ID: 003832rbm

Mr. William E. Lawler
IMMI
18881 U.S. 31 North
P.O. Box 408
Westfield, IN 46074-0408

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This letter responds to your request for interpretation of the labeling requirements of S4.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208) as they relate to an inflatable tubular structure installed inside a fire truck. The fire truck would be within a range of 30,000-70,000 lb gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). According to your letter, the inflatable device is designed and installed to prevent the occupant's head from striking the side window or door frame during a rollover. The inflatable structure you describe is not subject to the labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 208 or any other safety standards.

S4.5.1(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 208 states that "except as otherwise provided in S4.5.1(b)(2), ^[1] each vehicle shall have a label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint." The subparagraph then goes on to state what the required label must look like. The label requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1) are limited to vehicles with the type of inflatable restraint system defined in S4.1.5.1(b). That paragraph defines an inflatable restraint system as an air bag that is activated in a crash.

S4.1.5 applies to all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996. A corollary provision, S4.2.6, applies to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997. S4.1.5.3, which applies to passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, and S4.2.6.2, which applies to those vehicles addressed by S4.2.6 manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, require that vehicles falling within their purview meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means of an inflatable restraint system, as defined in S4.1.5(b). These types of inflatable restraint systems are the only ones subject to the labeling requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1).

The inflatable tubular restraint described in your letter does not appear to be designed to provide protection in a frontal crash. Instead, your letter states that they are designed to provide head protection in a rollover crash. As such, they are not subject to FMVSS No. 208, including its labeling requirements. Moreover, as discussed in a March 23, 1999, interpretation to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. (copy enclosed), the labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 208 apply only to passenger cars and to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 lb or less. There are presently no other labeling requirements that would apply to these inflatable tubular structures.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.7/7/03





---

[1] S4.5.1(b)(2) sets forth the sun visor labeling requirements for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements adopted by NHTSA on May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30680). Those requirements are not applicable to the vehicle in question.

ID: nht71-1.22

DATE: 05/01/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Harvey R. Rosen, Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 2, 1971, to Mr. Douglas Toms, in which you inquired about Federal requirements governing the interaction of passenger car door locking mechanisms and door opening capability.

I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, entitled Door Locks and Door Retention Components, which applies to the area you have discussed. Please further note that paragraph 54.1.3.1 is applicable to the point in question, and requires that only the outside latch release control become inoperative on front doors when the locking mechanism is engaged. In the case of rear doors, addressed by paragraph 54.1.3.2, both inside and outside release mechanisms are affected. For your clarification, this standard was issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563).

As you point out, certain manufacturers have included the inside and outside feature on front as well as rear doors; however, the inside application to front doors was not required by the standard.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: LEDlamp.1

Mr. Takayuki Amma
Manager, Regulation & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co. , Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-kuTokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Amma:

This responds to your letter, in which you seek clarification as to whether your proposed headlighting system would meet the requirements for a "combination headlighting system" under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter explained that you wish to combine an "integral beam lower beam headlamp" that uses LEDs (wired in series), with a "replaceable bulb upper beam headlamp". As discussed below, we believe that your proposed design with an LED array would be permissible, provided that it meets the applicable photometric requirements of the standard.

As an initial matter, we note that your letter was in the first instance submitted under a request for confidentiality, but the agency denied that request in a separate letter dated June 20, 2005. In a July 13, 2005 e-mail to Eric Stas, you stated that you would not be appealing that determination.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date ofmanufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our regulations on your proposed product based upon the facts set forth in your letter and your demonstration of the lamp in a meeting at NHTSA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Your letter described a proposed vehicle front lighting system with two headlamps, which you consider to be a "combined headlighting system" under S7.6 of our standard. Your letter stated that this system design would include all of the forward lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108 and that it would meet the relevant requirements of the standard for each item (e.g. , meeting S7.4 for the integral beam headlamp and meeting S7.5 for the replaceable bulb headlamp).

We understand that your proposed system would include an array of six LEDs that would provide the lower beam headlamp illumination and that you believe it would meet the standards lower beam photometric requirements. We also understand that the LED portion of the lower beam would remain activated and contribute toward meeting the standards upper beam photometric requirements. Your letter stated that the upper beam portion of the lamp would have an independent reflector and a replaceable light source, while sharing the same lens and housing with the LED lower beam lamp.

In your letter, you also expressed your opinion that the LED lower beam portion of the lamp constitutes a single, simultaneously-aimable light source unit, which is part of an "integral and indivisible optical assembly" which includes the lens, reflector, and LED light source. As discussed in the meeting with NHTSA staff, you stated that you consider the array of LEDs to constitute a single light source, because they are wired in a series, such that failure of a single LED causes all of the LEDs to cease operation. You further stated that because the lower beam lamp is an integral beam headlamp, the entire lamp would need to be replaced in the event of a burned out or damaged LED. Furthermore, referencing the definition of "integral beam headlamp" contained in S4 of Standard No. 108, your letter stated that "[t]here is no restriction on the number of light sources useable for the headlamp".

As you are aware, paragraph S7, Headlighting Requirements, of FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting system options, whose specifications are set forth in the standard (i.e. , systems conforming to the requirements of S7.3, 7.4, 7.5, or S7.6). Of relevance here, paragraph S7.6, Combination Headlighting System, provides that such systems "shall be comprised of either two headlamps designed to conform to the requirements of S7.6.2, or any combination of four headlamps designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3.7, S7.4, or S7.5 of this standard".

Paragraph S7.6.2 states that for combination headlighting systems consisting of two headlamps, each headlamp shall be designed to conform to Figure 17-1 (Photometric Test Point Values for Mechanical Aim Headlighting Systems) or Figure 17-2 (Photometric Test Point Values for Visual/Optical Aim Headlighting Systems) and shall be a combination of two different headlamp types chosen from the following types: a Type F headlamp, an integral beam headlamp, and a replaceable bulb headlamp. A portion of the headlamp that contains an integral beam headlamp must be designed to conform to the requirements of S7.4(c) through (h) of this standard. A portion of the headlamp that contains a replaceable bulb headlamp must be designed to conform to the requirements of S7.5.

Under paragraph S4, "integral beam headlamp" is defined as "a headlamp (other than a standardized sealed beam headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3 or a replaceable bulb headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.5) comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, except that a headlamp conforming to paragraph S7.8.5.2 or paragraph S7.8.5.3 may have a lens designed to be replaceable". The definition of the term "integral beam headlamp" does not place a limitation on the number of light sources in such lamp. However, under S7.4(b), there are locational requirements which correspond to whether each headlamp has one or two light sources. As we explained in our December 30, 1992 letter of interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi, we have previously considered lamps with LEDs (which as a practical matter always have multiple LEDs) to have multiple light sources, with each LED constituting a single light source.

However, the situation where a number of LEDs are wired in series, such that they would operate or fail as a single unit, is different than the ones we have previously addressed. Because you have wired the LEDs as a series, failure of one LED would cause all of the LEDs to cease functioning. Thus, in such cases, we agree that the entire array of LEDs is a single light source, regardless of the hardware involved. Therefore, we believe that a combination headlighting system with an integral beam lower beam headlamp using LEDs would be permissible, if such LEDs are wired in series and allow the headlamp to meet the photometric requirements of the standard.

We also note that it may be possible for a lower beam headlamp with LEDs to meet the requirements of a different alternative under paragraph of S7.4, Integral Beam Headlighting System, by using beam contributors, each of which would contribute to meeting the headlamps photometric requirements (see S7.4(a)(2) and (d)).

Your letter also requested clarification regarding what constitutes the "optical center" of a lower beam headlamp, which you suggest should be the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminated by the LED light sources. You argued that this approach would provide the appropriate geometric reference for measuring the "distance to floor and between the lamps" and that it would also serve as an "optical axis" to ensure proper horizontal and vertical aiming of the headlamp, as well as determine a correct alignment to the photometer axis. You seek confirmation that in determining the relative location of the lower beam and upper beam light sources, the "optical center" of the LED lower beam headlamp shall be used and that a design where the optical center of the LED lower beam headlamp is placed most outboard and above the upper beam light source, such lamp would be considered to conform to the requirements of S7.4(b) and (c), as well as S7.5(d)(2) and (3).

We agree that for LED lower beam headlamps with a clear lens (i.e. , where light passes through the lens without being optically redirected), the optical center should be determined as the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminated by the LED light sources. Over the last several decades, the agency has replied many times to requests for interpretation regarding the center of lamps, but requests have all involved filament bulb lamps. We note that in a 1984 final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration under FMVSS No. 108, the agency referred to "optical center" as the reference center during photometric measurement (see 49 FR 20818 (May 17, 1984)), and in our January 14, 1976 letter of interpretation to the Department of California Highway Patrol, we stated that the center of the emitted light is always taken to be the center of the optical axis.

In the case of a clear lens LED headlamp, we believe that your recommended approach is consistent with these prior statements. Although not referenced in our standards, we note that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J1889, L.E.D. Lighting Devices, provides two options for determining the "LED lighting device light center". The first option is to determine the geometric center of the total illuminated area of the lamp, and the second option is to determine the geometric center of all of the individual LED light source centers. However, the agency does not believe that the second option is a valid method for measuring the optical center, because it may not correlate to the actual photometric output of the lamp (e.g. , different LEDs could have varying intensities).

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.12/21/05

ID: aiam4111

Dear Mr. Carter: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking tw questions with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; With respect to electric vehicles, you have asked 'is there a standar regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?' There is no such standard. The vehicle must be equipped with a hazard warning signal operating unit designed to conform to SAE J910, January 1966, and a hazard warning signal flasher designed to conform to SAE J945, February 1966, but there is no requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, that the hazard warning signal flashers perform for a minimum specified period of time in service.; You have also asked 'Is there a requirement that the vehicle b equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection?' We are unable to confirm your conclusion that there is no such requirement under Standard No. 101. Paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions or patterns be permanently displayed in front of the driver. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 requires illumination of the 'gauges' listed in Column 1 of Table 2 that are accompanied by the word 'Yes' in Column 5. The last 'gauge' listed is 'Automatic gear position', and the word 'Yes' appears in Column 5. The automatic gear position is a 'gauge' as defined by paragraph S4 of Standard No. 101, 'a display that is listed in ...Table 2 and is not a telltale'. Thus the Federal standards do require illumination of the gear positions of automatic transmissions, but not of manual ones.; I hope that this responds to your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4112

Dear Mr. Carter: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking tw questions with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; With respect to electric vehicles, you have asked 'is there a standar regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?' There is no such standard. The vehicle must be equipped with a hazard warning signal operating unit designed to conform to SAE J910, January 1966, and a hazard warning signal flasher designed to conform to SAE J945, February 1966, but there is no requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, that the hazard warning signal flashers perform for a minimum specified period of time in service.; You have also asked 'Is there a requirement that the vehicle b equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection?' We are unable to confirm your conclusion that there is no such requirement under Standard No. 101. Paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions or patterns be permanently displayed in front of the driver. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 requires illumination of the 'gauges' listed in Column 1 of Table 2 that are accompanied by the word 'Yes' in Column 5. The last 'gauge' listed is 'Automatic gear position', and the word 'Yes' appears in Column 5. The automatic gear position is a 'gauge' as defined by paragraph S4 of Standard No. 101, 'a display that is listed in ...Table 2 and is not a telltale'. Thus the Federal standards do require illumination of the gear positions of automatic transmissions, but not of manual ones.; I hope that this responds to your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: bombardier.ztv

Mr. William K. Cooper. P.E.
Vice President
Engineering and System Assurance
Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) USA Inc.
1501 Lebanon Church Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15236-1491

Dear Mr. Cooper:

This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 2003, requesting an interpretation as to whether the Guided Light Transit (GLT) that Bombardier is preparing to market is a "motor vehicle." You stated that the GLT "is similar in appearance and function to a European street tram, but runs on rubber tires and is guided during street operation by a single rail set into the roadway." You further stated "Propulsion is electric via an overhead catenary system." You argued that the GLT is not a "motor vehicle," "owing to its primary operation in a guided mode where the operator is not required to steer."

You provided additional information in a CD-ROM that you left with us after meeting with Taylor Vinson of this Office, and other agency representatives, on December 10, 2002. We have downloaded this information and it, with your letter, forms the basis for our response.

The information indicates that the rubber-tired GLT is intended to bridge the gap between articulated buses and steel-wheeled trams. The GLT is a vehicle consisting of three passenger-carrying units, and contains 41 designated seating positions. The overall length of the GLT is 24.5 m and its "empty weight" is 25,000 kgs. In the GLTs "Maintenance/Failure Management Mode," the operator "provides steering, traction and braking for limited failure management and non-revenue service maneuvers." We understood from our meeting that "non-revenue service maneuvers" refers to the driving of the GLT, under its own power, between the guide rail and the structure where it is housed. In going to and from the guide rail, the GLT does not carry passengers.

You have also presented information indicating that the GLT complies, or will comply, with all but one of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that would apply to it as a "bus" with a GVWR more than 4,536 kg. were the GLT determined to be a "motor vehicle."The one exception is FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, where "Discussion required with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA") is noted (in our view, the GLT would comply with FMVSS No. 208 were the operator provided with, at a minimum, a Type 1 seat belt assembly (a lap belt for pelvic restraint) that complies with the specifications of S4.4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208, referenced by the primary requirement for a bus with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, S4.4.3.1.).

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety, a "motor vehicle" is "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line." Under a literal application of this definition, the GLT would be a "motor vehicle" because it is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets and it is not operated exclusively on a rail line.

Nevertheless, we interpret the definition to exclude vehicles operated on a rail line even if the vehicles are rubber-tired, instead of steel-wheeled, and if the rail line is part of a public road. Importantly, we observe that the GLT is "operated exclusively on a rail line" at all times that it is carrying passengers other than a driver; i.e., when the safety of the passengers on the public roadways would be the paramount concern of this agency. At such times, it is electrically powered by an overhead catenary, consistent with other public transit vehicles such as trams and trolleys that are operated exclusively on rails. We further note that the GLT exceeds in length articulated (two-unit) buses typically regulated by this agency and due to its GVWR, is excused from compliance with some FMVSS that apply to buses. Therefore, we have concluded that the GLT is not a "motor vehicle."

Even if we decided that the GLT were a motor vehicle, there would be public policy reasons as well for NHTSA not to regulate it. Bombardiers submission also indicates that the GLT complies or will comply with such safety regulations of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as may apply to it (49 CFR Part 665). We have, on two occasions, relinquished our jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" where it appeared they were more appropriately regulated by another Federal agency. Initially, we considered mobile homes to be "motor vehicles" because they used the public roads in traveling from the place of manufacture to one or more home sites during their life, requiring them to be equipped in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to "trailers." We found it more appropriate for mobile homes to be regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The second situation involved motorized bicycles. We distinguished those that were powered 100 percent of the time by a motor from those where the power source was primarily muscular and the motor operated intermittently as an assist, such as in climbing hills. We found it more appropriate that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulate power-assist bicycles. Because the GLT is not a transit vehicle of the type usually regulated by this agency, it is more appropriate for FTA to regulate it than it would be for NHTSA to do so.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.5/15/03

ID: nht81-3.15

DATE: 09/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vector Cars

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1981, asking "for a 12 month exemption from FMVSS 205 (windshield glass AS-1), exemption to apply to our (one) experimental prototype car only".

Our exemption procedures would not really be responsive to your situation. They are intended for noncomplying series production where immediate compliance would cause substantial economic hardship, where an innovative safety device or low-emission propulsion system is being developed, or where an equivalent overall level of safety is being provided. Most importantly, as you need immediate relief, the process from receipt of petition, through a public comment period, to final action takes about 4 months.

Under our importation regulation, 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(vii) a manufacturer is permitted to import noncomplying motor vehicles for purposes of test or experiment, and operate them on the public roads for a period of one year, upon submission of information concerning the purpose of the test, the anticipated amount of road time, and the intended disposition of the vehicle at the end of the test period. The purpose of this exception is to encourage innovation. Although no comparable exception is provided under our regulation for vehicles that are not imported, in balancing considerations of safety (noncompliance of one Vector windshield with Standard No. 205) with the policy of encouraging small businesses and innovation, we have decided that the technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act involved in this instance (introduction of a nonconforming vehicle into interstate commerce), is not one which the agency would pursue. You have informed us that the Vector requires immediate development of an emission control program, that the vehicle will not be sold, and that when a conforming windshield is received it will be installed. Under the circumstances of your case we have concluded that the same exception that would be available were the car imported, should be made available to a vehicle of domestic manufacture.

SINCERELY,

VECTOR CARS

August 6, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Confirming a telephone conversation with Miss Joan Griffin and a gentleman attorney of your office, on August 6, 1981, we wish to petition for a 12 month exemption from FMVSS 205 (windshield glass AS-1), exemption to apply to our (one) experimental prototype car only.

We are currently developing a vehicle known as the VECTOR, the production version will be aimed at the prestigious GT market, historically dominated by foreign cars.

We request this exemption for the following reasons explained in more detail in the attached letter to Capt. King of the California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804.

1. We have secured an experimental permit Executive order C-170, July 1981, to allow development of our emission controls for period of 12 months.

2. Our emission controls program spans a full year and it requires the vehicle to driven on the California highways for this period.

3. Lead time to obtain a legal AS-1 glass windshield to fit our vehicle is approximately 6 months. This span subtracts from our 12 month CARB permit and leaves insufficient time to complete our program

(Graphics omitted) and obtain Emission Certificate.

4. Windshield production tooling is expensive and dependent on final production configuration. This configuration should "firm up" within the next 6 months. Tooling expenditure prior the this point would be in jeopardy of being wasted. In any case, as soon as a legal AS-1 glass can be obtained for the prototype it will be immediately installed and the plastic windshield will no longer be used.

5. The success of the VECTOR CARS program is considerably influenced by our investor who requires the vehicle to be registered by the State of California.

6. The limited use of the car negates, in a practical sense, the basic restriction to plastic as a windshield material, (the optical degeneration due to abrasion), since the wipers will seldom, if ever, be used.

7. The car will be driven by professional drivers and no safety hazards are planned in our testing program.

8. The car is a prototype and will not be sold.

In our conversation with Capt. King of the California Highway Patrol on August 6, 1981, (916-445-1865) he indicated that California would honor the NHTSA exemption. A letter from your office indicating the granting of the exemption would allow us to clear the (Illegible Word) obstacle with the California Highway Patrol in obtaining a California license.

If there is any thing more needed from us to expidite the granting of this petition, please do not hesitate to call me.

Jerry Wiegert President

July 30, 1981

Capt. C. E. King Commercial and Technical Section California Highway Patrol

Dear Capt. King:

We wish to request an experimental permit allowing the use of a polycarbonate plastic windshield in our prototype vehicle, the VECTOR W2 TWIN-TURBO.

We are currently involved in the development of an experimental prototype vehicle known as the VECTOR. This is to become a limited production sports car aimed at the prestigious GT market segment which has too long been dominated by foreign cars.

The newly completed prototype is a result of 8 years of research and it has already received a tremendous amount of publicity through both television and automotive journals internationally. Previously, we have trailered the car to track testing sights and to shows. However, we have come to the point in time where we need to have the car registered for use on California highways. This is necessary for several reasons: One is that we have already established an emissions testing program that requires operation funding for our program that requires operation of the vehicle on the highway. Secondly, any further funding for our program hinges on our investor's request to register the car with the State of California.

Our present problem is that the car meets all Federal and State requirements except for one-the plastic windshield. We of course will use an AS-1 glass windshield in our production cars, but, as you may know, glass tooling demands an extremely long tooling time and requires a large capital investment. We cannot secure the funds to pay for the tooling without first registering the car, and we cannot delay the emissions testing program.

We have already secured an experimental permit from the California Air Resources Board, executive order C-170, July 1981, to allow development of our emissions controls for a period of 12 months.

Our glass manufacturer has indicated a lead time of 6 months. Even if we had the funds now for the glass tooling, there would not be enough time to conduct our emissions work. If we have to wait until the glass windshield is installed, approximately 6 months from now.

As we understand it, from the technical viewpoint, the polycarbonate windshield (which is approved for aircraft use), is adequate for all safety requirements except on, the degradation of optical qualities caused by windshield wipers and other abrasions.

In our case the car will see limited street usage and will only be driven by a few qualified professional drivers. It will not be operated in inclement weather, negating the use of the windshield wipers which are installed on the car. Plus, the screen has a special coating to eliminate abrasions.

Since this vehicle is a prototype only and will not be sold, we would like to request your permission to obtain a temporary exemption (12 months) based on the responsibility of engineering and safety design done thus far, the VECTOR W2 is the safest production sports car ever designed for the street.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me so that we can expedite this matter as soon as possible.

Jerry Wiegert President

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

August 10, 1981

File No.: 62.A3020.A4889

Jerry Wiegert Vehicle Design Force Vector Cars Division

Dear Mr. Wiegert:

We cannot issue the experimental permit requested in your letter of July 30, 1981, for the temporary use of a plastic windshield in your prototype vehicle. Experimental permits issued pursuant to Vehicle Code 26106 are for the purpose of gathering data to support changes to statute or regulations. Issuing a permit for the purpose you requested would not be consistent with the intent of law.

Standards adopted by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require glass type glazing complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 205 in windshields and other windows of all motor vehicles. You may wish to petition NHTSA for an exemption from FMVSS 205. Petitions should be directed to the U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Office of Standards Enforcement, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Although we would oppose such an exemption on the basis of the safety issue involved, we would have no choice but to allow the vehicle to operate in California once the exemption is granted.

C. E. KING, Captain Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section

ID: aiam1730

Dear Ms. Nolan: A copy of your October 21, 1975, letter to Peterson Baby Products ha been forwarded to this agency by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for our consideration. In your letter, you indicated to the Peterson Company that you have experienced problems with their 'safety shell' child carrier as follows: A child can climb out of one model, vehicle seat belts do not readily attach to one model, while in both models, directions for adjustment of a tether strap appear inadequate, the child harness system does not adjust easily, and the padding materials are insufficiently durable.; Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Seating Systems*, regulates certai safety aspects of the type of child restraint system that seats a child for transportation in a motor vehicle. Peterson products subject to the requirements of the standard have been tested under NHTSA enforcement programs without failure.; Standard No. 213 does not include durability requirements for th padding or other material of the device. The standard does establish requirements for the retention of a simulated child's torso in the system when it is subject to frontal crash forces. This test, however, would not ensure that a child would be retained in the system if it attempted to release itself from the system. A 'child proof' system would make routine release by the parent extremely difficult.; As for belt webbing, the present standard only requires tha installation instructions be provided with the system, and that the webbing fit snugly those children for which the system is recommended. There are no requirements for the ease of seat belt hardware operation.; The NHTSA has proposed a more comprehensive child restraint standar that would regulate all child restraint systems, and would subject them to testing under dynamic loads that should result in upgraded performance of child restraint systems. I have forwarded your letter to the public docket on this rulemaking so that your views will be considered in the rulemaking process.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam1439

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, requestin clarification of the definition of school bus' as it appears in NHTSA regulations. You point out that school bus is defined for purposes of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school. . .', but is defined differently in Highway Safety Standard No. 17 (23 CFR 204.4), i.e., any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, *used* to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school'. You also refer to our interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 which states that the term school bus' as defined in 49 CFR S 571.3 includes buses designed as school buses but which are not intended or sold to transport children to and from school. You state that as a result it is unclear whether buses designed but not used as school buses, including church and civic group buses, must be equipped with warning lamps under S4.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In this regard, you state that you require purchasers to indicate on their purchase order whether the bus will be used primarily to transport children to and from school, and ask whether this is an acceptable form for a manufacturer to use to determine whether a vehicle will be used as a school bus.; We do not interpret Standard No. 108 to require warning lights on buse that are not intended to be used to transport school children. Our interpretation regarding Standard No. 217, exempting school bus-type buses from the emergency exit requirements of that standard (which applies as well to buses manufactured by Blue Bird), was based on what we believed at that time was a special need to exempt such buses from the requirements of that standard. We are aware of the inconsistency in the application of the definition of school bus' in Standards Nos. 108 and 217 and we intend to modify these requirements so that they will be applied consistently.; The difference between the definition ofBschool (sic) bus in th Highway Safety Act and in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under the Vehicle Safety Act is that the latter statute and the requirements issued thereunder apply to the manufacturing process. The requirements issued under the Highway Safety Act apply more directly to school bus use.; Whether a particular bus is a school bus cannot be ascertained merel by the representation of the purchaser. The manufacturer should base his decision as well on the objective characteristics of the vehicle, so that he can be reasonably certain that the purchaser's representations are *bona fide*.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5464

"Dear Mr. Matsui: We have received your letter of November 16, 1994, t Patrick Boyd of this agency, asking for an interpretation of the final rule that amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on November 2, 1994. The rule amended S5.1.2(c) to specify, in pertinent part, that 'after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors . . . shall not show . . . haze that exceeds 7 percent . . . .' The amendment is effective November 1, 1995. You have presented two fact situations with respect to replacement reflex reflectors, and ask whether the amended haze requirement is applicable in each case. These are: 'First case - replacement reflex reflectors manufactured after the effective date, but the vehicle to which the reflex reflectors are fitted is no longer manufactured after the effective date.' Motor vehicle replacement equipment is governed by S5.8 of Standard No. 108. S5.8.1 requires that any reflective device manufactured to replace any reflective device on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. Paragraphs S5.8.2 through S5.8.9 permit certain specified items of replacement equipment to be manufactured to original equipment specifications (e.g., earlier versions of SAE standards no longer specified for original equipment on motor vehicles), however, reflex reflectors are not included among them. This means that any reflex reflectors manufactured on and after November 1, 1995, whether original or replacement, must conform with the 7 percent haze limitation, regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle. 'Second case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured before the effective date, which may be fitted to a vehicle manufactured before or after the effective date. (In this case, the same type of vehicles are manufactured before and after the effective date continuously.)' A replacement reflex reflector manufactured before November 1, 1995, to replace a reflex reflector on a vehicle manufactured either before or after November 1, 1995, is subject to the requirement that the plastic materials used in them shall show no haze in a visual inspection after the outdoor exposure test because that is the requirement in effect at the time the replacement reflex reflector is manufactured. As a practical matter, it would appear to make no difference when the reflector was manufactured or to which specification. The amendment is not intended to change manufacturing techniques or composition of plastics materials in any way. Because it is impossible not to have some degree of haze at the end of the three-year test period, Standard No. 108 was amended to make it more objective and practicable, and the measured haze limit raised to 7 percent, at which point haze is visible to the naked eye. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";