ID: nht88-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BEVERLY B. BYRON -- CONGRESS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/24/88 letter from Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr. to Beverly B. Byron; 8/14/85 memo from C. Richard Fravel to Whom it May Concern; 8/4/88 memo from Arthur J. Lomart to Whom it May Concern; 8/1/88 letter from C.E. Shue to Joseph Ciampa, Jr.; 9/12/88 letter from Nancy F. Miller to Beverly B. Byron; 8/25/88 letter from Bevery B. Byron to Nancy Miller; 11/29/89 (est) letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to John D. Dingell (A34; Std. 205); 9/22/89 letter from John D. Dingell to Jeffrey R. Miller; 8/25/89 letter from Constance A. Morella to Norman Y. Mineta; 7/31/89 letter from W. Marshall Rickert to Constance A. Morella; 7/8/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Norman D. Shunway (Std. 205)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Byron:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa 's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requireme nts. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with wind ows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These require ments include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

2

Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light tra nsmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on th e side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehi cle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittanc e of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufac turer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, deal ers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed s uch tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, n o provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows.

However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Ma ryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, no t the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State.

3

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ref:VSA#205

SECTION 1. Section 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251.5 (a) Any motor vehicle may also be equipped with a system in which an amber light is center mounted on the rear of a vehicle to communicate a component of deceleration of the vehicle, and which light pulses in a controlled fashion at a rate whi ch varies exponentially with a component of deceleration

(b) Any motor vehicle may be equipped with two amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle which operate simultaneously with not more than four flashes within four seconds after the accelerator pedal is in the deceleration position and which are not lighte d at any

ID: nht92-5.35

DATE: June 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Puentes -- President, Sacramento Registration Service

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/2/92 from Jeffrey Puentes to NHTSA Chief Council (OCC 7403)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 2, 1992, asking several questions with respect to kit cars.

Your questions, and our answers, are:

"What is your definition of a Kit Car?"

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted a definition of a kit car. The regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are issued and enforced by this agency refer to manufacturers, motor vehicles, and motor vehicle equipment, and it is in this context that we answer questions about kits of motor vehicle equipment and the vehicles that may be assembled from them.

"How far into the manufacturing process can a party assemble a kit before it is classified as an automobile?"

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a motor vehicle is defined, in part, as one that is "driven by mechanical power." Generally, until the power source is added, the unit is considered an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle. However, if the assemblage is shipped with all parts necessary for its completion, including the power source, the agency will consider it a motor vehicle for purposes of its regulations regardless of its state of completion.

"What definitions and/or rules (laws) must he follow in order to begin selling kits for kit cars to the retail public?"

There are no specific regulations that a seller of kits must follow in order to begin sales. However, if the seller is the fabricator of an item of motor vehicle equipment that is directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the seller must ensure that the equipment item is properly certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These equipment items include brake hose assemblies, brake fluid, lamps and reflex reflectors, tires, wheel covers, or hubcaps, glazing materials, and seat belt assemblies.

Further, if the assemblage is shipped with all parts necessary for its completion, including the power source, and the parts are all new, the seller must provide certification that the vehicle, when assembled, will conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers, which identifies relevant NHTSA standards and regulations and explains how to get copies of those standards and regulations, and a brochure that gives a summary description of our standards and regulations.

ID: nht91-7.47

DATE: December 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alan E. Willis -- Senior Transportation Engineer, Franchise Regulation Division, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-3-91 from Alan E. Willis to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6550)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of safety shields in 1982 model year and newer taxicabs. According to your letter, the City of Los Angeles plans to require the safety shields in order to deter or prevent crimes against taxicab drivers. The safety shields would be of a bullet resistant design (1/2" thick General Electric "LEXGUARD" or equivalent) complete with side panels, seat back protection and pass-through fare box. You asked whether any safety standards apply to such safety shields. I appreciate the opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

One Federal motor vehicle safety standard, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies directly to interior partitions such as taxicab safety shields, if the partition contains glazing material. The glazing used in taxicab safety shields, including ones that are installed on used vehicles, must meet the requirements of that standard.

In addition, the installation of a safety shield might affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of other safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of a safety shield prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation is required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle complies with all safety standards affected by the alteration.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

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

In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installs a safety shield should ensure, by carefully comparing the safety shield and its planned installation with the requirements of relevant safety standards, that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable

by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: Carlsson.1

Mr. Erik Carlsson
A & C Automotive consulting
Chester, NJ 07930-2637

Dear Mr. Carlsson:

This responds to your august 28, 2004, and september 4, 2004, letters in which you seek clarification as to whether a three-wheeled vehicle equipped with a "dump basket" would be classified as a truck or a motorcycle under our federal motor vehicle safety standards (fmvsss).Your letter stated that this vehicle is intended for on-road application, and you expressed your belief that the vehicle is "obviously designed for transport of cargo, specifically (household) garbage". Your letter also asked questions about the impact of the vehicles classification on certain requirements under fmvss no. 122, motorcycle brake systems, and fmvss no. 102, transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to our regulations.

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.If a manufacturer determines that its product is covered by one or more of our safety standards, it must certify compliance of the product with all applicable fmvsss prior to offering such product for sale.

Pursuant to the definition of "motorcycle" set forth in 49 cfr 571.3, all three-wheeled motor vehicles are classified as motorcycles, regardless of their nature.Tthe pertinent portion of that section reads as follows:

Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

Any three-wheeled vehicle that conforms to the above definition must meet all standards applicable to motorcycles.

Because the vehicle in question appears to conform to the definition of a "motorcycle" under our regulations, we believe that it would be classified as a motorcycle and would be subject to all fmvsss applicable to motorcycles.We note that this definition of "motorcycle" is broader in scope than the everyday usage of that term.Accordingly, it would be expected to cover a variety of vehicle designs that look and are employed differently.

As your letter suggests, the classification of a vehicle is important because it affects the fmvsss with which the vehicle must comply.Once classified as a motorcycle, we look to the fmvsss to determine requirements applicable to the vehicle in question.In terms of the specific safety standards mentioned in your letter, the requirements of fmvss no. 102 would not apply, because that standard is limited to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.However, the vehicle would need to comply with the requirements of fmvss no. 122, including those in paragraph s6.1 specifying that the vehicle be tested at its unloaded vehicle weight plus 200 pounds.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact eric stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.10/26/04

ID: nht95-5.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Around 1985 * , NHTSA significantly reduced the Amber (Yellow) Photometric output minimals for all Rear Amber Turn Signal Lights. This reduction was implemented, I believe, partially as an act of Common Sense and partially as a positive Harmonization gesture to European Vehicle Safety people. Whereas these European Safety people did then and still do require "significantly less" Amber Photometric Output area, which was not correspondingly reduced when NHTSA reduced the required Photometric Output. Further, the Europeans still require significantly less Area for Amber lenses than the U.S. still requires.

* Presently I can't find the Federal Register Announcement with Details on this issue, however, I will attempt to send it later. I do know this data is readily available from your Docket Files.

European Safety leaders, I've been told, have "tests" that substantiate their position that a "Smaller" and less bright Amber Turn Singal yields "less conspicuosity", which is a desirable feature when compared to the Conspicuosity demanded by the Very Important Red Brake Lights . . . and rightfully so. As one can see for themselves . . . just the fact that a Turn Signal is Amber and not Red (as are all other Rear Safety Lights) makes it adequately "conspicuous", even if it is "smaller" and significantly less bright compared to the Brake Lights.

Also, European Scientists contend they have always had a "safer system" than the U.S. System as they have always required Two Brightly Lit Brake Lights, whereas the U.S. System allows only One Brake Light to be illuminated, leaving the other as a "Red" Turn (Blinking) Signal -- They contend that the U.S. approach can confuse the human mind and in fact, perhaps be comprehended as an Impending Turn and "not specifically" as a Braking Action whereas their system using. Two Brake Lights - both clearly Lit - means nothing but "Braking . . . Danger!"

They indicate that their smaller in size and brightness, Rear Amber Turn Signal "clearly indicates" to following traffic the situation when a Turn is occurring by itself or simultaneously with the Braking Action.

In any case, I believe our U.S. NHTSA Rulemakers of several years past were in error or experienced an oversight when they reduced and Harmonized the U.S.'s Rear Amber Turn Singal's required output but at the same time did not reduce the "Area" of output which would have kept the "Density * "of U.S. Amber Lights output about the same as the Europeans have found to be effective . . . thus making the U.S. more or less completely Harmonized with the New EU Specifications effective January 1, 1996.

* "Density", a better layman's term than getting into Luminesec and Luminous intensity . . . at this time.

Any American that is actively involved in the Manufacturing of Vehicle Lights knows it is ludicrous to require U.S. Manufacturers to Design Amber Turn Singal lenses in the 12in<2> range * , and then ask them to try and Balance our Trade by attempting to sell larger than necessary (therefore more expensive Lights) in Europe whereas European Manufacturers enjoy the advantage over U.S. Manufacturers of less expense simply because of size.

* which is what is now required for Big Rig and RV Rear Amber Turn Signals

I am asking that a better Trade Balance Policy be adopted as well as seeing that Common Sense reasoning prevails at NHTSA by asking that this situation be corrected.

If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a "Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request" and given consideration for "rapid processing" through the Public Commenting period. I seriously doubt if any American Company or Engineer is in possession of any Scientific Data that would refute what reasoning and facts I have presented here. By reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 in<2> to approximately 8 in<2> or 6 in<2>, the U.S. would have more practical Rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety.

Please handle this expendiently!

Yours truly,

Dennis G. Moore President

P.S. Please understand that I believe I speak primarily for the "Big Rig", Small Trailer and RV Type Lighting Manufacturers in the U.S., not for the typical S.A.E. Detroit Auto Designer and/or Auto Engineer.

My type of manufacturing is forced, through extreme competition pressure, to make Multi-purpose Rear Lights for about $ 3.00 each in order to be competitive here in the U.S., whereas, Detroit Auto Stylists know that small Amber Turn Signal Lights on Autos look puny and degrading to their potential customers. They know the bigger these Amber Lenses are, the better they look, the more they cost, and, therefore, the more overall profit is made on them as they are broken and replaced during the life of the Vehicle. Therefore, Detroit stylists and economists don't really want small sized Amber Turn Signals even if they know that small ones do the Safety Job they're intended to do -- they must compete in "Styling" whereas larger and more elaborate lights sell cars and makes them more money in the long run than what would be saved on small lights, whereas this is not at all true with "Other" Vehicle Lighting Manufacturers like I represent who are trying to Compete in the U.S. and Europe in the Non-Auto Vehicle Lighting business.

I believe, and apparently so do most European Safety people, that Location, Color and the Density * Output of a Safety Light is more important for "Conspicuosity" than a large lens with low output.

ID: nht95-3.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Around 1985 * , NHTSA significantly reduced the Amber (Yellow) Photometric output minimals for all Rear Amber Turn Signal Lights. This reduction was implemented, I believe, partially as an act of Common Sense and partially as a positive Harmonization ge sture to European Vehicle Safety people. Whereas these European Safety people did then and still do require "significantly less" Amber Photometric Output area, which was not correspondingly reduced when NHTSA reduced the required Photometric Output. Fu rther, the Europeans still require significantly less Area for Amber lenses than the U.S. still requires.

* Presently I can't find the Federal Register Announcement with Details on this issue, however, I will attempt to send it later. I do know this data is readily available from your Docket Files.

European Safety leaders, I've been told, have "tests" that substantiate their position that a "Smaller" and less bright Amber Turn Singal yields "less conspicuosity", which is a desirable feature when compared to the Conspicuosity demanded by the Very Im portant Red Brake Lights . . . and rightfully so. As one can see for themselves . . . just the fact that a Turn Signal is Amber and not Red (as are all other Rear Safety Lights) makes it adequately "conspicuous", even if it is "smaller" and significantl y less bright compared to the Brake Lights.

Also, European Scientists contend they have always had a "safer system" than the U.S. System as they have always required Two Brightly Lit Brake Lights, whereas the U.S. System allows only One Brake Light to be illuminated, leaving the other as a "Red" T urn (Blinking) Signal -- They contend that the U.S. approach can confuse the human mind and in fact, perhaps be comprehended as an Impending Turn and "not specifically" as a Braking Action whereas their system using. Two Brake Lights - both clearly Lit - means nothing but "Braking . . . Danger!"

They indicate that their smaller in size and brightness, Rear Amber Turn Signal "clearly indicates" to following traffic the situation when a Turn is occurring by itself or simultaneously with the Braking Action.

In any case, I believe our U.S. NHTSA Rulemakers of several years past were in error or experienced an oversight when they reduced and Harmonized the U.S.'s Rear Amber Turn Singal's required output but at the same time did not reduce the "Area" of output which would have kept the "Density * "of U.S. Amber Lights output about the same as the Europeans have found to be effective . . . thus making the U.S. more or less completely Harmonized with the New EU Specifications effective January 1, 1996.

* "Density", a better layman's term than getting into Luminesec and Luminous intensity . . . at this time.

Any American that is actively involved in the Manufacturing of Vehicle Lights knows it is ludicrous to require U.S. Manufacturers to Design Amber Turn Singal lenses in the 12in<2> range * , and then ask them to try and Balance our Trade by attempting to sell larger than necessary (therefore more expensive Lights) in Europe whereas European Manufacturers enjoy the advantage over U.S. Manufacturers of less expense simply because of size.

* which is what is now required for Big Rig and RV Rear Amber Turn Signals

I am asking that a better Trade Balance Policy be adopted as well as seeing that Common Sense reasoning prevails at NHTSA by asking that this situation be corrected.

If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a "Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request" and given consideration for "rapid processing" through the Public Commenti ng period. I seriously doubt if any American Company or Engineer is in possession of any Scientific Data that would refute what reasoning and facts I have presented here. By reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 in<2> to approximately 8 in<2> or 6 in<2>, the U.S. would have more practical Rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety.

Please handle this expendiently!

Yours truly,

Dennis G. Moore President

P.S. Please understand that I believe I speak primarily for the "Big Rig", Small Trailer and RV Type Lighting Manufacturers in the U.S., not for the typical S.A.E. Detroit Auto Designer and/or Auto Engineer.

My type of manufacturing is forced, through extreme competition pressure, to make Multi-purpose Rear Lights for about $ 3.00 each in order to be competitive here in the U.S., whereas, Detroit Auto Stylists know that small Amber Turn Signal Lights on Auto s look puny and degrading to their potential customers. They know the bigger these Amber Lenses are, the better they look, the more they cost, and, therefore, the more overall profit is made on them as they are broken and replaced during the life of the Vehicle. Therefore, Detroit stylists and economists don't really want small sized Amber Turn Signals even if they know that small ones do the Safety Job they're intended to do -- they must compete in "Styling" whereas larger and more elaborate lights se ll cars and makes them more money in the long run than what would be saved on small lights, whereas this is not at all true with "Other" Vehicle Lighting Manufacturers like I represent who are trying to Compete in the U.S. and Europe in the Non-Auto Vehi cle Lighting business.

I believe, and apparently so do most European Safety people, that Location, Color and the Density * Output of a Safety Light is more important for "Conspicuosity" than a large lens with low output.

ID: nht81-1.37

DATE: 03/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ABCO, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This reponds to your letter of November 24, 1980 to Joan Griffin of my staff regarding the use of Lexan Margard as a glazing material in off-road heavy equipment, such as farm equipment and logging operations vehicles. Please accept our apologies for the lateness of this reply. In your letter, you asked whether an off-road vehicle equipped with a Lexan Margard windshield may be driven on public roads for the purpose of reaching a new job site. You also asked in which locations on a vehicle Lexan Margard may be used. You state that you are a "Fabricator-Distributor," i.e., that you purchase flat Margard sheeting, machine it to size, and ship it to heavy equipment manufacturers and owners.

The first issue that must be resolved in answering your questions is whether an off-road equipment vehicle is a "motor vehicle." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards governing "motor vehicles." Thus, Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies to a vehicle only if the vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.) (the Act). Section 102(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391(3)) defines "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We cannot determine, on the basis of the information you have provided, whether the vehicles in question are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Act. However, we have enclosed some guidelines that should enable you to make your own decision. Please contact this office if you have any questions about a specific vehicle.

If a piece of off-road heavy equipment is not a "motor vehicle," NHTSA has no authority over the vehicle, and Safety Standard No. 205 is inapplicable. In this case, any type of glazing material may be used in the vehicle. However, you should check with the appropriate state agency to determine whether there are any local regulations regarding the type of glazing that may be used in such equipment, and whether such a vehicle can use the public roads.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle," the glazing used in that vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing materials to be used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.1-1966 (ANS Z26). ANS Z26 lists 13 "Items" or types of glazing that vary in terms of the performance tests each item must pass and the locations in which each type of glazing may be used. Two items of glazing may be used in the windshield of a motor vehicles: Item 1, Safety Glazing Materials for Use Anywhere In Motor Vehicle, and Item 10, Bullet Resistant Glass for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle. Lexan Margard clearly does not qualify as bullet resistant glazing material. Thus the second issue that must be addressed in response to your first question (assuming that the vehicles you are fitting with glazing material are motor vehicles under the Act) is whether Lexan Margard qualifies as Item 1 glazing.

NHTSA does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination. However, the agency is willing to give an informal opinion concerning whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. This opinion is not binding on you or the agency. It is our understanding that Lexan Margard does not qualify as Item 1 glazing because it fails Test No. 18, Abrasion Resistance. In response to your second question, we do not know whether Lexan qualifies as other Items of glazing. Your supplier may be able to provide you with more accurate information.

If Lexan Margard does not meet all the tests for Item 1 glazing, then your sale of a Lexan Margard windshield to a vehicle manufacturer for installation in a motor vehicle violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Your customer is also in violation of this section of the Act if he sells a motor vehicle equipped with a Lexan Margard windshield. NHTSA has no authority over the operation of motor vehicles, only over the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under Section 109, anyone who violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) is subject to a civil penalty up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Should you determine that Lexan Margard meets the requirements of Item 1 glazing and you wish to sell Lexan windshields for installation in motor vehicles, Standard No. 205 imposes specific certification and marking requirements on you as a Fabricator-Distributor of automotive glazing. These requirements can be found in Paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5.

We hope you find this information helpful and not too confusing. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 24, 1980

Joan Griffin -- N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Ms. Griffin:

This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of November 20, 1980 concerning legal documents related to the use of Lexan Margard (Polycarbonate sheet with an abrasion resistant coating) as a glazing material for off-road heavy equipment.

I must review and evaluate all related documents and prepare for a presentation to some major equipment companys within two to three weeks.

Our position is that of Fabricator-Distributor. We buy flat Margard sheeting from General Electric, machine it to size and ship it to both heavy equipment manufacturers and owners.

The equipment that we supply is generally used off-road. Is it legal to operate these vehicles on public roads for the purpose of reaching a new job site if the primary windshield is Lexan? May they be used on roads not yet open for traffic? In which windows is Lexan Margard legally documented for use?

Any information about legal vehicular applications of this glazing material would be invaluable to us. Time is important. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Miles B. Mueller -- ABCO, Inc.

ID: nht89-2.85

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1989

FROM: Emory L. Lariscy -- Lariscy Enterprises, Inc.

TO: George Shifflett -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Patten #07-335838

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from P.J. Rice to E.J. Lariscy (A36; Std. 108; Std. 124; Std. 301); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Mundy to E. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Al so attached to letter dated 8-9-89 from L. Baer to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

With regard to our conversation of Aug. 24, 1989 we request you to submit to National Highway Traffic Committee for their interpretation and legality and now impairment of the use and marketing of vehicle safety light assembly.

We are enclosing the copy of patten application summary and background information for your reference.

It is our understanding after our conversation, that this new caution device does not require an S.A.E. or D.O.T number or sponsership.

This application deviates in size and placement of light for use in the trucking industry, (as pictured on enclosed rough draft). And in regard to the present potential truck fleet owners, would be mounted and/or located on the safety bumber bracket of semi-trailers: singularly or in pairs on said safety bumper bracket.

We are taking this opportunity to also submit copies of some of the inquiries and options we have had from major automobile and trucking firms.

We would appreciate your consideration and opinion and non disclosure any and all information submitted at this time.

P.S. Should you need clarification on said patten please contact Patten Attorney Wallace J. Nelson 34 Salt Pond Road Hampton, VA 23664 Ph (804) 851-1667 Enc.

EL-903 PATENT APPLICATION VEHICLE SAFETY LIGHT ASSEMBLY

FIELD OF THE INVENTI0N This invention relates generally to a vehicular safety system, and relates specifically to a braking and deceleration light warning

system to alert a trailing vehicle driver that the front vehicle is decelerating and, or may be, braking.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Rear end vehicular collisions are one of the most common accidents occurring on our road systems today and result in countless loss of money, time and sometimes, life to those involved. Although a number of systems have been proposed to alert trailing v ehicle drivers of the deceleration of a lead vehicle prior to illumination of the brake lights, there remains a need for further improvement in this area.

The addition of a third eye-level brake light in the rear window of presently manufactured automobiles has, no doubt, helped to reduce the number and severity of rear end collisions. A reliable and more efficient system to alert a trailing vehicle opera tor that the lead vehicle is, or may be, decelerating prior to actual illumination of the vehicle brake lights could prove a valuable safety device that could further reduce the number and severity of rear end collisions now occurring.

Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide an improved braking and deceleration light warning system for automotive vehicles.

Another object of the present invention is a braking and deceleration warning light system that is easy to install by the novice mechanic or vehicle owner.

A further object of the present invention is a novel deceleration warning light system that may be installed on vehicles that are already provided with rear window brake lights.

An additional object of the present invention is a novel bracket member for connecting a deceleration light switch to the carburetor of vehicle.

Another object of the present invention is a braking and deceleration warning light kit that is economical to buy, easy to retro fit onto a vehicle and will reduce rear-end collision incidence and severity.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION According to the present invention the foregoing and additional objects are attained by providing a rear window mounted combination brake and carburetor such that when a vehicle ignition switch is in the "on" position an amber light is activated and beco mes visible in the rear window of the vehicle.

When the vehicle accelerator is depressed, the electrical connection to the amber light is interrupted and it ceases to burn until the accelerator is released. When the brake pedal is depressed a red brake light in the vehicle rear window is activated, along with the regular brake lights. The amber or yellow caution light is connected to an independent circuit from the brake lights and continues to burn as long as the accelerator is not depressed as further visual indication to a trailing

vehicle driver that the lead vehicle is decelerating and braking.

For vehicles already provided with a rear window mounted brake light, an amber deceleration light unit is installed on one or both sides of the brake light. When installing two amber light units they may be placed adjacent to, or spaced from, the centra l red brake light. The brake light in each instance is connected to the same electric system that actuates the rear mounted brake lights. The amber caution or deceleration warning light(s) is connected to a switch disposed on the vehicle carburetor and receives current from the vehicle fuse block such that the throttle valve arm on the carburetor maintains the switch closed when the vehicle ignition switch is "on" and the accelerator pedal is not depressed. When the accelerator pedal is depressed, the throttle valve arm moves out of contact with the switch to permit spring actuated opening thereof. Opening of the switch interrupts the current flow to the amber deceleration light causing it to go out. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht92-6.34

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gerald A. Guertin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Gerald A. Guertin to Samuel Skinner (OCC 7234)

TEXT:

Your letter of March 30, 1992 to former Secretary Skinner was referred to this agency for reply. You expressed concern that you had not received a response to an earlier letter, addressed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the use of vans to transport school children. I regret that you did not receive a response to your previous letter.

You indicated that you are a school teacher in Florida and asked us to verify your understanding of why you cannot use nine- to 15- passenger vans to transport school children. You stated that, at the present time, seven-person rifle teams, eight-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, and the like are prohibited from being transported in vans and must instead use "gas-guzzling, 37-passenger school buses." Since these clubs must raise their own gas money, you stated that they could get "more trips for the buck" if they could use vans. You indicated that you were permitted to use vans prior to a crash about seven years ago in which a cheerleader was killed. You understand that van roof standards were apparently not what they should be and that NHTSA then "came forward with the need for 'acceptability of crash-worthy tests' for vans," placing the cost of developing and performing such tests on manufacturers. You suggested that van manufacturers opted out of the school van business because they were reluctant to fund the new tests.

Your understanding is not quite correct, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less; vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent

users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may USE a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Florida law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

The following is a list of federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses:

Standard Nos. 101 through 104 Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic serivce brake systems) Standard Nos. 106 through 108 Standard Nos. 111 through 113 Standard No. 115 Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems) Standard Nos. 119 and 120 Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems) Standard No. 124 Standard No. 131 (effective September 1, 1992) Standard Nos. 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less) Standard No. 205 Standard Nos. 207 through 210 Standard No. 212 (school busses with a GVWR or 10,000 pounds or less) Standard No. 217 Standard No. 219 (school busses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less)

Standard No. 220 Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) Standard No. 222 Standard Nos. 301 and 302

Of the above-listed standards, only Standard numbers 131 and 220 through 222 apply exclusively to school buses.

All federal motor vehicle safety standards may be found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. The CFRs may be found in your local bar association library, the main public library, or a copy of Title 49, CFR, may be purchased from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 783-3238.

ID: nht87-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hiroshi Kato -- Assistant Vice President, Technical, WC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous (Part 581); 12/1/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H. Nakaya, Mazda, Inc.

TEXT:

Mr. Hiroshi Kato Assistant Vice President, Technical WC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

This responds to your letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you sought my confirmation of a previous interpretation I sent to you. The issue is the classification of a new mini-van for the purposes of our safety and bumper standards. I stated in a july 2 8, 1987 interpretation to your company that, based on the information you had provided, this new mini-van could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the mini-van's chassis cou ld be considered a truck chassis Has based on information you had provided showing that the chassis design and construction Has more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis.

In response to this letter, you sent me another letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you stated that my previous interpretation by have been based on the erroneous belief that you were going to introduce a cargo version of this mini-van into the United States, and that this cargo version would have a chassis that was substantially reinforced as compared with the chassis on a passenger version of this mini-van.

My previous interpretation Has based on the fact that the mini-van you will introduce into the United States is built on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the chassis can properly be characterized as a truck chassis has based on the facts that the chas sis has a heavier-duty rear suspension and longitudinal members and a 25 percent higher gross vehicle weight rating than the sedan version of this vehicle. Assuming that these understandings are accurate, because nothing in your August 3 letter indicates they were inaccurate, the agency's position was accurately expressed in my July 28, 1987 letter to your company.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 3, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is a letter to confirm your response dated July 28, 1987 (attached II) to our letter seeking an interpretation (attached I) as to whether a new mini van will be classified as a "Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle" for the purposes of the FMVSS and the bumper standards. Because it seems to me that you may misunderstand our statement, I will illustrate our statement and ask your interpretation again as soon as possible.

The component reinforced for commercial vehicle

o rear suspension changed

o rear floorpan and longitudinal members are changed o GM + 300kg

o the flat cargo floor

o the roof raised for cargo

o the end of the cargo floor, no stepped up cross rail

MMC is going to launch Vehicle 3 in U.S. market as MPV. Vehicle 3 & 1 have been sold in Japan as passenger car and Vehicle 2 as van. MMC is asking that, although Vehicle 3 has been sold as wagon in Japan, Vehicle 3 should be classified to be MPV. Because Vehicle 3 has the same chassis and body

(continued)

construction as Vehicle 2 (Van), and Vehicle 2 is developed to withstand the commercial use criteria changing rear suspension, rear floor pan configuration, longitudinal members, GM and roof configuration, etc. from Vehicle l (Sedan). Therefore, Vehicle 3 is considered to have truck chassis...

NHTSA' s understanding

We presume that you misunderstand our statements as follows after reading your response.

However, Vehicle 2 has the same construction as Vehicle 3 and there is no fact that vehicle 2 is substantially reinforced from Vehicle 3 as mentioned before.

MMC's request

Therefore, could you re-examine our statement and give us your interpretation on Vehicle 3's classification as soon as possible. We do believe that Vehicle 3 should be classified as an MPV because Vehicle 3 has the truck chassis although MMC is responsib le for the proof that this Vehicle 3 has a truck chassis.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (313) 355-5444.

Sincerely yours,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Hiroshi Kato

HK/xsg Assistant Vice President, Technical Attached: I: MMC Services letter to NHTSA II: NHTSA's response letter

See 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous.