ID: 1985-02.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Alexander E. Nagy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Alexander E. Nagy 19015 132nd Avenue Sun City West, AZ 85375

Dear Mr. Nagy:

This responds to your letter to this agency, as supplemented by a March 11, 1985 telephone conversation between yourself and Steve Kratzke of my staff. You indicated that you plan to produce golf carts, which would be designed primarily for use on golf courses, but would also be used to transport golfers on the public roads from their homes to the golf course and back. You asked what Federal safety requirements the golf carts would have to meet. As explained below, if your golf carts are used on public highways, have a top speed of 20 mph or less, and have a configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, they would not be motor vehicles, and therefore would not be subject to this agency's safety standards.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 (3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

This agency's safety standards apply only to vehicles which are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of this definition. Vehicles such as forklifts and mobile construction equipment which are sold primarily for off-road use, but which incidentally use the public roads to travel from one job site to another are not considered motor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles which regularly use the public roads and stay off-road for only limited periods of time are motor vehicles and are subject to our safety standards. NHTSA has generally said that golf carts are not motor vehicles because their use on public roads is intermittent and incidental to their use on golf courses.

However, you stated in your letter and emphasized in the telephone conversation that you intend your golf carts to be regularly used on the public roads to transport golfers and their equipment to and from their homes. Accordingly, the agency's past reasoning as to whether golf carts are motor vehicles (intermittent use on the public roads, which use is purely incidental to use on golf courses) would not apply to these golf carts.

This agency has stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles which will be used regularly on the public roads will not be considered motor vehicles if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. Golf carts generally have a vehicle configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, since they do not have doors, a windshield, windshield wipers, and the like. Hence, even if your golf carts are intended to be used on the public roads, they would not be considered motor vehicles if they have a configuration similar to most other golf carts and if their maximum attainable speed is 20 mph or less.

If you decide to build your golf carts so that they would not be classified as motor vehicles, you may wish to contract the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations applicable to golf carts. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207. If you decide to build your golf carts so that they would be;classified as motor vehicles, I have enclosed an information sheet which explains how to obtain copies of this agency's regulations.

Finally, you noted that you may build these golf carts in versions powered by a gasoline engine, an electric motor and batteries, and a hybrid version powered by a gasoline engine and electric motor. You asked if the electric and hybrid versions would have to meet any additional safety requirements. If your golf carts are motor vehicles, and therefore subject to this agency's safety standards, the same safety standards apply regardless of whether the vehicle is driven by a gasoline, electric, or hybrid engine, and there are no additional safety requirements applicable to electric and hybrid vehicles . If your golf carts are not motor vehicles, I must again refer you to the Consumer Product Safety Commission for a response.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Alexander E. Nagy 19015 132nd. Ave. Sun City West, AZ 85375

Dept. of Transportation NHTSA Office of Rule Making 400 7th St., SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I an planning on designing, developing and manufacturing golf cars. What federal safety requirements will the cars have to meet? Some will be driven by a gasoline engine, others by and electric motor and batteries. In addition, I may also develop a golf car employing a hybrid type power plant, a combination gasoline engine and electric motor. What additional federal safety requirements, if any, would they have to meet?

The golf cars will be designed primarily to traverse golf courses, however, they will also be utilized to transport the golfer from his residence to the golf course and base home.

May I hear from you soon? Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Alexander E. Nagy Phone #: 602 975-2050

ID: 1985-02.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Richard -- JBR Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey Richard JBR Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield IA 52556

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a 6 inch by 4 inch sheet of 1/8 inch thick semi-transparent rubber that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films or other sun screen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered, continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may 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 a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

I am enclosing the sample of your product you sent with your letter. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

JRB Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield, IA 52556 (515) 472-7249 Jeffrey Richard

To whom it may concern:

We are proud to have solved the problems of the glare form the sun, of the automobile driver and its passengers, with our all new Glare Stopper.

The Glare Stopper is a great help for stopping glare from babies eyes, while sitting in the required car seat. It is also a big help for the driver from glare when the sun is too low for the sun visor, or too far over. The Glare Stopper will easily stick, or adhere to, the glass, with its suction cups. It is easily moved with one hand. The Glare Stopper works well for coverage of the side mirror at night, when headlights blind driver from seeing ahead, one only has to stick it to the side glass over the mirror. Passengers also enjoy the Glare Stopper to cover the glare in the rear windshield, as well as rear side windows. Driver enjoys the Glare Stopper to cover glare off the hood as well as glare coming in the side window, or when the glare comes in just beside the rear mirror.

Glare Stopper now makes it safer for drivers to drive into the morning or evening sun. Being just about the size of a persons hand, 4" x 6", makes it easy to see around while being used by a passenger. For added safety, a warning label has been placed on the back of the Glare Stopper where it will obstruct driver's view.

Glare Stopper is made of a durable rubber called jolite. It can't be torn, just cut. It is a semi-transparent material.

I have spoken to the law officers and officials which were of the state of Iowa. They said the Glare Stopper didn't violate any of Iowa's obstruction or tint laws for automobiles, because it didn't cover a large portion of the windshield.

I did, however, want the approval of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This is my first invention and company establishment, therefore I'd appreciate full consideration of my product. I have enclosed one full sample, as well as, portions of the other colors, which they come in.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Truly,

JRB Manufacturing Jeffrey Richard Owner/Inventor Manager/Salesman

P.S. The Glare Stopper's rough backside keeps it from reflecting the sun from your car into the eyes of an oncoming car. Enclosures

ID: 1985-02.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. B. Roosen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. B. Roosen Director of Transportation Richland County School District One 927 Whaley Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mr. Roosen:

This responds to your February 25, 1985 letter to me requesting information about our school bus regulations. You have been asked by your school district to purchase new 15-passenger vans for use on school related activity trips. You believe that our regulations require that 15-passenger vans sold as school buses must be certified as meeting the school bus safety standards. Your understanding is correct.

In your letter, you requested that we send you a copy of the regulation that requires manufacturers and dealers who sell new buses to schools to sell school buses that comply with our school bus safety standards. As explained below, this mandate is found in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and the 1974 amendments to that Act.

To begin, I would like to explain that our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that affect school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. You will find a copy of the Vehicle Safety Act enclosed. The 1974 amendment is incorporated in S103(i)(1)(A) and S103(i)(1)(B).

The Vehicle Safety Act contains the following definition of "school bus":

"Schoolbus" means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools. (Emphasis added.)

Section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture and sale of, any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Since the 15-passenger vans you plan to purchase are included in the above definition, they are school buses subject to the school bus safety standards. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, any person selling you a new school bus must sell a vehicle that complies with the school bus safety standards. I have enclosed a December 31, 1975, Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033) which discusses the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers to sell complying school buses.

This agency also administers a set of guidelines for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, recommends that a bus used to transport 16 or less students be identified with the words "School Bus" and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors ( as well as many other safety features) . Because it must have this equipment, a 15-passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS No. 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a State that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if South Carolina has adopted it and if South Carolina accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. Your State officials will be able to give you more information about other State requirements for school buses.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 25, 1985

Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I have been requested by members of this school district to purchase commercial type 15 passenger vans. These vehicles will be used for the purpose of transporting school students on field trips and other social related functions.

I am of the opinion that this type equipment is not authorized for these purposes, since they do not comply with the school bus safety standards. I have no regulations or documentation to confirm this, which is my problem.

I would appreciate very much if you could send me the regulations or advise me where I might obtain this information concerning this subject.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

M.B. Roosen Director of Transportation 803/799-1477

MBR/jl

ID: nht87-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Leon Pauksta -- Traffic Manager, Nichimen America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leon Pauksta Traffic Manager Nichimen America, Inc. 225 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2322 Chicago, IL 60601-5983

This responds to your February 20 and March 18, 1987 letters requesting guidance on the information which you should provide us so that we can issue an opinion whether a particular vehicle is considered to be a motor vehicle. You explained that this requ est was made with reference to a mini pickup truck your company is considering importing from Taiwan, and that the truck would be used as "off-the-road utility conveyances." have set forth below the factors this agency considers in making determinations of whether a particular vehicle is a motor vehicle.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

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

We have interpreted this language as follows. On the one hand, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. In additi on, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles which use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, jeep-type utility vehicles are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road o peration. NHTSA has interpreted the definition of "motor vehicle" to include vehicles whose on-road use is substantial, even though use on the public roads is not the vehicles' greatest intended use. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of the vehicle's owners, NHTSA has held that the vehicle is a "motor vehicle". This finding was made in the case of dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent rega rding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Between these fairly clear areas are the cases the agency has previously characterized as "borderline" cases. These cases typically involve vehicles that have off-road operating capability, but also have on-road operating capability, and about which ther e is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use. In previous letters of interpretation, this agency has set forth some of the factors it considers to determine whether borderline case vehicles should be classified as motor vehicl es. These factors include:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use;

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use;

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers assist or will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are indisputably classified as motor vehicles; and

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads.

If you wish to submit information relevant to the factors discussed above, we would be pleased to consider it and offer you an opinion regarding your vehicle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 18, 1987

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn.: Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: Application for Ruling As to Whether a Motor Vehicle is For Primary Use on Public Thoroughfares.

Dear Counsel:

Attached is a copy of our February 20th inquiry. Although it was sent to you almost one month ago we have not received a reply from you.

Because this subject is an active business project for us which is being researched, we do require instructions from your office.

Could you please send instructions as to what kind of information we are required to submit to your office in order to obtain a ruling.

Yours very truly,

NICHIMEN AMERICA INC.

Leon Pauksta, Traffic Manager

cc: Mr. Hattori

February 20, 1987

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 - 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn.: Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: Application for Ruling As to Whether a Motor Vehicle is Considered for Primary Use on Public Thoroughfares.

Dear Counsel:

We have been researching the feasibility of importing mini pickup-truck type motor vehicles from Taiwan for use in the U.S. as off-the-road ultility conveyances.

Would you kindly provide instructions as to what kind of information we must submit to your office and any formal application format we should use. It would also be helpful if you could give an estimated time-frame such ruling procedure would involve.

Your prompt response and assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Yours very truly,

NICHIMAN AMERICA, INC.

Leon Pauksta. Traffic Manager

cc: Mr. Hattori

ID: nht87-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David V. Brewer -- Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer and Schons

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer

TEXT:

David V. Brewer Esq Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer & Schons Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 10332 Eugene, OR 97440

This responds to your September 26, 1986, letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No, 106, Brake Hoses to your client's coupling device. You asked us to reconfirm the statements made in a March 24, 1980 interpretation issued by former Chief Counsel Prank Berndt to Mr. Ronald Irvine that the one-piece unit coupling device in question, used to simultaneously interconnect two air lines and the electrical lines between a tractor and trailer, is not subject to Standard No . 106. We confirm that the agency's 1980 interpretation has not been superseded or revised by subsequent interpretations of the standard.

The 1980 letter to Mr. Irvine explained that we assumed from the drawings The enclosed that completed brake hose assemblies with their own end fittings attach to the coupling device. Under that assumption, NHTSA concluded that the coupling device would n ot be considered a "brake hose assembly" or a "brake hose end fitting" because the coupling device in question was not included in the standard's definitions of those terms. As a result, certification by the manufacturer to Standard No, 106 was inappropr iate.

We have not modified our interpretation of Standard No. 106 as it applies to the coupling device described by Mr. Irvine in his 1980 inquiry. If the "Ideal Coupling" not owned by your client is the sane device, it is not subject to the requirements of St andard No. 106. Of course, as discussed by the agency in its 1980 letter, your client is nevertheless responsible for any safety related defects in the coupling device under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, since it is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 26, 1986

CERTIFIED MAlL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Ideal Coupling -- Ruling Request Under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and Related Sections

Dear Sirs:

On March 24, 1980, Ronald Irvine of our office received a letter from Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (reference #NOA-30), in regard to a one piece coupling unit device for the connection of electrical and air brake lines on tractor-trailers. A true copy of Mr. Berndt's letter dated March 24 is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein.

Mr. Berndt's letter was based upon a request by our client Ideal Welding and Machine Company. The coupler product is now the property of our client Nipac, Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, having its principal office at 120 Monroe Street, Eugene, Oregon. The undersigned respectfully requests that the rulings requested herein, which are simply an updating of the request for rulings made in 1980, be issued on behalf of the above-mentioned party regarding the applicabilit y of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standards dealing with air brake systems.

Nipac, Ltd., which commenced business in 1980, is currently engaged in the business of marketing products for industrial use. The company owns the rights to the coupling device to be attached to the electrical and air brake hoses of a truck and trailer w hich provide a simplified one piece unit for the connection of the electrical and air brake lines. Clarion Shoji Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, has already manufactured several thousand units of this device, on the strength of the March, 1980 ruling from your office.

Because the device involves the connection of air brake hoses, clarification as to the certification, labeling and testing requirements under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and any related sections is desired prior to the further sale of the d evice in the United States. Since your certification has not been updated in six years, the purpose of this letter is simply to update that certification.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the following ruling be issued:

1. The Ideal Coupling (now owned by Nipac, Ltd.) does not constitute an air brake hose, end fitting or assembly that requires labeling or certification under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standard.

If your agency should find that some sort of certification, labeling or testing is required for the coupling device, please advise as to the following:

1. What form, of label, certification, or testing is required;

2. Who is required to perform the above, i.e., the manufacturer, or may our client provide the label, certification, or testing in the United States?

If any further information is necessary, please contact the undersigned. Your prompt consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

LOMBARD, GARDNER, HONSOWETZ, BREWER & SCHONS

DAVID V. BREWER Ideal Coupling - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 Under penalties of perjury, we have examined this ruling request, and to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information presented in support of the requested ruling herein is true, correct and complete.

NIPAC, LTD.

By JACK DEAN, President

By LLOYD WETZIG

DB/lav Enclosures: U.S. Patent #4,183,599 issued January 15, 1980 Letter; Reference #NOA-30 cc: Jack Dean

(See 2/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer)

ID: nht87-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Robin Bender Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Robin Bender Stevens Health Policy and Planning Consultant ECRI 5200 Butler Pike Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462

Dear Ms. Stevens:

Thank you for your letter of March 26, 1987, asking several questions about how our regulations on safety belts would apply to side and rear-facing seats in emergency medical vehicles. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You explained in your letter that most emergency medical vehicles have a rear-facing seat that is typically located behind the driver's seat. The photographs you bent with your letter show that in one or the the vehicle designs you photographed, the rear -facing seat appears to be a typical vehicle seat, referred to as a "captain's chair," often used in a van-type vehicle. In the other emergency vehicle design shown in your photographs, there is a rearward-facing, bench-type seat with a padded seat pan a nd back installed directly behind the driver.

You further explained that, depending on the number of stretchers the vehicle is designed to carry, there may be another seating area in the vehicle. In single-stretcher vehicles, there is a squad bench, which your photographs show is a set of storage co mpartments with a padded top, located next to the stretcher. You explained that emergency personnel may bit on the squad bench to attend the the patient while the vehicle is in motion. You further explained that personnel in dual-stretcher vehicles sit o n the empty stretcher to attend to the patient. You said that use of a safety belt in those positions is too restrictive to allow emergency personnel to provide acute care to patients during transport.

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, sets requirements for the installation of occupant restraints in motor vehicles. The emergency medical vehicles shown in your photographs would be classified as multipurpose publisher vehicles under our regulat ions since they are designed to carry 10 or fewer persons and are built on a truck chassis. Standard No. 208 requires manufacturer of new multipurpose passenger vehicles to install a safety belt for each designated seating position. Part 571.3 of our reg ulations defines, in part, a designated seating position as:

Any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for a uxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

The agency considers the two types of rearward-facing seats in the emergency medical vehicles you photographed to be designated seating positions. Those seats are designed and built in the same manner as conventional vehicle seats in that they have a pad ded gear pan and a high padded seat back. In fact, the one seat appears to be a conventional "captains chair" which has been mounted in a rearward-facing position. The two rearward-facing seats are also designed to be used on a routine basis by an emerge ncy medical personnel as the vehicle travels to its destination.

In contrast, the agency does not consider a squad bench or a stretcher to be a designated seating position. Neither a squad bench not a stretcher is designed or built in the same manner as a conventional vehicle seat. Although they have the equivalent of a seat pan, they do not have a seat back. Most importantly, both the squad bench and stretcher are meant to be used on a temporary basis as auxiliary seating positions by emergency medical personnel as they provide treatment to a patient. Thus, as an au xiliary seating area, they would not be considered a designated seating position and therefore not subject to the safety belt installation requirement of Standard No. 208.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones, J.D. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones

At the suggestion of Steve Oesch, I am writing to you to request a formal interpretation of the agency's regulations regarding seat belts in emergency medical vehicles.

I have discussed with Mr. Oesch my question as to whether the side-and rear-facing seats of emergency medical vehicles require seat belts. Most emergency medical vehicles have a rear-facing seat that is typically located behind the driver's seat. In addi tion, these vehicles may be designed to transport either one or two stretchers. (See the enclosed photograph for examples of single- and dual-stretcher vehicles.) Single-stretcher vehicles have a squad bench next to the stretcher on which emergency pers onnel may be seated to attend to the patient while the vehicle is in motion. Personnel in dual-stretcher vehicles sit on the empty stretcher to attend to the patient. Use of the seat belt in these positions is too restrictive to allow emergency personnel to provide acute care to patients during transport.

It is my understanding that ambulances are categorized as multipurpose passenger vehicles and, as such, must provide seat belts only for designated seating positions. I also understand that seat belts are not required for auxiliary seating positions. The issue, then, is whether side- and rear-facing seats - -including a second stretcher - - in the patient compartment of an emergency medical are considered designated or auxiliary seating positions.

I therefore request a formal interpretation of the agency's regulations regarding the need for seat belts for the side- and rear-facing seats in emergency medical vehicles and the particular need for seat belts for personnel seated in auxiliary seating p osition while the vehicle is in motion.

Sincerely,

Robin Bender Stevens Health Policy and Planning Consultant

ID: nht87-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert J. Heath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert J. Heath Manager, Compliance Department Panasonic Matsushita Technology Group One Panasonic Way

Dear Mr. Heath:

This responds to your letter asking whether the installation of television receivers, in passenger cars and buses, is permitted under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a consumer products sales company, you indicated that you are considering four proposals: (1) a small television receiver mounted in the dashboard of an automobile on the passenger side and only operational when the automobile gearshift lever is in neutral, (2) a small television receiver mounted above and slightly to the right of the driver with the screen facing the rear and where operation is controlled from the rear seat only, (3) a television receiver mounted between the two front seats on the console and facing the rear, and (4) a large-screen projection television or television monitor mounted in the front of a commercial bus.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers. However, it is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your television receivers are installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Pact 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly rendering 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. Thus, if your television receivers are installed in used vehicles, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment hive responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under sections 151 et seq., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge.

You asked, by way of example, whether your second proposal would be acceptable provided that it meets the standards for crash protection and windshield intrusion. In order to determine how installation of your television receivers could affect the compliance of vehicles with safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those for crash protection and windshield intrusion. We note that another standard that might be relevant, particularly with respect to your first proposal, is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

I am enclosing a copy of an information sheet which provides general information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Room 5219 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: Inquiry and Request for Clarification of Regulations for Use of Broadcast Television Receivers in Automobiles and Buses

Dear Ms. Jones:

Panasonic Company, a consumer products sales company, is investigating the potential sales of broadcast television receivers for installation into automobiles and buses. The following proposals are under consideration at the present time, and we are seeking guidance as to the acceptability and feasibility of these proposals:

1) Small television screen mounted in the dashboard of an automobile on the passenger side and only operational when the automobile gearshift lever is in neutral. The use of a specially-designed relay is necessary upon installation of the television receiver. (See attachment 1)

2) Small television receiver mounted above and slightly to the right of the driver with the screen facing the rear and where operation is controlled from the seat only. (See attachment 2)

3) Television receiver mounted between the two front seats on the console and facing the rear. (See attachment 3)

4) Large-screen projection television monitor mounted in the front of a commercial bus. (See attachment 4 and 5)

Each of the four (4) proposals should be considered separately for conditions of acceptability and/or prohibition within the NHTSA regulatory standards activity.

The results of a 1984 Electronics Industry Association (EIA) state survey indicated that only one (1) state, Rhode Island, prohibits televisions in automobiles. Thirty-seven (37) states restrict its use while the automobile is in motion. The remainder have no laws. The only other federal regulation of which we are aware is the Federal Highway Administration's requirement for large commercial trucks (49 CFR 393.88) where the television viewing screen is required to be located to the rear of the driver, and control be prohibited while the driver is in his seat.

Therefore, Panasonic Company seeks your guidance, interpretation, and suggestions regarding the investigation of the four proposals stated above. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Heath Manager Compliance Dept.

RJH/ab Attachments cc: L.E. Levine/Legal Div.

ID: nht87-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: R. O. Sornson -- Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis, Chrysler Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R.O. Sornson Director Regulatory Research and Analysis Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit, MI 48288

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the test procedure used in the latchplate access test of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response.

You specifically asked for an interpretation of the requirement of S10.6 of the standard that a vehicle's seat shall be placed "in its forwardmost adjustment position" when determining whether a vehicle meets the latchplate reach requirements of S7.4.4 o f the standard. You asked whether in conducting the test, Chrysler should move a manually adjusted bench or bucket seat to its forward seat track "stop" and move a power bench or bucket seat to its "full forward" and "full down" position. As explained be low, both a manually adjusted seat and a power adjusted seat should be moved to its full forward position or full forward seat track stop. However, S7.4.4 of the standard does not currently address how the seat is to be vertically adjusted. The agency ha s recently received a petition from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association asking the agency to address the general issue of positioning adjustable power seats for the purposes of Standard No. 208. If the petition is granted, we will address the iss ue of vertical placement of the seat for the purposes of S7.4.4. In the interim, the agency will conduct its compliance testing for S7.4.4 in the following manner. The agency will first place the seat in the vertical adjustment position used by the manuf acturer in its certification tests. Then the agency will move the seat horizontally to its full forward position.

You noted that several of the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard specifically provide that a seat is to be moved to its full forward and full down position. For example, S7.4.3, which sets out the belt contact force requirements, and S7 .4.5, which sets out the safety belt retraction requirements, specifically provide that the seat is to be tested under the conditions of S8.1.2 of the standard. In turn, S8.1.2 provides that adjustable seats that are capable of vertical adjustment are to be placed in their lowest position.

However, the latchplate access requirement of S7.4.4 of the standard does not have a reference to positioning a seat in accordance with S8.1.2 of the standard. Instead, it specifies only that the seat shall be placed in its full forward adjustment positi on. Thus, in determining a seat's full forward position for the purposes of S7.4.4, the agency will follow the following procedure. Since the standard does not prescribe a vertical position for the seat, the agency will use the vertical position used by the manufacturer in its certification tests. The agency will then move a power seat horizontally to its full forward position.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Chrysler Corporation requests confirmation of our interpretation of the requirements of paragraph S10.6 of MVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Paragraph S10.6 prescribes that the seat shall be "in its forwardmost adjustment position" when determining th e seat belt latchplate reach envelopes. Based on our review of Standard 208, we interpret "forwardmost adjustment position" to mean that a manually adjustable bench or bucket seat is moved to the forward seat track "stop" and in similar manner a power be nch or bucket seat is moved to its "full forward" position while in the "full down" position. These adjustment procedures provide a consistent test dummy location which we believe is the NHTSA's intent for conducting the prescribed tests for both manual and power seats.

The above interpretation of "forwardmost adjustment" position was discussed with Mr. Edward Jettner of the Office of Vehicle Standards. He concurred with our interpretation, but suggested that we seek confirmation of it.

We believe that the above interpretation is correct based on other discussions of seat adjustment in the standards. Paragraph S7.4.3 of MVSS 208 provides:

S7.4.3, Belt Contact Force, is tested in accordance with S10.7 which, in turn, requires that the user "--position the test dummy in the vehicle in accordance with -- S10.1 or S10.2 and -- S8.1.2 and S8.1.3." S8.1.2 requires that "adjustable seats are -- midway between forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position; (underlined for emphasis)

Paragraph S.7.4.5 adds:

S7.4.5, Retraction, is also "tested under the conditions of S8.1.2 --."

Paragraph S4.3.2 of MVSS 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, similarly provides at a power seat is to be adjusted to full down position:

S4.3.2 Seat belt anchorages for the upper torso portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. With the seat in its full rearward and downward position . . . . (underlined for emphasis).

From these references, we conclude that for consistency in positioning the test dummy for purposes of paragraph S10.6 of MVSS 208, a power seat is adjusted to the forwardmost "full downward" position and a manual seat track is adjusted to the forwardmost position. We would appreciate your confirmation of our interpretation at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely,

R.O. Sornson

ID: nht87-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/01/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William A. Jones

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William A. Jones The National Windshield Repair Service 7214 W. Melrose Lame

Dear Mr. Jones:

This is in response to your letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch, formerly of my staff, concerning the agency's position on the use of windshield repair, as opposed to replacement, for motor vehicles. I apologize for the delay in this response. You indicate that you are very much interested in the credibility of windshield repair as a viable alternative to windshield replacement, and that you seek any information the agency can provide in the development of safety standards regarding the repair process. We have the following comments.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for issuing safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment, or commercial services. Rather, each manufacturer must certify that its product meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, we have never offered an opinion on the relative merits of repair ed vs. replaced windshields. That choice is left for the market to decide, subject to the limitations set forth below.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer must certify that its motor vehicle meets the requirements of all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards before the motor vehicl e is sold to the consumer for the first time. One of the standards with which a manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. If for some reason a windshield must be repaired before a new vehicle is sold to a consumer for the first time (for example, if the windshield is damaged in transit from the manufacturer to the dealer's place of business), the person making the repairs would be considered an alterer under our regulations (see 49 CFR Part 567). As an a lterer, the person must certify that the windshield on the vehicle continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205, regardless of whether the windshield was repaired or is a replacement windshield.

Once the vehicle has been sold to a first purchaser for purposes other other than resale, any repairs or replacement of the windshield are restricted only by the provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U .S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipme nt in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This agency has stated in a September 3, 1981 letter to the National Glass Dealers Association that NHTSA does not consider repairing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205, even if the repaired windshield does not meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or event which damaged the windshield in the first place, not the repair shop, to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No.205. However, the repair shop must exercise caution that it does not render another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applica ble Federal motor vehicle safety standard in the course of fixing a damaged windshield. If this here the case, the repair shop could be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

The Safety Act also places responsibilities on any manufacturer of a windshield repair kit. Such a manufacturer is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and is subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 14 11-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

These are the only requirements that we have with respect to windshield repair. I can offer a suggestion in response to your request for information to help develop standards for windshield repair. You stated in your letter that you are a member of both ANSI and ASTM. One way for you, as an advocate of windshield repair, to try to ensure the reliability or efficiency of windshield repair would be to work with ANSI and ASTM to adopt product design and repair practices that result in repaired windshields meeting the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.

If you have further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Susan Schruth of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 3662992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1986

Mr. Steve Oesch NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

I recently talked with Clark Harper, at the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, who informed me that National Windshield would have to write to you to request the information that we needed. We are interested in the Department of Transportation's standin g of the use of windshield repair, as opposed to replacement, on motor vehicles.

We are members of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). We, at National Windshield, are very much interested in the credibility of windshield repair as a viable alternative to windshiel d replacement. We feel that whatever information the Department of Transportation can supply us will be very helpful in the development of safety standards regarding the repair process.

If there is any other information that you need about us please feel free to write or call. Your help concerning this matter will be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

The National Windshield Repair Service, Inc.

William A. Jones President

ID: nht87-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl F. Milde, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Karl F. Milde, Jr., P.C. Law Office RFD #8, Box 369 Union Valley Road Mahopac, NY 10541

Dear Mr. Milde:

This is in reply to your letter of October 2 1987 with reference to an electronic circuit that would automatically activate a vehicle's hazard warning system when the vehicle is proceeding slowly, or has stopped in the roadway. You have asked whether suc h a system has been proposed before, or field tested, and whether federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 would permit its installation on motor vehicles.

The traffic hazard that concerns you, especially that presented by a vehicle that has stopped in the roadway without activation of either brakes or hazard warning system, is one that is familiar to many motorists. However, it appears that in actuality mo st motorists confronted with this hazard are able to react in time to avoid a rear end collision. Accident data available to the agency indicate that crashes of this nature are relatively rare. As you know, many States require activation of the hazard wa rning system at speeds less than 40 mph on the Interstate system. NHTSA has not proposed a system of this nature, nor has it field tested one. The agency has participated in research with deceleration warning systems, a similar though not identical conce pt, and concluded that safety benefits were insufficient to propose their adoption.

We see no Federal prohibition against installation of a circuit that would activate the hazard warning system at a predetermined low rate of speed. Equipment that is not prescribed by the lighting standard is permissible as original equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that Standard No. 108 does require. And modifications of vehicles in use by persons other than the vehicle owner are permissible as long as they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, vehicle equ ipment necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Not are we aware of any State restrictions on the use of such Q system, though you should consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for a definitive answ er. Its address is 1201 Connecticut Avenue, M, Washington, DC 20036.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 2, 1987 CERTIFIED MAIL, RRR

Erica Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Automatic Hazard light for motor vehicles Dear Ms. Jones:

Brian O'Neill of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety suggested that I write to you and request your comments on the memorandum.

In particular, I respectfully request your answers to the following two questions:

(1) Has an automatic hazard light been proposed before? If so, has its effectiveness been field tested?

(2) Does the federal Standard 108, as presently formulated, permit the installation of an automatic hazard light on a motor vehicle?

Your comments on any prior experience with this safety device as well as your "interpretation letter" on its legality would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Karl F. Milde, Jr. Enclosure cc: Mr. Brian O'Neill

MEMORANDUM

TO: N H T S A FROM: Karl F. Milde, Jr. DATE: October 1, 1987 RE: Automatic Hazard Light

I would like to alert you to a traffic hazard that has plagued me personally, many times, and which can be completely eliminated by a simple electronic circuit on a motor vehicle:

Frequently, the vehicle in which a motorist is driving - call it "vehicle 2" - is proceeding down a highway at a normal highway speed: e.g., 30-55 MPH. The vehicle of another motorist - call it "vehicle 1" - is stopped or is proceeding very slowly on the same highway ahead of vehicle 2. (There may be any number of reasons why the vehicle 1 has stopped or proceed slowly: the operator of vehicle 1 may intend to turn left after oncoming cars have passed; there may be traffic congestion ahead of vehicle 1; or vehicle 1 may be disabled with an overheated engine, flat tire or the like.) Normally, the operator of vehicle 1 will have applied the brakes so that the brake lights of vehicle 1 are illuminated, alerting the operator of vehicle 2. Often, however, th e operator of vehicle 1 does not have a need to apply the brakes because vehicle 1 has either stopped or is proceeding slowly at a steady speed. Alternatively, the operator of vehicle 1 can switch on flashing "hazard" lights, but this requires positive a ction on the operator' s part which is frequently forgotten. In the absence of any warning lights, the operator of vehicle 2 may not notice that vehicle 1 has stopped or is proceeding slowly until it is too late to prevent vehicle 2 from colliding with t he rear of vehicle 1.

There is a simple solution to this all-too-frequent traffic hazard: namely, an electronic circuit which will automatically switch on the hazard lights of a motor vehicle when this vehicle is detained (has stopped or proceeds slowly) on a highway.

With such a circuit the hazard lights will warm the drivers of vehicles approaching from the rear, even though the operator of the motor vehicle has forgotten to manually actuate the hazard light switch.

Such a circuit could not possibly cost more than a couple of dollars and, if every vehicle were so equipped, many accidents (and personal injuries) could be avoided.

As an example, I am attaching a newspaper report of a truck driver who failed to notice that traffic had stopped in front of him on the New Jersey Turnpike. The consequence was fatal. Had the cars ahead of him been flashing hazard lights, the truck drive r would surely have brought his vehicle to a safe stop.