ID: nht72-3.39

DATE: 03/02/72

FROM: ELWOOD DRIVER FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Lindburg Cadillac

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 16, 1972, to Secretary John Volpe, concerning the length of seat belts in a 1972 Cadillac automobile.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Occupant Crash Protection, copy enclosed, specifies requirements for occupant restaint systems. Effective January 1, 1972, car manufacturers are required to provide Type 2 belt assemblies (lap-shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions and lap belts at other positions. The Type 2 belt assemblies may have either integral or detachable shoulder belts, but the distance between the intersection of the lap-shoulder belt and the vertical counterline of a 50th-percentile adult male occupant must be at least six inches when the seat is in its rearmost position. The purpose of this requirement is to reduce the possibility of the shoulder belt pulling the lap belt up onto the occupant's abdomen where it could cause serious injury in a crash.

We have examined several 1972 model cars and have found that some manufacturers have chosen belt designs that provide distances of ten inches or more between the lap-shoulder belt intersection and the centerline of the occupant. The (Illegible Word) not prohibit distances greater than six inches, but it is obvious that the greater this distance, the closer the inboard end of the belt is to the seat and the more difficult it is to buckle the belt. I am happy to inform you that we have already initiated rule making action to amend Standard No. 208 that would prohibit such excessive distances.

Under the requirements of the National Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act, copy enclosed, it is a violation of the law to sell a vehicle that does not conform to an applicable standard. Although the Act does not prevent the purchaser of a vehicle from altering or removing a safety device, after he has completed the purchase, we strongly advise him against such action. A dealer who perform such services after he has sold the vehicle does not violate the law, but he does his customer a disservice.

In regard to the belts in the Cadillac you sold to Mr. and Mrs. T. Albert McCulley, we do not have the authority to grant or deny you permission to lengthen the inboard end of the belt. We can only suggest that perhaps you could lengthen the belt only to the extent that is necessary to provide a distance of not less than six inches between the interraction of the lap-shoulder belt and the centerline of a 50th-percencile adult (Illegible Word) occupant measured in accordance with paragraph s7.1.2 of Standard No. 206.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, LINDBURG CADILLAC

February 16, 1972

Honorable John Volpe Secretary of Transportation U. S. Dept. of Transportation

Dear Mr. Volpe:

Recently we delivered a new 1972 Cadillac S/N6D47R2Q-194774 to Mr. and Mrs, T. Albert McCulley, 434 Sherwood Forest, Belleville, Illinois 02225 fitted with the new seat belt warning system.

The center buckle section is so short that Mr. and Mrs. McCulley experienced difficulty in fastening the outside section to the center section. We have inquired from Cadillac the possibilities of lengthening the center buckle sections approximately eight inches which would still leave the warning system in operation and would greatly facilitate the fastening, put Cadillac informs us that the installation is strictly according to federal regulations and cannot be changed.

Would you grant us permission to add eight inches to the center buckle section for this particular vehicle?

VERY TRULY YOURS,

George A. Maty Vice President and Sales Manager.

CC: MR. AND MRS. T. ALBERT MCCULLEY; SEN. STUART SYMINGTON; SEN.THOMAS EAGLETON; REP. MELVIN PRICE

ID: nht72-4.8

DATE: 10/20/72

FROM: F. ARMSTRONG FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 26, 1972, to Mr. Douglas W. Toms, in reference to our restraint systems and other standards for motor vehicles which may be purchased for use by law enforcement agencies.

Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards regulate new motor vehicles up to the sale to the purchaser. Accordingly, a law enforcement agency or other purchaser is not restricted by Federal law from removing or modifying required vehicle safety equipment once delivery is taken.

In the case of restraint systems, an aircraft or racing type safety harness with double shoulder belts would probably be superior to the standard automotive safety belts. However, our testing with human volunteers and baboons has demonstrated that the air cushion provides better crash protection than either aircraft or automotive safety belt systems. Thus, while we would not have reservations about replacing the standard automotive safety belts with the aircraft or racing type harness, we would not recommend replacing an air cushion system with any type of harness system. Rather, we would recommend relocating shotguns, communications, or other equipment to a location compatible with air cushion function if at all possible. In most cases, the vehicle manufacturers should be able to provide assistance in this regard.

I appreciate your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs. We would be pleased to provide whatever advice or assistance we may be able to give in assuring that law enforcement officers are afforded the safest vehicles suitable for their planned application.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 26, 1972

File No.: 1.A2711.A997

Douglas W. Toms, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Toms:

There are few who are more concerned with highway safety than the members of the California Highway Patrol. The members of this Department spend most of their waking hours striving for the reduction of injuries and deaths on the roadways of California. Certainly Departmental policy has supported all governmental regulations aimed at the reduction of highway accidents. However, some present and proposed automotive design features hinder the effectiveness of the traffic officer in performing his duties. In fact, some regulations will actually result in a reduction of safety for the patrolman or police officer.

A restraint system which will slow an officer's exit from or entry into the car can be dangerous in some situations. Could not law enforcement agencies be allowed some leeway in the ordering of their cars? An aircraft-type quick release belt/harness arrangement would be effective yet would not create the problems of entry and exit inherent to the proposed sequential system to be introduced on 1974 model cars.

Shotguns are presently mounted in a vertical position to the right of the transmission hump and are attached to the dash. The vertical mounting provides visibility of an enforcement item, the muzzle is aimed in the safest direction, and the near center location provides accessibility to each front seat occupant. If the manufacturers supply air bags to comply with passive restraint regulation, will qualified law enforcement agencies be allowed to deactivate the system until the car is sold following its useful life? The convenient and safe installation of the shotgun and communications equipment will be most difficult in a car equipped with an armed air bag system.

It would seem that some consideration must be given to the needs of law enforcement agencies. Exemptions would not be requested just for the sake of reducing problems but rather in those few instances where a design requirement in the name of occupant safety actually increases the hazard to a police officer on duty.

The problems heretofore related are only a few of the many which face those who must use basically standard production automobiles for law enforcement adaptation. It is hoped that some action can be taken in those instances where regulations may actually make the car more dangerous and ineffective for enforcement work.

W. PUDINSKI Commissioner

ID: 0761

Mr. Chong D. Lee
President, TMR International, Inc.
Suite 165
5820 Canton Center Road
Canton, MI 48187

Dear Mr. Lee:

This is in reply to your FAX of February 28, 1995, asking several questions about the importation and sale of an aftermarket airbag. The airbag "comes in assembly with a steering wheel" and is intended for installation in vehicles not originally equipped with a driver's airbag.

You have asked the following questions:

"a) Whether such a product as described is legal for U.S. sale."

There is no Federal prohibition per se against the sale of aftermarket airbags. However, pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in airbag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208, even if they are aftermarket equipment. Therefore the manufacturer of these items (or the importer, who is defined as a "manufacturer" under our statute) must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

S9 prescribes performance requirements that are found in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178, regulations of another Administration of the Department of Transportation. We suggest that you write the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400 7th Street, Washington, D.C. 20590 for an opinion as to whether other of its regulations apply to your product or its movement in interstate commerce.

As to whether the laws of the individual States regulate the sale of aftermarket airbags, you should write, for an opinion, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

"b) Legal procedures, testing or submissions required to certify the product for U.S. sale."

The requirements for compliance with S9 of Standard No. 208 are set forth in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178. When the manufacturer who is responsible for certifying compliance is satisfied that the equipment, in fact, does conform, it certifies the product. At that point, pressure vessels and explosive devices that are part of an airbag assembly, if not manufactured in the United States, may be imported into this country. A state is not permitted to have performance requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices that differ from those of S9, but it may have a standard requiring identical performance, and, if so, they may ask for documentary assurance of compliance.

"c) Applicable Federal law (e.g. FMVSS 208)."

See replies to your previous questions. You should also note that an aftermarket airbag is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

One Federal law does bear upon the installation of the airbag. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business replaces a piece of original equipment that was necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, if the replacement part creates a noncompliance with that standard. The design of the steering wheel may affect compliance with Federal Standards Nos. 203 Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system and 204 Steering control rearward displacement. We recommend that you satisfy yourself that installation of the airbag will not affect the previous ability to comply, of the vehicle in which it is installed, before marketing the product.

"d) Actions or registrations required to reduce legal risks."

We are not in a position to advise you on matters that do not relate to Federal laws that we administer. We recommend that you consult a private attorney on these matters.

"e) Any other information of which we should be aware."

You should encounter no difficulties in importing the airbag and steering wheel under our importation regulation, 49 CFR Part 591 as long as any components that are required to comply with S9 of Standard No. 208 are certified as meeting that standard.

I am enclosing an information sheet that outlines the various laws and regulations that we administer pertaining to motor vehicles and equipment with the thought that you might find it helpful.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:208 d:4/10/95

ID: 10006

Mr. Paul L. Anderson
President
Van-Con Inc.
P.O. Box 237
Middlesex, NJ 08846-0237

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Section S5.5.3(c) reads:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color ...

Your letter states that you are unable to continuously outline the perimeter of the rear emergency doors on your school buses due to the proximity of door hinges, tail light lenses, and a rubber gasket between the bottom edge of the door and the bumper. You ask:

Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continuous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and down the left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

As explained below, your planned placement for the top and sides of the door, and your alternative placement for the bottom of the door would be acceptable. In a July 7, 1993 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets,

rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter... When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

According to this July 1993 letter, interruptions in the retroreflective tape to avoid and/or accommodate hinges (such as the hinge on the side of the rear emergency door) and other functional components are permitted if the interruption does not negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or does not reduce the conspicuity of the bus. NHTSA considers tail light lenses to be "functional components" which do not have to be covered by the retroreflective tape. (Indeed, placement of the tape on the tail light lense could affect the efficacy of the light.) The interruptions in the tape for these components would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. Thus, the interruptions are permitted for the tape along the sides of your door.

With regard to the bottom of your door, based on the pictures provided with your letter, it appears that there is no location available for the placement of retroreflective tape outside of the door's bottom edge. Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:6/8/94

ID: 12072.OGM

Mr. Geoff Smith
709 Glen Cove Road
Vallejo, California 94591

Re: Goal of FMVSS 218 "Motorcycle Helmets"

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your electronic mail message of June 17, 1996 to John Womack. As Mr. Womack explained in his electronic response, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) is responding to your letter by conventional mail.

Your message posed several questions relating to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets" (Standard 218) that take issue with the agency's position that Standard 218's performance tests ensure that helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head impacts. I will repeat your questions below (in italics), followed by the response.

A. Since Standard 218 is only a series of bench test on helmets and does not involve any simulated crash tests, how do you claim that: "Standard 218 sets forth a series of performance tests to ensure that motorcycle helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head injuries."????

Answer: The performance requirements of Standard 218 are intended to simulate conditions that may be encountered by a motorcyclist in an actual accident. For example, the impact attenuation requirements found in S5.1 of the Standard, in which a helmet is subject to a perpendicular impact onto a test anvil, are designed to replicate the vertical component of an angular or indirect impact at a much higher speed. As it is unlikely that a helmet would experience a direct perpendicular impact in a real accident, the selection of test criteria designed to simulate an angular impact is an appropriate performance test.

Because Standard 218's performance tests are designed to simulate conditions that may be encountered in a crash and the existenceof the standard requires manufacturers to produce a helmet that will meet test requirements, Standard 218 helps to provide protection in the event of an accident.

B. What is the connection between bench tests and actual crash situations? Do you have some other tests that will make this connection? I don't mean statistics claiming that helmets reduce injuries and deaths, I MEAN REAL, ACTUAL TESTS OF HOW PARTICULAR HELMETS PROTECT THE HUMAN HEAD IN A REAL CRASH????

Answer: As noted above, the performance requirements of Standard 218 are intended to simulate the conditions produced by a real crash. Studies performed by NHTSA contractors and others indicate that the performance tests incorporated in Standard 218 and other similar standards are representative of conditions encountered in real world crashes. NHTSA does not test helmets to any other standard other than Standard 218 and, for obvious reasons, has not considered testing using human subjects.

C. Question No 1:

If you don't have this test(s), how can you claim that Standard 218 will "reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists ..."? (Please no statistics, just proven tests).

Answer: As stated above, the performance tests incorporated into Standard 218 simulate conditions that may be encountered in real world crashes. NHTSA therefore believes that Standard 218 protects helmet users by requiring that helmets meet minimum performance requirements.

D. Question No. 2:

And conversely, can helmets INCREASE the risk of death and injuries in some situations?

Answer: While NHTSA is aware of claims by some individuals that helmets can increase the risk of injury in some types of crashes, the agency is not aware of any studies based on actual accident data that establish that helmets increase the risk of death or injury.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact me or Otto Matheke of my staff at 202-366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:218

d:10/23/96

ID: 1982-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tokai Rika Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Asai Manager Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. New York Office One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

Dear Mr. Asai:

This responds to your letter of October 15, 1982, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your letter concerned the symbols specified by that standard for the windshield defrosting and defogging system control and the rear window defrosting and defogging system control. You asked whether it is permissible to use the symbols specified by EEC Directive 78/316/EEC for those controls, stating that there are only slight differences between the symbols specified by Standard No. 101 and the EEC directive. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

The preamble to the final rule establishing current Standard No. 101 explained that minor deviations are allowed from the symbols designated by the standard, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard. 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978. (This statement was noted in your letter.)

For the windshield defrosting and defogging system control, both our standard and the EEC directive specify three curving arrows (representing rising air) superimposed on a form representing a windshield. For the rear window defrosting and defogging system control, both documents specify three curving arrows superimposed on a form representing a rear window. The forms representing the windshield and the rear window are the same for both Standard No. 101 and the EEC directive. Further, the three curving arrows are superimposed over the windshield or rear window by both documents in the same manner. The only apparent difference between the symbols specified by the two documents is the number of curves in each of the three arrows. The arrows specified by the EEC directive have the curves each, while the arrows specified by Standard No. 101 have three curves.

In our opinion, the deviation you described falls within the intent of the June 1978 statement to permit symbols that are identical to the pictured ones except in some minor respect. The deviation is indeed minor since one must closely examine the two EEC symbols in question and those specified by Standard No. 101 to determine if there is any difference at all.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 15, 1982

Mr. Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

We wish to inquire about the identifying symbols of windshield and rear window defrosting and defogging system.

We are presently supplying vehicle manufacturers with defrosting and defogging switches which will be mounted on the vehicles intended for U. S. and European markets. As you may know, however, there are slight differences between the identifying symbol designated in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 - Controls and Displays and those in EEC Directive 78/316/EEC - Identification of Controls. Tell-Tales and Indicators. The waved arrows on the symbols bear much resemblance, but are not identical, as you can see from the attached copies, which were taken from the standards.

We would like to know if the identifying symbols designated in the above mentioned Directive are acceptable for use in the U.S., although, they vary slightly. In fact , it was stated in an early notice (Docket No. 1-18: Notice 13, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) that "minor deviations are allowed as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard."

If our proposal proves unacceptable, hopefully, in the future steps will be taken to implement the harmonization of both these standards.

Your prompt consideration will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

T. Asai Manager

TA:dt Attachment

ID: 1982-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wonder Enterprise

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1982, asking whether Federal regulations would prohibit use of your patented device, the "Illuminated Wonder Panel." This device would be used in the space provided for the front license plate and consists of a panel on which numbers or letters would be illuminated from behind, if an owner wished to "personalize" his vehicle. You have indicated that the candela for each character averages .0365, and that with a seven character maximum, a total output of less than .25 candela would result You submitted photographs showing this device in operation from a distance of 50 feet on a vehicle using parking lamps only, and using parking lamps/low beam headlamps.

Your device is not directly regulated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108 As an item of original equipment, your device is permissible unless it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, such as parking lamps and headlamps. Judging by the photographs you submitted, it does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. As an aftermarket item, your device is subject to regulation by any State in which the vehicle bearing it is registered. You will have to consult these States for further advice.

We hope that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

November 22, 1982

Robert Munoz Wonder Enterprise

Frank Burndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Burndt:

I am a distributor that is interested in marketing a special type of lighting device for use on motor vehicles. This device is basically an illuminated personalized auto tag that is affixed to the front bumper of a car (for those states with single license plates). The tag, 6" x 12", will have personalized names or numbers on it, and only these letters or numbers will be illuminated; the rest of the tag will not emit light. This tag, registered in the U.S. Patent Office as the "Illuminated Wonder Panel", is no different than the current personalized automobile tags used in those states with single license plates, except that on this tag the personalized characters are illuminated.

The tag consists of a channel light housing that produces the incandescent light, an amber colored acylic panel thru which the light is emitted, and a clear cover plate. A prototype panel with the name "WONDER" in standard 2 inch letters, was submitted to a testing laboratory to measure the intensity of light produced (attached is the laboratory worksheet). The results showed an average of .0365 candela per letter or less than .25 candela total. With a maximum of seven characters on a tag, the intensity would never exceed .50 candela. Even though this is relatively minimal candlepower, I have enclosed two photographs taken of a vehicle at approximately 50 feet at night with the "WONDER" panel on the bumper, to illustrate the relative light intensities. Since the tag is designed to operate in conjunction with the lights, one picture is taken with the low beam headlights on, the other is taken with only the parking lights on.

The "Illuminated Wonder Panel" as described here, would be available as an automobile accessory; it is a form of ornamental lighting that to my knowledge is not defined by any SAE lighting standards or tests and may therefore not be regulated federally.

I believe this tag can be of value to the user and that the minimal light produced from the tag will not interfere with the intended operation of the existing vehicle's lights, or degrade the level of traffic safety while in its use. After speaking with Mr. Taylor Vinson and upon his suggestion, I am presenting this information to your Administration so that you may review it and advise me by providing a statement or opinion, in regards to its use prior to its production and distribution. Please let me know whether or not this would be in conflict with any safety standards and what subsequent procedures if any, need to be followed on a State level.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Robert Munoz President

ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WORK REQUEST OMITTED.

ID: 1983-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pulse Marketing Group, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 3, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Thomas A. Kenny Secretary/Treasurer Pulse Marketing Group, Inc. P.O. Box 1324 Elkhart, Indiana 46515

Dear Mr. Kenny:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You are considering marketing a "fiberglass reinforced plastic part" that would replace rear windows in buses. You ask whether the standard would be applicable.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for all glazing materials used on motor vehicles, whether as original equipment or replacement parts. As a manufacturer or fabricator of glazing you would have to certify that your fiberglass product complies with all applicable requirements of the standard. Standard No. 205, and the ANS Z26 standard which is incorporated by reference, specifies three types of plastic materials which may be used in the rear windows of buses (including rear side windows). These are Items 4, 5, and 12 glazing materials. Your fiberglass window may only be used in the rear windows of buses if it complies with the performance requirements of one of these glazing types (Items), i.e., if it passes all of the tests specified for one of these Items. The fact that your product is opaque does not preclude its use, since Items 4, 5, and 12 glazing materials do not have to comply with any luminous transmittance requirements.

You also asked if any approvals are necessary before you market this product. The answer is no. The agency does not grant prior approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that it is the responsibility of the glazing manufacturer or fabricator to determine compliance and to certify that its product complies with all applicable requirements of Safety Standard No. 205. The certification and marking requirements are prescribed in paragraph S6 of Standard No. 205. (I am enclosing a copy of section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act, which is referenced in paragraph S6.)

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 23, 1982

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

PULSE, INC. represents a mnaufacturer of fiberglass reinforced plastic applications who is currently considering manufacturing and marketing a fiberglass reinforced plastic part that would essentially replace rear windows on buses in the aftermarkets.

Prior to the manufacture and marketing of this application, it is essential that we obtain all information pertaining to any legal requirements which may apply.

Our initial investigation resulted in contacting Mr. Doug Delve, Safety Compliance Engineer for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Mr. Delve forwarded a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205 which refers to window glazing materials under ANSI Z26.

After thoroughly evaluating STD 205 and ANSI Z26, we do not believe that they apply to our specific application.

As mentioned previously, the part would replace window glass located in the rear of various types of buses. We are also investigating side windows located near the rear of most buses. Unlike window glass, fiberglass reinforced plastic is opaque, eliminating rear window vision.

In our opinion, the applicability of STD 205 to our application is questionable due to the problems associated with defining a window.

In order that we may continue our manufacturing and marketing efforts, we would appreciate a legal interpretation outlining any Federal or state laws, regulations, or specifications which apply to the aforementioned application. If any approvals are required, please advise the necessary course of action and appropriate timing associated with gaining such approvals.

Thank you,

PULSE, INC.

Thomas A. Kenny Secretary/Treasurer

slj

ID: 1983-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: David I. Fallk; Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

David I. Fallk, Esq. Robert W. Munley, P.C. Floor Eight, Penn Security Bank Building P.O. Box 1066 Scranton, PA 18503

Dear Mr. Fallk:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1983, concerning Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and the PACCAR case. The answers to your questions are as follows.

Your first question was whether, following PACCAR, a manufacturer was required to comply with the applicable 121 standard for trucks which had been assembled but not delivered. The answer to that question is no, for the portions of the standard that were invalidated by the court. As noted in an enclosed letter (dated March 4, 1980), NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances had been invalidated from the effective date of the standard. Therefore, after PACCAR, no manufacturer was required to comply with those invalidated portions of the standard, whether or not a vehicle had already been assembled.

Your second question concerned whether a manufacturer or anyone else if properly informed was prevented from disabling the anti-lock system, before it was put into service. The answer to that question is no. That issue is fully explained in two enclosed letters (dated September 11, 1979, and March 4, 1980). These letters explain the relationship of what your letter refers to as the section of the vehicle safety act to prevent disabling and Standard No. 121, in light of the PACCAR case.

I have also enclosed a letter (dated November 29, 1979), which discusses the nature of Standard No. 121 as a performance standard. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

July 11, 1983

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 ATTENTION: Ed Glancy

Dear Mr. Glancy:

I am in need of certain information that I am told your office can supply. I represent a party who was severely injured in accident involving 121 air brake anti-lock failure. We have initiated a suit against the manufacturer and the Chief Judge of the District Court has continued the case, pending certain information being gathered.

The accident involves a truck which was ordered and assembled prior to the Paccar decision, but not delivered until six months after Paccar. At the time of delivery, the anti-lock system was intact and no warnings or information concerning Paccar was made available to the purchaser. It has been asserted that the manufacturer was compelled by government regulation to install the system and could do nothing, even after Paccar about it. My questions are therefore as follows:

1. Following Paccar was a manufacturer required to comply with the applicable 121 standard for trucks which had been assembled but not delivered?

2. Was the manufacturer or anyone else if properly informed prevented from disabling the anti-lock system, before it was put into service?

It is my understanding that there was a memorandum or Opinion offered to the effect that the applicable section of the vehicle safety act to prevent disabling did not apply to the air brake standards. I would like to have a copy of that document and any other opinion or document which would relate to my above questions.

As indicated above, I am under direction of the District Court and a constraint of time is upon me. Therefore, prompt attention to my request would be greatly appreciated.

If there are any questions, please do not hesistate to telephone me.

Very truly yours,

DAVID I. FALLK

DIF/rpc

ID: 1983-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: C. B. Bright Motor Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. 20590

August 8, 1983

Mr. C. B. Bright, Jr. C. B. Bright Motor Co. Route 1 Ashland, MS 38603

Dear Mr. Bright:

This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office. You have asked whether you are violating any Federal standards or regulations by adding "right side steering, accelerator, brakes & turn signal controls to rural mail carriers delivery vehicles (cars, pickup, jeeps, etc.)." You have told us that you do not modify in any way the left hand side controls with which the vehicle was originally equipped.

Assuming that your modifications do not affect the performance of any of the systems with which the vehicle was equipped by its original manufacturer, your conversion operations would not be prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, with respect to any new vehicle that you modify which has not yet reached its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, you are required to affix a label identifying you as the alterer and certifying that the vehicle as altered meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This is required by Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. I enclose a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

C. B. BRIGHT MOTOR CO. Ashland, Miss. 38603

July 19, 1983

MR. TAYLOR VINSON OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION NUMBER 400 7th. ST. S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

MR. TAYLOR:

IN REGARDS TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON OUR ADDING RIGHT SIDE STEERING, ACCELERATOR, BRAKE & TURN SIGNAL CONTROLS TO RURAL MAIL CARRIERS DELIVERY VEHICLES ( CARS, PICKUPS, JEEPS & ETC.).

WE DO NOT CHARGE UP, MODIFY OR TAKE OUT ANY OF THE FACTORY INSTALLED CONTROLLS THAT HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. CONTROLS MEANING STEERING, BRAKE, ACCELERATOR AND TURN SIGNAL.

WE HAVE ADDED THESE DUAL CONTROLS TO MAIL CARRIER DELIVERY VEHICLES SINCE 1958 AND THE USE AND SAFETY HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE VIOLATE ANY STANDARDS OR REGULATIONS WHEN WE ADD THE DUAL CONTROLS ( STEERING, BRAKE, ACCELERATOR AND TURN SIGNAL CONTROL FOR RIGHT SIDE USE OF VEHICLE.).

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIER'S ASSOCIATION.

I SINCERELY THANK YOU FOR THE KINDNESS AND CONSIDERATION YOU GAVE ME BY PHONE.

SINCERELY,

C. B. BRIGHT

NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIERS ASSOCIATION

February 8, 1983 Mr. C. B. Bright Committeeman, Mississippi Rural Letter Carriers' Assn. Ashland, Mississippi 38603

Dear C. B.

This is in response to our telephone conversation concerning the dual controls which you manufacture and install on vehicles for rural carriers.

I advised you I would write you a letter relative to my own use of the dual controls. For the last several years I served on Route #1, Palestine, Arkansas. I used a vehicle equipped with the dual control system. That was during a period that ended in September, 1977. At that time, I assumed the duties of a Na-tional Officer and I have not carried a rural route since that time.

My own personal experience with the dual controls proved to be completely satisfactory, both from an operational and a safety standpoint. The steering was completely functional and the accelerator and brakes were also without fault.

******Letter not complete due to poor copy.