, is specifically adapted to the United States market, fully complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safe ty Standards ("FMVSS") and other regulatory requirements (each such vehicle being referred to herein as a "U.S. Adapted Vehicle"); and (2) to create jobs and improve air quality in the United States generally, and the State of California in particular.

This letter will set forth the general form and terms of the proposed collaboration and assist us in negotiating and completing an enforceable definitive agreement or agreements as follows:

1. The Definitive Agreement would acknowledge that CALSTART has and will continue to provide PIVCO with valuable technical and marketing assistance in developing a U.S. Adapted Vehicle and to manufacture or assemble the same at a facility to be located in the State of California, including the following:

* assisting PIVCO in securing orders for initial purchases of pre-production and production prototypes of U.S. Adapted Vehicles;

* assisting PIVCO in securing sources of financing and obtaining information towards the goal of achieving compliance of the U.S. Adapted Vehicles with FMVSS;

* assisting PIVCO in identifying U.S. component suppliers for U.S. Adapted Vehicles;

* assisting PIVCO in obtaining information for the business plan for its United States operations, possibly through a wholly-owned or partially-owned U.S.-based subsidiary ("PIVCO U.S./PIVCAL").

2. The Definitive Agreement would provide that in consideration of the past and continuing services provided by CALSTART, then if PIVCO, PIVCO U.S./PIVCAL, or any entity under their direct or indirect control using any patents, know-how or other proprie tary information relating to U.S. Adapted Vehicles provided to it by PIVCO or any of its affiliates (a "PIVCO Controlled Licensee"), elects to manufacture, assemble, market, distribute or sell U.S. Adapted Vehicles in the United States, then:

a. PIVCO will agree, or will cause each PIVCO Controlled Licensee to agree, to use its best commercial efforts to build, or have built, and operate an assembly or manufacturing facility for U.S. Adapted Vehicles in the State of California at a site whic h is mutually agreed upon with CALSTART. [PIVCO or such PIVCO Controlled Licensee will give favorable consideration to the Alameda Naval Air Station as one such site.]

b. For each U.S. Adapted Vehicle which is sold at wholesale or retail in the United States and which is manufactured or assembled by PIVCO or any PIVCO Controlled Licensee at a facility located at a site other than a site that is acceptable to CALSTART, PIVCO or such PIVCO Controlled Licensee will pay CALSTART a royalty in the amount of $ 500, or five per cent (5%) of the suggested retail price of the vehicle, whichever amount is greater. Payments of such royalties will be quarterly, with such payment s and a royalty statement to be delivered to CALSTART within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter, beginning with the first calendar quarter during which any U.S. Adapted Vehicle is marketed, distributed or sold in the United States. The maxim um aggregate payment of such royalties to CALSTART will be $ 4,000,000, provided that over the term of the Agreement, each of the foregoing dollar figures (i.e., per vehicle royalty and maximum aggregate royalties) will be adjusted for inflation annually based on increases (but not decreases) in the U.S. All-Urban Consumer Price Index.

CALSTART

ID: 5927Carraway

Mr. Bruce H. Carraway, Jr.
Carraway Safety Belt Company
14 Kings Bridge
Atlanta, GA 30329

Dear Mr. Carraway:

This responds to your letter in which you follow-up on our earlier correspondence regarding belt minder systems. In your recent letter, you requested that the agency require vehicles to be equipped with a belt minder system which relies on a voice synthesizer to provide an audible alarm. As explained below, the agency does not have authority to require a system as you have described.

In your letter, you requested that the agency require vehicles to be equipped with a belt-minder system developed by your company. You explained that the system would transmit a message through a vehicle’s audio system when a vehicle’s ignition is turned to the “on” position. Additionally, you stated that your system would use a voice synthesizer to state, “Thank you for fastening your seat belt.” You further explained that the duration of the message would be 4 or 5 seconds, and would repeat after a period of approximately 100 seconds. From your letter, it appears that the audible warning would sound regardless of whether the safety belt at the driver’s seat is buckled.

I want first to thank you for your continued interest in motor vehicle safety. As explained in our previous letter to you, Congress has provided the agency with specific direction with respect to certain types of vehicle-based safety belt incentives. 49 U.S.C. § 30124 states that:

A motor vehicle safety standard … may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by using a safety belt interlock designed to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle if an occupant is not using a safety belt or a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the “start” or “on” position. (Emphasis added.)

Under this provision, the agency is prohibited from establishing a standard based on the system you described. Specifically, the agency is prohibited from requiring a belt minder system that sounds after the initial 8-second period. As your system has a second audible alarm 100 seconds after a vehicle’s ignition is turned to the “on” position, a standard mandating your system would not comply with the congressional directive.

While the agency is unable to mandate your system, we continue to encourage vehicle manufacturers to consider voluntarily introducing belt-minder systems and other innovative technologies that could increase seat belt use in ways acceptable to their customers. As explained in our previous letter to you, manufacturers may provide a voluntary audible signal that sounds after the 8-second period specified in S7.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, so long as they provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Further, i n a previous interpretation letter to MMC Services, we stated that an audible “voice” signal would be permitted under the standard (January 13, 1981; copy enclosed).

However, we have concerns with a system such as you described, in which the audible signal operates regardless of whether an individual is buckled-up. Under your system, an occupant that has not fastened his/her safety belt would still be “thanked” for buckling-up. This may minimize the incentive to buckle-up that a belt-minder system is intended to provide. Further, it could both confuse and aggravate drivers and passengers because an occupant would receive the same signal no matter what action is taken.

If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

fef:208

d.11/12/04

ID: nht68-3.33

DATE: 05/06/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Utility Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 11, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield requesting clarification of the positioning of lamps and reflectors as required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The lamps and reflectors that are shown on your Drawing No. X-78, dated January 17, 1968, appear to be in conformance with the requirements of Standard No. 109 with the following exceptions:

1. The front clearance lamps mounted on the chassis-cab of the top two vehicles on your drawing are not required by Standard No. 108, since those on the body and crew-carrying cab adequately define the extreme width and are as high as practicable.

2. The rear clearance lamps shown on the crew-carrying cab should be mounted on the rear of the bed similar to those on the bottom vehicle (P) to meet the requirement that they be mounted on the rear and indicate the extreme width.

3. The front clearance lamps on the third vehicle (S, SL, CO) should be mounted on the front of the tool panels at or near the same level as the rear clearance lamps to indicate the extreme width.

4. The front clearance lamps on the bottom vehicle (P) should be mounted on the front of the bed or platform if it projects beyond the sides of the chassis-cab.

Since no dimensions are specified on your drawing, we can only assure that the locations are as specified in the standard.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht94-8.21

DATE: February 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Pat McCue -- Allied Service Systems Manufacturing

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/15/93 from Pat McCue to Ed Jettner (OCC-8962)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Ed Jettner of this agency concerning an occupant restraint system you have developed to protect medics and attendants in the back of ambulances. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The system consists of a vest worn by the attendant which is attached by a tether strap to the ambulance. During an August 23, 1993 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the tether straps include retractors which lock during a crash. During this phone call you also stated that the back vest can be attached to two tethers on the vehicle wall adjacent to the bench seat, and that the front of the vest is attached to another tether on the opposite wall. You asked for advice on "how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA 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.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish three safety standards that may be relevant to a vest and tether system for ambulance attendants. The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Ambulances, which are classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles under our regulations, are required to have safety belts at each designated seating position. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, including ambulances. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies.

Standards No. 208 and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, is responsible for certifying compliance to these standards.

Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements.

Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." Thus, your vest and tether system would be considered a "seat belt assembly," and the manufacturer of the system would be required to certify that it complies with Standard No. 209 before it could be sold.

If the vest and tether system was installed as original equipment by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable safety standards with that equipment installed in the vehicle. If the device was added to a new ambulance prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

I note that in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, you stated that your ambulances do have safety belts on the bench seat, however, these do not provide the mobility needed by the attendants when they are caring for a patient. It is our understanding that you intend the vest and tether system to supplement the original safety belts. If your vest and tether system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing your system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in your system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. The render inoperative provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant

protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

In addition to certifying that your vest and tether system complies with Standard No. 209, I urge you to exercise care in evaluating how effective this system would be in an actual crash situation. The original belt system supplied with the vehicle limits the motion of the occupant by keeping the occupant attached to the seat. Your system would have a dual purpose: allowing the attendant sufficient mobility to care for a patient and protecting the attendant in a crash. The tether on your system will not achieve this second purpose if it allows too much motion within the compartment.

You may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business. I also note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 8962

Mr. Pat McCue
Allied Service Systems Manufacturing
P.O. Box 6027
Phoenix, AZ 85005

Dear Mr. McCue:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Ed Jettner of this agency concerning an occupant restraint system you have developed to protect medics and attendants in the back of ambulances. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The system consists of a vest worn by the attendant which is attached by a tether strap to the ambulance. During an August 23, 1993 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the tether straps include retractors which lock during a crash. During this phone call you also stated that the back vest can be attached to two tethers on the vehicle wall adjacent to the bench seat, and that the front of the vest is attached to another tether on the opposite wall. You asked for advice on "how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA 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.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish three safety standards that may be relevant to a vest and tether system for ambulance attendants. The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Ambulances, which are classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles under our regulations, are required to have safety belts

at each designated seating position. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, including ambulances. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies.

Standards No. 208 and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, is responsible for certifying compliance to these standards. Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements.

Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." Thus, your vest and tether system would be considered a "seat belt assembly," and the manufacturer of the system would be required to certify that it complies with Standard No. 209 before it could be sold.

If the vest and tether system was installed as original equipment by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable safety standards with that equipment installed in the vehicle. If the device was added to a new ambulance prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

I note that in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, you stated that your ambulances do have safety belts on the bench seat, however, these do not provide the mobility needed by the attendants when they are caring for a patient. It is our understanding that you intend the vest and tether system to supplement the original safety belts. If your vest and tether system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing your system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in your system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. The render inoperative provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

In addition to certifying that your vest and tether system complies with Standard No. 209, I urge you to exercise care in evaluating how effective this system would be in an actual crash situation. The original belt system supplied with the vehicle limits the motion of the occupant by keeping the occupant attached to the seat. Your system would have a dual purpose: allowing the attendant sufficient mobility to care for a patient and protecting the attendant in a crash. The tether on your system will not achieve this second purpose if it allows too much motion within the compartment.

You may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business. I also note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208#209#302 d.2/10/94

ID: nht94-1.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Pat McCue -- Allied Service Systems Manufacturing

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/15/93 from Pat McCue to Ed Jettner (OCC-8962)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Ed Jettner of this agency concerning an occupant restraint system you have developed to protect medics and attendants in the back of ambulances. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The system consists of a vest worn by the attendant which is attached by a tether strap to the ambulance. During an August 23, 1993 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the tether straps include retractors which lock during a crash. During this phone call you also stated that the back vest can be attached to two tethers on the vehicle wall adjacent to the bench seat, and that the front of the vest is attached to another tether on the opposite wall. You asked for advice on " how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act pr ohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approv e 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.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish three safety standards that may be relevant to a vest and tether system for ambulance attendants. The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protect ion at the various seating positions in vehicles. Ambulances, which are classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles under our regulations, are required to have safety belts at each designated seating position. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, including ambulances. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies.

Standards No. 208 and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, is responsible for certifying com pliance to these standards.

Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements.

Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardwa re designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." Thus, your vest and tether system would be considered a "seat belt assembly," and the manufacturer of the system would be required to certify that it complies with Standard No. 209 before it could be sold.

If the vest and tether system was installed as original equipment by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable safety standards with that equipment installed in the vehic le. If the device was added to a new ambulance prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle c ontinues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

I note that in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, you stated that your ambulances do have safety belts on the bench seat, however, these do not provide the mobility needed by the attendants when they are caring for a patient. It is our underst anding that you intend the vest and tether system to supplement the original safety belts. If your vest and tether system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere w ith the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That sect ion provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing your system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in your system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. The render inoperative provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such m odification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant

protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

In addition to certifying that your vest and tether system complies with Standard No. 209, I urge you to exercise care in evaluating how effective this system would be in an actual crash situation. The original belt system supplied with the vehicle limi ts the motion of the occupant by keeping the occupant attached to the seat. Your system would have a dual purpose: allowing the attendant sufficient mobility to care for a patient and protecting the attendant in a crash. The tether on your system will not achieve this second purpose if it allows too much motion within the compartment.

You may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business. I also note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair wo rk.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht73-2.48

DATE: 12/21/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 8, 1973, request for an interpretation of the warning signal requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

S5.1.5 of that standard states:

A signal, other than a pressure gauge, that gives a continuous warning to a person in the normal driving position when the ignition is in the "on" or "run" position and the air pressure in the service reservoir system is below 60 psi. The signal shall be either visible within the driver's forward field of view, or both audible and visible.

A warning that "the air pressure in the service reservior system is below 60 psi" is intended to mean that a warning device's sensor could be located in the system you described in your letter between the source of air pressure and the check valve(s) required by S5.2.1.5. As you pointed out, this location would sense pressure below 60 psi anywhere from the compressor through the entire service reservior system. A single warning installed before the check valves in a split service brake system would fulfill the requirements of S5.1.5 as long as it is positioned to sense pressure below 60 psi in any part of the split service reservior system.

P2 Your interpretation of the signal requirements is correct. The signal must be both audible and visible, or it must be visible within the driver's forward field of view. A simple audible signal is insufficient, as is a simple visible signal which is not within the driver's forward field of view.

Yours Truly,

November 8, 1973

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Mr. Dyson:

We have several questions relating to FMVSS 121, S5.1.5, warning signal.

Our interpretation of S5.1.4 and S5.1.5 is that a gauge and a signal are required on each service reservior system. Neither a gauge nor a signal are required on the "wet tank" which is between the service tanks and the compressor and is separated from the service tanks by check valves. It seems to us that a signal on the "wet tank" in lieu of on the service tanks might be more effective in warning the operator of the system malfunction. Our reasoning is as follows: If there is no signal on the "wet tank", a failure of any of the components shown in red on the attached sketch would not be known to the operator until the pressure in the service tanks dropped below 60 psi. With a signal on the "wet tank", the operator would immediately be aware of a failure in any of the components from the compressor through the service system.

Will a warning signal on the wet tank in lieu of a signal on each service tank meet the requirements of FMVSS 121? If not, would NHTSA consider such an amendment?

Also, a major brake manufacturer has supplied us with their written interpretation of FMVSS 121, S5.1.5. Their interpretation would allow warning signals to be visible or audible or both. This is in conflict with our understanding of S5.1.5 which says ". . . the signal shall be either visible. . . or both audible and visible." Which is correct?

Thank you for your early reply.

W. G. Milby Project Engineer

cc: Ben Newberry Dave Phelps

(FLOW CHART OMITTED)