ID: 86-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ivan Chien

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL.

Mr. Ivan Chien Manager Lee-Chien, Inc. P.O. Box 56-104 Taipei, TAIWAN R.O.C.

Dear Mr. Chien:

This responds to your letter dated May 28, 1986, asking for information about certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Enclosed are copies of an information sheet for new manufacturers, a form for ordering copies of safety standards, and the copy of Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, which you requested.

This agency has issued no safety standard regarding fog lamps. However, S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, Lamp Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, provides that no additional lighting equipment, such as fog lamps, which impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 shall be installed on motor vehicles. This prohibition applies to parties installing your product on vehicles, and not to you as the manufacturer of the product. This is because the installed is the only party which can ensure that the reflectors are installed so that they do not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Generally speaking, this requirement of Standard No. 108 applies only to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith for purpose other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories added to a vehicle after that purchase. The general rule is that aftermarket accessories may be added to vehicles.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108 (a )(2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended ( the Act) . That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . 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". NHTSA considers it an element of design on vehicles that they have lightning and other equipment which are required by Standard No. 108 and whose effectiveness is not impaired by additional lighting equipment. Therefore, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing a fog lamp would have to take care that the fog lamp, by its intensity, color or placement, does not impair the performance of required lighting equipment.

If the installation of your fog lamps would impair that effectiveness, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing such fog lamps would be rendering inoperative that design element of the vehicle, and thereby violating section 108 (a) (2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each vehicle on which this element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation. You should note that the prohibitions of section 108(a) (2) (A) do not apply to a vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design on his or her vehicle. Hence, if your aftermarket reflectors are sold to and installed by vehicle owners, those persons would not be subject to the prohibition of section 108 referenced above.

You should also be aware of the responsibilities imposed by the Act on manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as reflective mirrors or fog lamps. If either you, as a manufacturer, or this agency determines that your product does not comply with an applicable safety standard or that the products contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would be required to remedy that noncompliance or defect. Section 154(a) (2) (B) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1411(a) (2)(b)) specifies that, if an item of motor vehicle equipment fails to comply with an applicable standard or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either:

1. repair the product so that the noncompliance or defect is removed;

or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the noncompliance or defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, you as the manufacturer must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

May 28, 1986

DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC 400 7TH STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S.A

Dear Sirs,

Thanks your letter of May 13. We are the professional manufacturer & exporter of Auto Parts and Accessories. We want to expand our business line about (1) Traffic Alarm System Equipment and (2) Safety Accessories. So we would like to know the relative of the following goods:

(1) Rear Mirror (2) Fog Lamp

Could you send us all regulations which D.O.T. required for selling these products in states of U.S.A. in due form.

Thanks in advance.

Very Sincerely Yours, LEECHIEN INC.

Manager: Ivan Chien

ID: 20980.drn

Mr. Martin Cosgrove, Jr.
Coordinator for School Transportation
St. Landry Parish School Board
1013 East Creswell Lane
P.O. Box 310
Opelousas, LA 70571-0310

RE: 1990 Blue Bird
TC 2000 Bus
VIN 1BAAGCSA4LF037779
Body Number F093742

Dear Mr. Cosgrove:

This responds to your letter asking whether your school board may permit a contractor to use the above-described bus to transport students to and from local schools. As explained below, the question you ask is a matter that is answered by State law. Louisiana law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how Louisiana children must be transported.

With your letter, you provided a photograph of the vehicle's certification label, showing that the vehicle manufacturer, Blue Bird Body Company, has classified the vehicle as a "bus." You also enclose a copy of an October 21, 1999 letter from Mr. Jack Kemp, Technical Coordinator of Blue Bird, stating "Unit F093742 was certified to the original owner as a non-school bus." This information indicates that the vehicle in question is a bus, and was not certified as a school bus.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. Persons selling or leasing new "buses" for such use must sell or lease a "school bus."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you said that the contractor,

Mr. Joseph Guidry, bought the bus in question as a used vehicle in 1997. The vehicle was certified by its manufacturer in 1990 as conforming to safety standards applicable to a bus, not a school bus. Under Federal law, a dealer would have been prohibited from selling this vehicle, when new, for transporting students. However, because our regulations only apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the used bus was not required to be certified to our school bus safety standards when it was sold to Mr. Guidry.

Because our school bus regulations apply only to manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit schools from using non-school buses to transport school children. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, Louisiana law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children must be transported.

Correspondence enclosed with your letter identified two buses, a non-school bus and a school bus, Blue Bird Body Nos. FO93742 and FO93980, respectively. Our records indicate and a Blue Bird representative confirmed that the school bus is covered by the two safety recalls described below. Blue Bird records indicate that neither recall has been performed on this school bus. We urge you to have the remedies performed as soon as possible. There will be no charge to either the school district or the contractor.

1. NHTSA recall campaign No. 95V-090 is for a safety-related defect. Clothing can become caught in the hand railing while exiting, which could result in a child being dragged by the bus.
2. NHTSA recall campaign No. 97V-197 is for a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 301, "Fuel System Integrity." The vehicle's fuel tank may leak if the bus is struck in a crash.

The Blue Bird representative stated that the non-school bus was ordered and manufactured by Blue Bird with many items of school bus equipment, including body structure, seating, occupant restraining barriers, hand rails, and a protective cage surrounding the fuel tank. Consequently, this vehicle is likely to have the same problems as described above. He suggested that the owner of both vehicles (presumably Mr. Guidry) contact Mr. Bill Coleman, Blue Bird's Recall Administrator on (912) 822-2242 to make arrangements for the recall remedies to be performed and to discuss what should be done with respect to the non-school bus.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using vehicles that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.3/10/2000

ID: 3235yy

Herbert J. Lushan
Regalite Plastics Corporation
300 Needham Street
Newton Upper Falls, MA 02164

Dear Mr. Lushan:

This responds to your letter concerning the use of tinted flexible plastic glazing in certain jeep-type vehicles. You explained that a customer has asked you to manufacture a bronze-tinted clear plastic flexible window for installation in the rear side and rear windows of its vehicles. You indicated that this glazing material would not satisfy the minimum light transmittance requirement of Standard No. 205 and requested confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits the use of such glazing for rear and side windows in these vehicles. Further, during two telephone conversations on October 29, 1991 and October 30, 1991, you informed Elizabeth Barbour of my staff that your question specifically refers to the use of this glazing on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and the two-door Geo Tracker. You also confirmed to Ms. Barbour that the glazing materials to which your letter refers would be installed as original equipment, but added that your company is also involved with after-market products. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Among Standard No. 205's requirements are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance, measured by Test 2 in ANSI Z26. A minimum of 70% light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars.

In trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying sections S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111) and thus, subject to the minimum light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Thus, Standard No. 205 permits the use of tinted glazing materials (i.e. items of glazing that are not subject to Test 2) for windows to the rear of the driver in such vehicles when they are equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars.

As stated above, you described the product you wish to manufacture as tinted flexible plastic, Item 7 glazing, which would be installed in the rear side and rear windows of the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker. According to the agency's information about these vehicles, the rear side and rear windows are part of a removable soft-top. Standard No. 205 permits glazing used for readily removable windows in these locations to be manufactured out of flexible plastic glazing (Items 6, 7 and 13), among other types of glazing. Thus, since these specific window locations on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker are not subject to the light transmittance requirement, and since Standard No. 205 permits use of flexible plastic glazing for readily removable windows, the Standard would permit you to manufacture the bronze-tinted flexible plastic glazing for the use your customer requested.

You also stated that your company is involved with after-market glazing materials. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. According to this provision, your company, for example, could install the Item 7 glazing in the rear side and rear windows of a Suzuki Sidekick or Geo Tracker after that vehicle is first sold to a consumer. This provision would, however, prohibit the after-market installation of tinted flexible plastic glazing in the front side windows of that vehicle because such installation would cause the glazing of the front side windows to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners themselves. No section of the Safety Act prevents vehicle owners themselves from installing any product on their vehicles, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. The actions of individual vehicle owners may be regulated or precluded by individual States, which have the authority to regulate owner modifications and the operational use of vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref: 205 d:ll/20/9l

ID: 77-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fleming Metal Fabricators

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 3, 1976, letter concerning the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, and the fuel tanks that you manufacture for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Standard No. 301-75 applies to whole vehicles rather than to fuel tanks. Therefore, the responsibility under Federal law for compliance with the standard lies with the vehicle manufacturer. He must exercise due care in certifying that the vehicle will, if tested by the NHTSA as specified in S6 and S7 of the standard, meet the fuel spillage requirements set out in S5. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.

The vehicle manufacturer who installs a fuel tank manufactured by you may, in order to meet his duty to exercise due care, rely on assurances from you concerning the tank's performance characteristics, to the extent that such reliance is reasonable. Your assurances, in turn, need not necessarily be based on actual crash testing of vehicles equipped with your fuel tanks under the exact conditions prescribed in the standard.

You should both note, of course, that the ability of a vehicle to conform to the standard depends not only on the performance capabilities of the fuel tank itself, but also on other factors including the manner and location in which it is mounted. The fact that your fuel tanks conform with Federal Highway Administration requirements (49 CFR @@ 393.65 and 393.67), therefore, does not by itself imply that vehicles equipped with such tanks are capable of passing the crash test requirements of Standard No. 301-75.

Similarly, the fact that your company's manufacturing procedures and its mounting and installation instructions conform to established industry practices is not sufficient evidence of due care, unless it is reasonable to conclude from it that the vehicles will conform.

SINCERELY,

FLEMING METAL FABRICATORS

3 December, 1976

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council Dept. of Transportation SUBJECT: 571, 301-75 Fuel System Integrity with certification per Part 567 -- by auxilliary gasoline tank installers (Truck Body Builders, New Truck Dealer, Truck Repair Facility, Etc.). To discover bases for responsible certifying to Safety Standard 301 without performing actual tests or without reference to factory vehicle tests.

Pursuant to our telecon of 2 December, 1976, we present the following information hoping that some answer can be found to this very perplexing problem.

We are strictly manufacturers, and if you will make reference to FMF 76 Minilog our total product line will be clearly presented.

Many of FMF customers are bogged down by the Safety Standard 301 (they currently will not install tanks on vehicles 10,000# or less); and, their attitude is that FMF is responsible for providing a certification basis to them (which of course is not true). Many large manufacturers in the east are providing their dealers (installers) with installation diagrams and stating that a product once installed per their instructions may be certified by the installer. It is highly doubtful that these manufacturers actually performed barrier impact tests, but, rather are relying on the Truck Manufacturers Test Information (Ford, Chev., Etc.), and this information is not available to FMF or to our customers.

It appears to us that by furnishing our customer with a fully representative installation diagram (which would parallel factory procedures), it would provide a clear cut basis to the tank installer to provide a responsible certification. (It should be noted that the installation of an auxilliary gasoline tank does require connecting into existing lines for the supply and vent lines, but it is difficult to see that such additions would in any way create a situation that would be less safe than the vehicle as originally certified by the Truck Factory.

As you probably noted, all of FMF tanks are made to comply with FHWA 393.65 & 393.67; further, the mounting of these tanks has been statically tested far beyond the traditional 5 to 1 safety factor. Our products are in many cases deliberately overdesigned and we do not have product failures. Product failures cannot be tolerated in today's marketplace -- if a company's product liability insurance was every used, it is doubtful that replacement insurance would be available -- even at vastly increased premiums.

Many of our customers are Mom & Pop organizations with up to 10 employees; This type of organization as well as many much larger companies are not able to get involved with extensive testing because of the following reasons; economic, personnel, time and inadequate facilities -- to name just a few.

Since all truck chasses (some with bodies mounted and some without) must be certified by the truck manufacturer -- It would seem reasonable that installers of component parts or auxilliary parts to the truck chassis or body (knowing that their additional certification is to be on that vehicle) will proceed responsibly and especially if fully representative installation diagrams are provided.

Your immediate attention to this letter will be greatly appreciated, & we remain,

Robert I. Fleming, Pres.

ID: 77-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for our comments on the flashing of ambulance headlamps for signaling purposes. You enclosed a copy of a Bulletin dated June 27, 1977, that New Jersey recently sent to its Inspection Stations advising rejection of ambulances equipped with headlamp flashing devices.

Paragraph S4.6(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that lamps other than turn signals, hazard warning signals, and school bus warning signals be steady-burning in use, "except that means may be provided to [automatically] flash headlamps . . . for signaling purposes." The purpose of the exception was to allow continued use of automatic flashing devices in jurisdictions where it was permitted when the standard was adopted, for without the exception manufacture and sale of vehicles so equipped would have violated the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The exception provided by S4.6(b) has a preemptive effect only in that a State cannot forbid the sale and registration of a vehicle equipped with a flashing device, but there is no restriction on a State's authority to forbid the use of such mechanisms when it deems it in the interests of traffic safety to do so.

Thus, we have no objection to New Jersey's Bulletin of June 27, 1977.

SINCERELY,

State of New Jersey DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

June 28, 1977

Vinson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is written in connection with our recent phone conversation concerning the flashing of headlamps for signaling purposes as permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108.

As a matter of interest we are enclosing a copy of a Bulletin recently sent to our Inspection Stations concerning the flashing of headlamps for emergency warning purposes.

Your comments on this subject would be appreciated.

John A. McLaine, Chief Automotive Engineering Standards

VEHICLE INSPECTION BUREAU

STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

BUREAU OF VEHICLE INSPECTION ADMINISTRATIVE NOTIFICATION

DATE ISSUED: June 27, 1977

DATE EFFECTIVE: Immediately

DISTRIBUTION: Stations

STANDARD PROCEDURES:

OPERATIONS ORDER:

BULLETIN: Stations

SUBJECT: FLASHING OF MOTOR VEHICLE HEADLAMPS

ISSUED BY: Ass't. Chief

APPROVED BY: Chief, Auto. Eng. Stds.

We understand that some new ambulances are being sold in New Jersey equipped with a device which is activated when the ambulance is on an emergency trip and which causes the headlamps to flash continuously. An ambulance equipped with such a device should be rejected for the reasons given below.

New Jersey law prohibits flashing lamps on motor vehicles except as a means of indicating a left or right turn, or for hazard warning signals, or school bus warning lamps, or emergency warning lamps used on authorized emergency vehicles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 states that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes. We also have to permit this but we do not think that Federal Standard 108 was intended to permit a new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be equipped with a device which will flash the headlamps for emergency warning purposes.

Motor vehicle headlamps are manufactured to produce the amount of light required to properly illuminate the road ahead. When headlamps are flashing for signaling purposes the flashing lasts for only a few seconds and does not greatly reduce the amount of illumination provided by the headlamps. However, when headlamps are flashing continously for emergency warning purposes the amount of illumination provided by the headlamps can be reduced below the amount of light required by the Standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

It is recognized that emergency warning lamps of some type are needed on ambulances and a permit to equip an ambulance with approved type flashing red emergency warning lamps can be obtained from the Enforcement Bureau in the Division of Motor Vehicles. An approved type flashing red emergency warning lamp is designed for continous flashing and is placed on our approval list after we receive a report from a recognized independent testing laboratory showing that the lamp meets Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J595b or SAE Recommended Practice J845. It should also be pointed out that an ambulance using a siren is required to display at least one red lamp visible at least 500 feet to the front of the vehicle.

In case of an accident involving an ambulance using flashing headlamps for emergency warning purposes there could be a legal problem because headlamps are not designed or approved for this purpose. In addition, when improper flashing lights are used there is confusion on the part of motorists who are required to react to these lights on the highways.

The Division's policy is to encourage uniformity in the use of recognized emergency vehicle warning lamps. Please explain this policy to any emergency vehicle operators who question our disapproval of the flashing headlamps.

ID: nht79-2.3

DATE: 08/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Freedman Seating Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/16/88 letter to Glenn L. Duncan from Erika Z. Jones (Redbook A32; Std. 207); Letter dated 4/28/77 to Gordon P. Cress from Frank A. Berndt (Std. 210); Letter dated 2/1/88 to Erika Z. Jones from Glenn L. Duncan; Letter dated 11/16/97 to Erika Z. Jones from Glenn L. Dunn (OCC 1278)

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking how much deflection or deformation of seat belt anchorages is allowed under the requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, for anchorages that are attached to or are a part of revolving pedestal seats. You mention cases in which seat bases deflect so much that the seat touches the floor before the forces required by the standard are attained.

As noted in your letter, paragraph S4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 210 specifies that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. Likewise, the agency has stated in the past that the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided structural integrity of the seats is maintained.

Although Safety Standard No. 210 would allow some deformation of the seat base for anchorages that are part of pedestal seats, the structural integrity of the seats would have to be maintained during the force test. Further, you should note that Safety Standard No. 207 requires the forces for testing seats and the forces required by Safety Standard No. 210 to be applied simultaneously for seats that have belt assemblies attached to them. Thus, the pedestal seats discussed in your letter would have to maintain their structural integrity when subjected to the combined forces required by both standards. The agency Would not consider pedestal seats to be in compliance with these requirements, if the seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened.

I hope this letter has clarified the agency's position regarding the force requirements of both Safety Standard No. 210 and Safety Standard No. 207.

SINCERELY,

FREEDMAN SEATING COMPANY

June 22, 1979

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs: This letter is a request for clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210.

As a seat manufacturer and supplier for the Recreational Vehicle Industry, we have developed products which are intended for use in a variety of vehicles, and therefore must certify their compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards when installed in these vehicles. It has become common practice for seating companies as ourselves to test certain "seating systems" on laboratory test equipment, rather than in each vehicle, and certify that the "seating system" complies with applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards when installed properly. In the case of revolving seat pedestals which are designed to be "seat belt anchorages" (by definition, the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure) this laboratory testing raises certain questions relative to interpretation of MVSS No. 210. Per MVSS 210, "permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time." Since no limitations are set for seat belt anchorage deflection, many seat manufacturers have ignored this aspect totally, and tested seat bases (seat belt anchorages) to force requirements only. In some cases, the seat bases deflect so much that the front edge of the seat is touching the floor before the required force is eventually attained. (See enclosed photographs.) While it would appear obvious that these bases are not in compliance with MVSS 210 for driver application, since the seat back would have impacted the steering wheel prior to the required force being attained, (the steering column is sustaining part of the force) the bases appear to be in compliance with MVSS 210 when installed at a location in a vehicle where there is nothing to obstruct free movement of the seat.

Our request at this time is that the Department of Transportation supply us with its interpretation of MVSS 210 to the extent that it would consider seat bases of this type in compliance or not in compliance with the standard.

Secondly, with respect to the intent of the safety standards, it would appear that future consideration should be given to setting deflection limitations in Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207 and 210. If the "seating system" or "seat belt anchorage" is able to sustain required forces only after the occupant has impacted the steering wheel or windshield, it appears that we have met a safety standard without providing the intended safety.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Robert J. Wahls Chief Engineer

ENC.

Kenco Builds Stress Machine

A new stress test machine for van and motorhome seat bases has been designed and built by Kenco Engineering, Middlebury, Indiana, to meet the specifications required by the Department of Transportation (D.O.T.). The machine operates hydraulically and can exert 8,000 pounds of pull. The seat base pictured above has sustained 6,750 pounds, well over the D.O.T. requirement of 5,000 pounds for 10 seconds. Kenco will use the machine for testing seat bases, tire carriers and other products which undergo stress in use.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-3.12

DATE: 11/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert C. Schultz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is response to your letter to the Secretary of Transportation regarding the transportation of diesel fuel in the trunk of an automobile in plastic auxiliary tanks. You asked whether it is permissible to permanently install a plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tank in the trunk of a four door passenger car. You also noted the availability of 5.5 gallon plastic utility containers that can be used as auxiliary tanks. From your description I gather that these types of containers are not attached to the vehicle's fuel system.

From your letter I got the impression that you are asking whether any law administered by this agency would prohibit an individual from using either of these types of tanks in his private automobile. With respect to small tanks that are not connected to the automobile's fuel system, this agency administers no law that would prevent an individual from carrying such a tank in his automobile. However, please note that this is a very dangerous practice that can lead to fires and explosions potentially harmful or fatal not only to the driver and passengers of the vehicle carrying such a tank but also occupants of other nearby vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a press release that the Department of Transportation issued this Spring, which describes the dangers associated with carrying gasoline, but which is also applicable to carrying diesel fuel. As noted in the press release this agency strongly discourages the use of portable fuel containers.

There is no law administered by this agency which would bar an individual from installing a plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tank in his or her own automobile or from using such a tank once installed by the individual or by a commercial installer. However, there are legal obligations imposed by the statutes and regulations under which we operate that would apply to the manufacturers and installers of such tanks. Since I am unsure as to the exact scope of your inquiry I will summarize these below.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75 Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. Under the standard's requirements, no part of a vehicle's entire fuel system can have fuel spillage beyond certain specified amounts during barrier crash tests. Specific performance requirements for individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, are not currently included in the standard. With the advent of high density polyethylene (plastic) fuel tanks, however, the current "system" performance requirements might not be sufficient to ensure the integrity of vehicle fuel systems. For this reason, the agency has published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making concerning the advisability of establishing performance standards for plastic tanks (44 FR 33441, June 11, 1979, copy enclosed).

Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to their manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. A manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, is subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151 et seg.). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer itself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.

If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle, prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, that person or entity would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, that person or entity would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor-vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, the alterer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.

If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installed an auxiliary gasoline tank in a used passenger vehicle, that person or entity would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:

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 . . .

Thus, if one of the named persons or entities added an auxiliary tank to a used passenger vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system that person or entity would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you. If you have any further questions please feel free to address them to Ms. Debra Weiner of my office (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY, (Illegible Pages)

THANK YOU,

C ROBERT SCHULTZ

LUND INDUSTRIES INC.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht87-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Fred E. Maynard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Fred E. Maynard 13208 Creek Park Lane Poway, CA 92064

Dear Mr. Maynard:

This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1986, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to an automotive lighting product that you have developed.

According to your letter the VISICOM is an electronic message sending unit which incorporates a center high-mounted stoplamp "which will meet all of the standards required by Regulation 108 as to size, light intensity, angle of visibility, etc.." You hav e asked for an opinion "on any potential current or future legal problems that might arise when this product is marketed."

I will be pleased to discuss the relationship of your device to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, but we cannot advise you of problems you might encounter under State or common law. Stand ard No. 108 covers original vehicle equipment and items manufactured to replace original equipment. Paragraph 54.4 of Standard No. 108 states, in pertinent part, that "...no high-mounted stoplamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device ." In our view, this precludes you from offering the VISICOM as either an original center high-mounted stoplamp, or as one intended to replace such a stoplamp on any passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.

However, you are not precluded by Standard No. 108 or the Act from offering this device as aftermarket equipment on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. Whether VISICOM is acceptable on these vehicles must be determined by the laws of ea ch State in which the device will be sold or used.

Thank you for your interest in safety. If you have further questions we would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 14, 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson, Legal Council NHTSA, Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street SW

Dear Sir:

I was referred to your office by the people at the D.O.T. 1-800 number as the source for an NHTSA legal opinion concerning an automotive accessory product I have developed. Since one of its functions is somewhat related to the third brakelight now requir ed in 1986 or newer automobiles, but no reference to its total concept is made in Regulation 108, I feel its necessary we have an official opinion on any potential current or future legal problems that might arise when this product is marketed.

I have included a complete functional description of the product as we now intend to manufacture It and I Hill certainly appreciate any suggestions or comments you might have and any reference to other NHTSA regulations that define a product concept like VISICOM if any exist at all.

Thanking you in advance I remain:

Sincerely

Fred E. Maynard 13208 Creek Park Lane Poway, Ca. 92064 (619) 748 5883

VISICOM-Product Description

The VISICOM concept can best be described as an electronic sign or message sending unit. It has a number of potential applications with the most attractive market being that of an automotive accessory. In this configuration It will be sold with a number of preprogrammed words and messages the primary purpose of which will be to enhance the safety aspects of automobile operation and promote a higher degree of courtesy on the road.

Physically the unit comes in two sections. the control panel which mounts on the dashboard of the vehicle, and the display section which is to be positioned in the center of the rear window. According to NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administrat ion) guidelines, a third brakelight would be located in this area of the vehicle in 1986 or newer cars so in order to avoid any conflict with these regulations, the VISICOM automotive model will be supplied with an integrated third brake light which will meet all of the standards required by NHTSA regulation 108 as to size, light intensity, angle of visibility, etc.. This third brakelight will also serve as the base for the display section of the VISICOM which measures approximately 4"H x 17"L x 3"D. Th is enclosure contains virtually all of the electronic control and programming circuits as well as the display itself which consists of six 14 segment alpha-numeric characters 2.5"W x 3.9 "H. Each segment contains a 1.2 watt incandescent bulb which is ene rgized when that segment is required to form a specific number or letter. The words formed by the segmented characters are displayed one at a time for a duration of the seconds with a half second pause in between until the message is complete. Some of th e messages are automatically activated and some of the others continue repeating until the operator ceases the transmission. The messages contained in the system are as follows:

Automatic Messages One Time Display Messages

1. STOP 1. HELLO 2. TURN ------ 2. THANK YOU 3. TURN ------ 3. HAVE A NICE DAY 4. BACKUP 4. SORRY 5. BYEBYE Driver Activated Repeating 6. OK TO PASS Messages 7. NOT OK TO PASS 8. PLEASE DIM YOUR LIGHTS 1. PLEASE CALL POLICE 9. YOU ARE TOO CLOSE 2. NEED HELP 10. CHILD IN CAR 3. HAZARD AHEAD 11. CHECK YOUR DOORS 4. OUT OF GAS 12. CHECK YOUR TIRES

ID: nht80-3.11

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vetter Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1980, with respect to your proposals for lighting requirements for a motorcycle sidecar currently under development. Your letter does not state so, but you indicated in your telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office that the sidecar is detachable.

It has been the position of this agency that a detachable sidecar is an item of motor vehicle equipment to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply. Conformance of the motorcycle therefore is judged without the sidecar attached. Therefore, the front turn signal configuration in Figure F2 would appear to meet Standard No. 108 but the asymmetrical one in Figures F1 and F3 would not. Similarly, the rear turn signal and stop lamp configurations in Figure R2 appear to comply, but those of Figures R1 and R3 do not. The configuration of Figure R4 is not prohibited by S4.1.2 since it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. As for Figure R5, the reflective material required by the standard must be on the motorcycle itself and its appearance solely on the sidecar, as indicated on your drawing, is improper. Finally, your Figure S1 depicts front and rear reflex reflectors mounted on the right side of the sidecar. This is not acceptable as a substitute for the required front and rear reflectors on the right side of the motor as you indicate but we believe it would enhance safety if you incorporated this idea into production.

If you have any further questions, please let us know.

SINCERELY,

Vetter Corporation

May 28, 1980

Frank Berndt NHTSA Dept. of Transportation

Dear Frank:

Per a phone conversation with Taylor Vincent on May 19, 1980, we are enclosing our proposals for lighting requirements for a motorcycle sidecar currently under development.

The drawings are numbered in our order of preference. Listed below are explanations of each lighting arrangement. We would like specific information as to which proposals are acceptable. Please note that a complete view of the lighting proposal consists of front, back, and side views (F1, R1, S1).

FRONT VIEWS

Figure F1 (First Choice):

Standard left turnsignal/running light on motorcycle. Amber turnsignal/running light on sidecar. (NOTE: The motorcycle may or may not have a running light function in its turnsignal assembly. If not, the sidecar would not have a running light.)

Also, note the difference in the horizontal position of the turnsignals. (The left turnsignal is located on the left side of the fairing - see side view on F1).

The motorcycle's right turnsignal would remain attached but would be electrically disconnected.

Figure F2 (2nd Choice):

Standard right and left turnsignal/running lights on the motorcycle. No front lights on sidecar.

Figure F3 (3rd Choice):

Standard left turnsignal/running light on motorcycle. Right turnsignal/running light mounted on sidecar as shown.

Right turnsignal on motorcycle remains attached but is electrically disconnected.

Note the differences in horizontal and vertical placement of the right and left turnsignals.

REAR VIEWS

Figure R1 (1st Choice):

Left turnsignal on motorcycle. Right turnsignal/running light on sidecar. The right turnsignal on the motorcycle will remain attached but will be electrically disconnected. Does the sidecar need a running light where shown? Can it be red or amber? Note that the motorcycle's running light is red.

Figure R2 (2nd Choice):

Standard lighting on motorcycle as shown. No lighting on sidecar.

Figure R3 (3rd Choice):

Left turnsignal on motorcycle. Right turnsignal on sidecar. Stop/running light on motorcycle and sidecar.

Which color running light would have to be used on the sidecar in this case? We feel it should be red to match the red running light on the motorcycle.

Again, the right turnsignal on the motorcycle will remain attach but will be electrically disconnected.

Figure R4 (4th Choice): Standard right/left turnsignals and stop/running light on motorcycle. Red stop/running light on sidecar.

Figure R5 (Option):

3 1/2" x 16" reflective material on back of sidecar. Is this legal with any or all of the preceeding lighting arrangements?

SIDE VIEW

Figure S1 (1st Choice):

Reflex reflector at front and rear of sidecar as shown. Note differences in height. Standard approved reflectors will remain on left side of motorcycle.

Both reflectors on sidecar meet all requirements of SAE J594e of Federal Standard 108.

SUMMARY

We urge you to seriously consider our first proposal, which we feel is the simplest, safest approach. Your speed and cooperation on returning documented answers to these questions is extremely important in order for us to remain current on our development schedule. Per Taylor Vincent, we hope to have a reply within three weeks.

If I can be of any assistance, please don't hesitate to call me at (805) 541-2900.

Rick Golde, Project Engineer

cc: DUANE ANDERSON; STEVE BERN

ID: nht80-1.18

DATE: 02/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hugh A. West, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 22, 1979, addressed to Mr. Nelson Erickson. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of our reply. Your letter asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, was intended to prevent a small child or animal left unattended in a parked automobile (model year 1973) from which the keys have been removed, from intentionally or accidentially moving the gear selection level from the "Park" position. The answer to your question is no, for the reasons noted below. You also requested a copy of any technical analysis that may have been done in the development of Safety Standard 114. Although the public docket contains analyses pertinent to later versions of Safety Standard 114 it contains none pertinent to any version of the standard applicable to passenger cars manufactured in 1973. The only analyses pertinent to these earlier versions of the standard are contained in documents which contain internal agency opinion and recommendations and thus are not publicly available.

When Safety Standard 114 was adopted in 1968 its stated purpose was to "reduce the incidence of accidents resulting from unauthorized use." (33 FR 6471, April 27, 1968). This goal was based on evidence which showed that: "cars operated by unauthorized persons are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury and death than those which are driven by authorized individuals," (33 FR 6471, preamble). Neither the rule nor the preamble states that the standard was intended to accomplish any other goal.

As adopted, the standard required that all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1970, be equipped with a key locking system that (upon removal of the key) would prevent "activation of the car's engine or other main source of motive power; and either steering or self-mobility or both." Safety Standard 114 in its current form also provides manufacturers with this option. The preamble to the standard simply stated that a steering or self-mobility lock was needed in order ". . . to defeat car thieves who start cars with so-called 'master keys' and devices which bypass the [ignition] lock . . ." (33 FR 6471).

In light of the compliance option described above and the purpose of Safety Standard 114 as expressed both in the standard itself and in the preambles of various Federal Register notices, it appears that Safety Standard 114 was not intended to apply to the situation described in your letter.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

HUGH A. WEST, INC.

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

October 22, 1979

N. F. Erickson -- Safety Standards Engineer, U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #114

Dear Mr. Erickson:

I thank you for your letter of October 12, 1979 and the enclosed copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #114 as I requested.

The purpose of my inquires have been to determine whether there was any Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which would require an automobile manufactured in 1973 (1973 Chevrolet Vega) to have as part of its safety equipment, a device which would lock the gear selection lever in the "Park" position when the key was removed from the ignition switch after the lever had been locked. I understand that automobile manufacturers would have little difficulty in having such a locking system as part of the steering column gear-selection method.

The particular gear-selection lever on the car in question was a console model. The car was parked on an incline, the gear selection lever being placed in the "Park" position, the ignition key removed after the ignition system had been placed in the locked position, and the driver exited the vehicle. Thereafter, the car rolled down the incline and a 5 year old child within the car was drowned. When the car was recovered, the gear selection lever was in the "Neutral" position. It is unknown whether the gear selection lever was intentionally or accidentally removed from the "Park" position.

We are particularly concerned as to whether or not this problem was a recognized hazard which the standard was trying to correct. It is obvious that if the steering column were locked so as to prevent the steering of the vehicle, and any child, or an animal, left unattended in the vehicle could move the gear shift lever, the vehicle would obviously be set into motion on an incline with absolutely no control over its movement. It would then become an extreme hazard not only to a small child, as here, being within the vehicle, but other users of the highways and streets toward whom the uncontrollable mass of metal was moving.

If there are other standards which may be applicable to our particular situation, I would appreciate your forwarding a copy of the same to me. We would also appreciate your sending to us a Technical Analysis Study, if any were done, on Standard #114.

We sincerely appreciate your kind assistance.

Very truly yours,

Walter S Felton

cc: Thomas L. Woodward, ESQ.