ID: nht81-3.13

DATE: 09/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Glass Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Please accept our apology for the lateness of our reply. You ask whether an installer of automotive safety glazing violates any of the regulations promulgated by the American National Standard Institute, Inc. (ANSI) or of this agency if the installer repairs damaged automotive glazing as part of his or her business.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 205 establishes performance requirements for automotive glazing. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.1-1966. Glazing repair businesses, sellers of vehicles or automotive glazing, and manufacturers of glazing repair kits all have different responsibilities and liabilities regarding automotive glazing and Safety Standard No. 205 under the Act.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act 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 equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. (There is no prohibition against an individual modifying his or her own vehicle or equipment.) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not consider fixing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205 even if the windshield does not meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or even which damaged the windshield in the first place to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205. However, if the repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield that is installed in a vehicle renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop violates section 108(a)(2)(A). It does not matter whether the vehicle is new or used (i.e., has been sold for purposes other than resale). There is no violation if the repair business reasonably believes that the vehicle or item of equipment will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. Section 109 of the Act imposes a civil penalty up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). It is not likely that the process you describe would involve a rendering inoperative, but you should be aware of this section.

Sellers of repaired automotive glazing or vehicles equipped with repaired automotive glazing may violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Section 108(a)(1)(A) provides that: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard. . .

(Note that section 108(b)(1) provides that section 108(a)(1)(A) does not apply once the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale. In other words, section 108(a)(1)(A) applies only to new vehicles or equipment, not to used vehicles or equipment.) Thus, if someone sells a new, but damaged, replacement windshield that does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 once repaired, he or she is in violation of section 108(a)(1)(A), since he or she is selling an item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. An automobile dealer who sells a new car whose windshield does not comply with Standard No. 205 also violates section 108(a)(1)(A). Again, section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(1)(A).

The responsibilities of manufacturers of glazing repair kits or systems under the Act are found in sections 151 et seq. of the Act. Such manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 also imposes a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment. It is not likely, however, that glazing repair kits would contain safety related defects. This section generally would apply to mechanical motor vehicle components.

Compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards will not automatically relieve a repair business or manufacturer of responsibility in a products liability suit. You will have to contact a private attorney for more information in this area, however.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have further questions.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL DEALERS

May 21, 1981

Raymond Peck Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Peck:

I am writing on behalf of the 1,600 members of the National Glass Dealers Association, the nation's largest organization representing the automotive and architectural glass industry. For many years now, NGDA has addressed itself to the question of auto windshield glass repairs.

We have some new developments to tell you about, but first, a bit of background. It certainly comes as no surprise that minor breaks on laminated glass automobile windshields can be temporarily eliminated by displacing the air with as simple a substance as light oil. Used car salesmen have been known to attempt this for as long as there have been used car salesmen.

This repair concept made a great leap in technological sophistication when, several years ago, a company marketed a system for glass repair whereby a liquid plastic was deposited into minor windshield breaks by a vibrating type of machine. It was unsuccessful and eventually withdrawn from the market. Then came a "third generation" of repair that included elements common in both its predecessors. In 1975, this Association developed a report on all the known repair systems in existence then but, many of those firms have since disappeared.

The agonizing question still remains as to whether or not it is legal to repair damaged automobile windshields under various federal and state automobile safety laws and regulations.

Because glass dealers know the high standards set for windshields and because they know the integral part the windshield plays in the design and safety characteristics of an automobile, glass dealers have shied away from suggesting repair because it is not fully known how a repair affects the strength, integrity and vision of that original windshield and how that repaired glass might behave if called upon to support an auto's roof assembly in roll-over situation or worse.

Our association is also concerned at the fact that insurance people throughout the nation are waiving deductibles on comprehensive auto insurance and suggesting their insureds use repair instead of replacement. This could put that industry and ours in a most costly liable situation if an injury occured and the cause of the injury was alleged to be that the repaired glass did not maintain its strength, integrity and most important, we believe, undistorted vision.

One of our major concerns has been the advertising claims made by a major manufacturer of repair system. Their long-time claim has been that their product is, "Tested and meets the requirements of American National Standard Institute Safety Code (ANSI) Z26.1a-1969 (R-1973) for laminated glazing materials."

That is an invalid advertising claim that we feel has swayed the insurance industry into a false sense of security! In recent correspondence to ANSI, we pointed out that the independent testing laboratories' report on the repair system product noted the six different tests which were completed, but failed to note that the ANSI Code requires nine different tests -- leaving out three of the most important tests. Namely, an impact test, a deviation and distortion test and an abrasion resistance test. These three are surely vital if an effort is to be made to maintain the integrity of the windshield. We called on Mr. William H. Rockwell, Counsel for ANSI, and the Z26 Technical Committee of ANSI to make a determination as to whether or not these important advertising claims were, in fact, correct and applicable to the Z26 Code. We were quick to point out the authority and high regard an ANSI Code carries with it and we were certain ANSI would be interested in protecting its best interests.

We are pleased to report that both Mr. Rockwell and the Z26 Technical Committee have determined that the ANSI Code does not apply to repaired windshields -- only new windshields -- and ANSI moved quickly to request that the repair system cease reference to any ANSI Codes in its advertising as being an authority for use of its product. This is an important position taken by ANSI and we want to share this information with you. Glass dealers across the nation will be hearing that these advertising claims are invalid -- as determined by ANSI.

However, we now begin to see another advertising claim (as shown on the second page of the enclosed flyer) that a particular windshield repair system meets the ANSI codes". . . as observed by the United States Department of Transportation." Our agonizing question still remains! Can an installer of auto safety glass provide a glass repair service and not be held in violation of any ANSI or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or Department of Transportation rules and/or regulations?

We are writing on behalf of our members who have a vital interest in expanding their market penetration, but only once assured that there would be no consequent liability for their actions. Therefore, we respectfully request information as to the extent of your departments observation of the NOVUS repair system, as indicated in the enclosed materials, which lead to your acceptance of such a system of glass repair.

If additional materials are needed, please feel free to contact our national headquarters office. We will appreciate your assistance in this matter and will look forward to your prompt reply.

Robert W. Stanley Executive Vice President

ENCLS.

cc: GEORGE FLEET -- NGDA PRES.

american national standards institute, inc.

April 10, 1981

Gerald E. Keinath President NOVUS Inc.

Dear Mr. Keinath:

Enclosed you will find a copy of my November 17, 1980 letter to NOVUS and your reply of December 16, 1980. Since that time we have been checking this question out and find two things:

1) ANSI Z26.1 covers only new windshields, not repaired glass. (See SAE letter of March 11, 1980 attached.)

2) We received a laboratory report analyzing the Patzig report you sent me. This is what they had to say:

"We have reviewed this report. Only six selected tests from the nine tests required by the Code were carried out. The following tests were not run: Test No. 9 Impact, Dart, 30 Feet, Test No.15 - Deviation and Distortion, and Test No. 18 - Abrasion Resistance. Most significant of these omissions were the optical deviation and distortion tests and the abrasion test. The Patzig Report states that 30 specimens illustrating repaired breaks of various size and shapes were submitted."

In view of this we are writing to ask you to refrain from using any reference to our Z26.1 standard in your advertising for repaired glass.

William H. Rockwell Resident Counsel

cc: PATRICIA COUHIG - SAE; ROBERT W. STANLEY

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

March 11, 1981

Robert W. Stanley National Glass Dealers Association

Dear Mr. Stanley:

The Technical Committee to ANSI Z26 has now had the opportunity to review in detail the matter of whether ANSI Z26.1-1977 addresses repaired windshields.

It is their opinion that the Code address new windshields, not repaired glass. This opinion is supported by the wording in the Code in paragraph 4.1, which states:

"Tests shall be applied to specimens only when in the condition as shipped by the manufacturer, except that any protective masking material shall be removed prior to making the tests."

We regret the delay in having this response made to you, however, we hope it does answer your inquiry.

Patricia Couhig for ANSI Z26 Technical Committee

cc: R. MORRISON; W. H. ROCKWELL

An exciting new business opportunity requiring a very modest investment. (Illegible Text)

(Graphics omitted)

Call and talk to a Novus Business Consultant who will explain the Novus METHODman(TM) II system and ongoing supports offered by the company, or write (include your phone number) to

NOVUS

International Headquarters NOVUS, Inc., 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55435 (612) 831-2434

REPAIR STONE DAMAGED WINDSHIELDS (Illegible Text) (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht87-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald P. Weiher -- Dirctor, Product Assurance, LTV Aerospace and Defense Company, AM General Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald P. Weiher Director-Product Assurance LTV Aerospace and Defense Company AM General Division P.O. Box 3330 Livonia, MI 48151-3330

This is in reply to your letter of September B, 1986, to Mr. Oesch of this Office asking whether certain military vehicles are "motor vehicles" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event they are discovered to have safety related defects.

Based on the information your letter provides, we must conclude that the tactical military vehicles in question are motor vehicles within the meaning of section 102 (3) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391 (3), and that they are subject to the defect notifi cation and remedy provisions of the Act, although, as military vehicles they are exempt from compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

You have described the vehicles in question as "all tactical vehicles designed for cross-country (40%), secondary (30%) and primary (30%) roads." Such vehicles include the M998 Series 1 1/4 ton truck, and other tactical military trucks such as the 2 1/2 ton M44 Series and the 5-ton M809 and M939 Series. You have noted that the Office of Defects Investigation has previously assigned campaign numbers for safety related defects on similar tactical military vehicles. You have also noted the agency's 1969 in terpretation on mini-bikes states, as you have quoted it, that "in the absence of clear evidence that, as a practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not be, used on the public streets, roads, and highways the operating capability of a vehicle is the most relevant fact in determining whether that vehicle is a motor vehicle."

Under the information you have presented, the tactical military trucks are designed to be used 60% of the time on primary and secondary public roads. In our view, they must then be considered as having been designed primarily for use on the public roads, and hence, "motor vehicles" under the Act.

We have conferred with our Office of Defects Investigation, and it appears to us that when that office responded to your inquiries on February 19 and March 5, 1986, it acted in the belief that the vehicles in question are intended primarily for off road use and that they lack an operating capability for substantial on road use. The fact that the vehicles are intended for use on roads 60 percent of the time indicates operating capability for such use.

We hope that this clarifies the status of these vehicles with respect to the definition of "motor vehicle" contained in the Act. We appreciate your having requested this further consideration of this question. If you have further questions concerning thi s matter, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson, an attorney in this office who can be reached by telephone at (202) 366 5263.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 8, 1986

Mr. Steven Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

- PETITION -

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Please provide concurrence with the attached interpretations from Mr. Philip W. Davis, Director, Office of Defects Investigation/Enforcement regarding military vehicles "not manufactured primarily for highway use."

A generalization would be that all tactical vehicles designed for cross-country (40%), secondary (30%) and primary (30%) roads such as the subject M998 Series 1 1/4 Ton Trucks (a.k.a. HUMM-V) would all be exempt by virtue of not being "manufactured prima rily for highway use" and therefore not considered to be a "MOTOR VEHICLE under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. (Title I, Part A, Sec. 102(3) Interpretation).

Our previous verbal direction from your office had been that although these vehicles may be exempt from compliance with the safety standards (Ref. 571.7(c) enclosed), they are not exempt from the Safety Act or the Regulations, further the enclosed interp retations dated October 3, 1969, 34 F.R. 15416 and published under Part 571.3 "Definitions" state "that in the absence of clear evidence that as a practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not be, used on the public streets, roads or highways the operating capability of a vehicle is the most relevant fact in determining whether or not that vehicle is a motor vehicle under the act", leaves us confused. Since the Office of Defects Investigation has previously assigned campaign numbers for safety re lated defects on similar tactical military vehicles, we solicit your official interpretation and guidance regarding safety related defects on tactical military trucks, such as the noted 1 1/4 Ton M998 Series, the 2 1/2 Ton M44 Series and the 5-Ton M809 a nd M939 Series.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Weiher Director-Product Assurance

DPW/tlb

Mr. Fred I. Masten Supervisor - Warranty/Safety LTV Aerospace and Defense Company AM General Division 701 W. Chippewa Avenue South Bend, IN 46680-2841

Dear Mr. Masten:

Thank you for your letter of February 19, 1986, concerning the recall of 1984-1986 AM General M998 Series trucks.

As the vehicles involved in this campaign are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use, we do not consider this to be a motor vehicle safety defect recall under the provisions of the Nationa l Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Therefore, no further reports on this matter are necessary.

Sincerely,

Philip W. Davis Director Office of Defects Investigation Enforcement

Mr. Fred I. Masten Supervisor - Warranty/Safety LTV Aerospace and Defense Company AM General Division 701 W. Chippewa Avenue South Bend, IN 46680-2841

Dear Mr. Masten:

Thank you for your letter of January 27, 1986, concerning the recall of 1984-1986 AM General M998 Series trucks.

As the vehicles involved in this campaign are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use, we do not consider this to be a motor vehicle safety defect recall under the provisions of the Nationa l Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Therefore, no further reports on this matter are necessary.

Sincerely,

Philip W. Davis Director Office of Defects Investigation Enforcement

Sec. 102 (cont.) (3) "Motor vehicle" means 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.

(4) "Motor vehicle equipment" means any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle, and any device, article, or apparel not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle (other than medicines, or eyeglasses prescribed by a physician or other duly licensed practitioner), which is manufactured, sold, de livered, offered, or intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers, and other highway users from risk of accident, injury or death.

s571.7 (cont.) (c) Military vehicles. No standards applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

(d) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstances provided in Section 108(b) (5) of the Act 15 U.S.C. 1397(b) (5)).

(e) Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

Interpretations

General. Compliance with Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is determined by actual date of manufacture, rather than model year designation.

Mini-bikes. A number of persons have asked the Federal Highway Administrator to reconsider his February 4, 1969, interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 concerning mini-bikes (34 F.R. 1909). In that interpretation, the Administrator concluded that mini-bikes are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the Act, and are regarded as "motorcycles" or "motor-driven cycles" under the Federal Highway Administration regulations (34 F.R. 1909). Under those re gulations, motorcycles and motor-driven cycles must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which imposes performance requirements relating to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.

The primary basis for the conclusion of the February 4 interpretation, as stated therein, was that "in the absence of clear evidence that as a practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not be, used on the public streets, roads, or highways the ope rating capability of a vehicle is the most relevant fact in determining whether or not that vehicle is a motor vehicle under the ACT * * *" It was stated that if examination of a vehicle's operating capability revealed that the vehicle is "physically capable (either as offered for sale or without major additions or modifications) of being operated on the public streets, roads, or highways, the vehicle will be considered as having been manu factured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways'." It was also stated that a manufacturer would need to show substantially more than that it has advertised a vehicle as a recreational or private property vehicle or that use of the vehicle on a public roadway, as manufactured and sold, would be illegal in order to overcome a conclusion based on examination of the vehicle's operating capability.

Petitioners have urged the Administrator to abandon the operating capability test. They have argued that many vehicular types, such as self-propelled riding mowers, have an "operating capability" for use on the public roads and yet are obviously outside the class of vehicles which Congress subjected to safety regulations. True as that may be, the Administrator has decided to adhere to the view that the operating capability of a vehicle is an important criterion in determining whether it is a "motor vehi cle" within the meaning of the statute. As the above-quoted portion of the February 4, 1969, interpretation states, however, the operating capability test is not reached if there is "clear evidence that as a practical matter the vehicle is not being used on the public streets, roads, or highways." In the case of self-propelled riding mowers, golf carts, and many other similar self-propelled vehicles, such clear evidence exists.

It is clear from the definition of "motor vehicle" in section 102(3) of the Act* that the purpose for which a vehicle is manufactured is a basic factor in determining whether it was "manufactured primarily or use on the public streets, roads, and highway s." However, this does n ot mean that the proper classification of a particular vehicle is wholly dependent on the manufacturer's subjective state of mind. Instead, the Administrator intends to invoke the familiar principle that the purpose for which an act, such as the p roduction of a vehicle, is undertaken may be discerned from the actor's conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Thus, if a vehicle is operationally capable of being used on public thoroughfares, and if in fact, a substantial proportion of the consuming public actually uses in that way, it is a "motor vehicle" without regard to the manufacturer's intent, however manifested. In such a case, it would be incumbent upon a manufacturer of such a vehicle either to alter the vehicle's design, con figuration, and equipment to render it unsuitable for on-road user or, by compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards, to render the vehicle safe for use on public streets, roads, and highways.

In borderline cases, other factors must also be considered. Perhaps the most important of these is whether state and local laws permit the vehicle in question to be used and registered for use on public highways. The nature of the manufacturer's promotio nal and marketing activities is also evidence of the use for which the vehicle is manufactured. Some relevant aspects of those activities are: (1) Whether the vehicle is advertised for on-road use or whether the manufacturer represents to the public that the vehicle is not for use on public roads; (2) whether the vehicle is sold through retail outlets that also deal in conventional motor vehicles; and (3) whether the manufacturer affixes a label warning owners of the vehicle not to use it for travel ove r public roads.

ID: nht74-5.47

DATE: 04/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: American Safety Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 3, 1973, petitioning for amendments to paragraphs S4.9 and S5.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 which would allow the use of a buckle release mechanism design that requires, before release, some foreshortening of the belt system to reduce the load on the release mechanism. This design cannot meet the existing requirements of S4.9 of Standard No. 213 with the device under load. We wrote to you on August 20, 1973, and on December 17, 1973, requesting additional data. We have not received a response from you to either letter.

We have decided that your petition should be denied. Our objection to the design you wish to employ is that it cannot be released when the belt restraint system is under load. The NHTSA believes, and has adopted its position in Standard No. 213, that a fundamental safety requirement for any occupant restraint release mechanism is the ability to release when it is under a load imposed by the weight of the occupant. In many vehicle crashes restraint systems may be loaded in this fashion when occupants must be removed.

We do not disagree with your argument that mechanisms which release under load may more readily be released by children when release is undesirable. We believe the greater safety problem, however, is presented by designs which are difficult to operate because they require a prior unloading of the release mechanism. These systems may not be able to be released, even by adults, in crash situations. Data we have received indicates substantial difficulty in the ability of adults to release a child from a child seat in situations (total darkness) simulating emergencies. The study in question has been conducted by the National Swedish Road and Traffic Research Institute and is on file in Docket No. 2-15.

Moreover, we believe buckle release mechanisms should be operable by older child occupants, particularly in situations such as in upside-down configurations where a load is imposed on the mechanism. This purpose is met by the existing requirements of the standard but would not be met were we to grant your petition.

In your petition you argue that even a lower release force does not necessarily mean that the occupant will be able to escape easily from the restraint system. While this may be true, as no requirements are specified in Standard No. 213 regarding ease of belt removal, it is not a justification for increasing the difficulty of operating the buckle release mechanism.

SINCERELY

August 3, 1973

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Subject: Petition for Rule Making

Reference: MVSS213, S4.9 and S5.3.1

American Safety Equipment Corporation is a major developer and manufacturer of safety belt restraint systems for automobile manufacturers. American Safety personnel have a great deal of experience designing aircraft and automotive restraint systems, particularly hardware such as buckles, retractors and associated items. The Company has been active since 1966 in the business of designing and producing restraint harnesses and complete seating systems for children in the 20 to 40 pound size range. The Company has been working on development of a new child safety seat since 1970 basing the basic design criteria on dynamic performance under simulated crash testing, while also observing the current static testing regulation. Final testing of prototype models has been completed on the design considered optimum for performance, economy and simplicity of use.

This petition is submitted in accordance with the procedure described in Subpart B Section 553.31. This proposal is to add a performance requirement and test procedure for an occupant harness release mechanism not currently considered by the Child Seating Systems regulation. The mechanism is not of a nature normally classified or described as a "buckle", but for purposes of MVSS213, is being considered a release mechanism.

The proposed additions and revisions to MVSS213 are shown underlined:

S4.9 (b) Release when a force of not more than 20 pounds is applied when tested in accordance with S5.3 expect for systems described by S4.9 (c).

2 (c) Release when a force of not more than 10 pounds is applied when the release mechanism requires foreshortening of the webbing restraint components to activate and is tested in accordance with S5.3.1 (d).

S5.3.1 For forward-facing child seating systems where foreshortening of the webbing restraint components is not required by the release mechanism -

(a) -- unchanged --

(b) -- unchanged --

(c) -- unchanged --

When foreshortening of the webbing restraint components is required to actuate the release mechanism -

(d) Test the system with a 1,000-pound force as specified in S5.1, remove the force completely and then release the mechanism in a manner typical of that employed in actual use.

Photographs are enclosed showing the release mechanism actuation under normal and simulated emergency conditions and a typical testing set-up to determine release force. The application of force to release the occupant harness must simultaneously pull down on the abdominal pad and the shoulder straps thereto attached and upwards under the metal latch. This is very simply described as a "pinching" action of the thumb and first and/or second finger. The shoulder straps are thereby foreshortened and the occupant will be forced rearward (unless lifted or pushed) toward the back surface of the child seat. The hand not activating the release mechanism can be used to move the child's torso away from contact with the restraint straps. The actuation of the release mechanism with the belts in a slackened condition is an easy one-hand operation with a low force requirement.

The performance criteria on which our restraint release mechanism design is based are as follows:

1. The mechanism must be capable of restraining the occupant when the system undergoes dynamic forces of an auto crash without distortion of any kind which could result in a jammed or difficult-to-release condition.

2. Child must not be able to easily release himself.

3. The mechanism must be extremely easy to understand from the standpoint of an adult learning how to actuate. Similarity to current production adult safety belt hardware assures the shortest possible learning time by an adult.

3 These criteria were formulated after studying field experience of consumers and consulting with experienced people in various phases of the child and adult restraint business. This experience indicated to us that -

1. A common possible problem with many child seat harness buckle release mechanisms is that the release mechanisms could be easily actuated by the child occupant. The child is protected only while sitting in the seat with the harness secured.

2. Emergency removal of a child occupant from a wrecked automobile should be accomplished within a minimum time. Emergency removal always involves supporting at least a portion of the child's weight while releasing the harness mechanism. After an accident the child's weight is forced against the restraining straps if the car has overturned or if the car seat back is exerting pressure on the child and/or child's seating system.

3. Restraint harness buckles which have a low release force (even under occupant's weight load) may not completely detach all components of the harness system from the occupant. Such components as shoulder and/or lap belts may remain wholly or partially attached to the buckle and could interfere with the removal of the occupant from the seating system.

Much subjective information from consumers was also evaluated by us to finalize the release mechanism design since it is considered one of the key components of the overall child seating system. Real-world data is scarce on crash performance of child restraint systems, but accident experience is reasonably hypothesized from experience with children and emergency post-crash situations. It is considered reasonable by us that release mechanisms which actuate under the test procedures now in effect are likely to be released wholly or partially be a child prior to a crash. Protection in low speed, as well as high speed crashes, is important and a securely fastened harness is mandatory for protection. Driver distraction by unrestrained children can also cause accidents which is minimized by a release mechanism not easily operable by the child. Supporting the child's weight or otherwise relieving pressure of the child's body from the harness webbing during emergency removal is consistent with a majority of conceivable accident conditions and always would be a requirement with the impact-shield type restraints (no harness) where the occupant would be expected to be wrapped around the impact shield after a crash. Self-removal from a harness restraint under emergency conditions by a child in the 20 to 40 pound age group

4 is not reasonable unless the child is taught expressly for this purpose. In such a case, training in body articulation and hardware manipulation is probably difficult for the proposed release mechanism.

American Safety is planning procurement of the necessary tooling for manufacturing the child seat design incorporating the proposed release mechanism. The proposed child restraint release mechanism and release procedure is nearly identical to the release of the detachable shoulder harness pin-connector in production for adult restraints in certain cars for three years. The pin and plastic grommet used on the child restraint mechanism proposed are parts produced for several different 1973 model cars. The Company requests the addition of the proposed requirements to MVSS213 to permit it to manufacture and sell the child restraint product.

Gordon M. Bradford Vice President, Corporate Development

enclosures

(Graphics omitted)

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 1

Restraint release mechanism -- This general view shows the similarity to the established pin and connector design now in production for shoulder belts on adult restraints. The two straps above the release mechanism are adjustable upper torso restraints. The release mechanism is affixed to the abdominal pad and the adjustable crotch strap is sewn permanently to the release mechanism connector.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 2

Release mechanism activation -- The initial step in activating the release is as shown. The thumb depresses the abdominal pad and foreshortens the upper torso restraints. The index finger or middle finger holds up the connector while the pin is forced downward.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 3

Release mechanism activation -- The completion of the releasing operation shows the pin and grommet now moved downward into the enlarged opening of the connector where it is completely separated from the crotch strap and connector. A slight forward pull with the finger finishes the release. The connector is then dropped and the abdominal pad with upper torso straps attached is swung upward over the occupant's head for removal when the seat is situated in a normal horizontal attitude.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 4

Release force requirements -- A possible form of measurement device which operates the release mechanism in a manner typical of that employed in actual use is shown. This test would be performed after the child seating system had been subjected to a static load of 1,000 lbs in accordance with MVSS213, S5.1. Following this the release force test would be done in accordance with the proposed procedure S5.3.1(d).

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 5

The position illustrated simulates a nose-down car attitude. The child's full weight is resting on the harness. The adult is about to release the harness.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 6

The adult has pushed upward with her left hand on the abdominal pad. This slackens the crotch strap allowing normal operation of the buckle with her right hand. The load required to release the buckle in this way is no greater than normal.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 7

The buckle has opened and the adult has begun to lower the child. The abdominal pad has slid naturally from her left to her right hand. Her left hand continues to support the abdomen.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 8

The adult's right hand continues to guide the abdominal pad while the left hand continues to support the abdomen. The crotch strap is completely clear of the child.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 9

The child is out of the harness and is now on what would be either the car's dash or front seat back, depending on where the child seat was installed in the vehicle. The harness is clear of the child. No force greater than the child's weight was exerted. There were no "practice" runs after instructions on how to correctly release the child were given to the Mother.

ID: nht74-5.7

DATE: 04/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Charles F. Aycock

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 16, 1974, asking whether courtesy lights for trucks carry the message "clear" and "thanks" are in violation of any Federal regulations. The courtesy lights to which you refer in your letter do not violate any regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. We have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in the Federal Highway Administration for a response in regard to the motor carrier safety regulations.

ALDRIDGE, HARDING & AYCOCK

FEBRUARY 16, 1974

LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER -- CHIEF COUNSEL, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

RE: COURTESY LIGHTS

I represent Tom Paine, of Bovina, Texas, who has developed a lighting system for large tractor-trailer vehicles and a patent is now pending on same.

During the course of developing the product we were advised to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicles to obtain their Certificate of Approval in the 47 states represented by the Association. We are now in the process of filing that application, and on this date I discussed same with Mr. Frank Bergsman, in your office of Standards and Enforcement. Mr. Bergsman suggested that we write to you regarding the legality of the use of the product insofar as any Federal regulations are concerned.

Specifically, the courtesy lights are a set of two lights, one of which is a green light with the word "clear" stamped on the lens. The other light is a blue light with the word "thanks" stamped in the lens. The green light goes on the front of the motor vehicle and when a truck passes the vehicle with the green light on the front the operator of the vehicle being passed simply turns a toggle switch which activates the green light that may readily be seen in the rear view mirrow of the passing trucker. Of course, the purpose of this light is to show the passing trucker that his trailer has cleared the vehicle he is passing. The lens which go on the back of the truck would simply be a 'thank you' device which may also be activated by a simple toggle switch.

I am enclosing a copy of the Application filed in the

2 Patent Office with the describing pictures, which I think will make the purpose of the units more clear. My client was a trucker for many years, and during the course of driving trucks noted that truckers wore out many sets of head lights and clearance lights blinking them off and on as a courtesy gesture to passing vehicles. His product simply is designed to avoid those problems.

Specifically, we cannot find anything in the motor carrier safety regulations as revised, including the amendments, that prohibits the use of said equipment. We were, however, wanting an opinion from your office as to whether or not we would be in violation of any Federal safety regulation if these products were manufactured and placed on motor carrier vehicles.

We do understand that there are certain state jurisdictions that we will have to obtain permission from before selling the product in that state. We will proceed to obtain that jurisdiction, but we want to satisfy ourselves that we were completely in compliance with any Federal statutes or regulations.

Your assistance and opinion would surely be appreciated, and we would look forward to hearing from you as quickly as possible. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

CHARLES F. AYCOCK

ENCL.

Graphics omitted)

THOMAS G. PAINE

THRU: CHARLES F. AYCOCK

COURTESY LIGHT FIXTURE

ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE

A visual signaling system for large trucks passing each other while traveling in the same direction, after nightfall. Each vehicle mounts a pair of signal lamps adjacent the front and rear ends which lamps are illuminated under control of the driver to signal another vehicle or acknowledge receipt of a signal.

This invention relates to signaling systems for relatively large road vehicles such as trailer trucks.

One of the hazards encountered during nighttime motor vehicle travel, is difficulty in judging distances. This problem arises in particular when one vehicle passes another while traveling in the same direction and after passing moves laterally into the right-hand lane from the left-hand passing lane. Before moving back to the right-hand lane, a driver of a passing vehicle should be certain that there is sufficient clearance between his vehicle and the vehicle just passed. Judging such clearance is particularly difficult in connection with relatively long trucks such as tractor cabs with trailers hitched thereto. It is current practice in such vehicle passing situations, for the driver of the vehicle being passed to momentarily turn on the high beams of the headlamps which are reflected in the rear view mirror of the passing vehicle in order to signify to the driver that his vehicle has cleared the front end of the vehicle being passed. It is therefore an important object of the present invention to provide a signaling system to more positively and reliably take care of the foregoing situation in which the drivers of two vehicles wish to communicate with each other.

In accordance with the present invention, large vehicles such as elongated trucks are provided with a pair of signal lamps adjacent the front and rear ends thereof, said lamps being provided with bulb covers of different colors having faces on which a message is made visible by illumination of the lamp. Illumination of the lamp adjacent the front end is effected under control of the vehicle driver within the cab in order to signal the driver of a passing vehicle that his vehicle has cleared the front end of the vehicle being passed. The lamp mounted adjacent the front end may accordingly bear the letters "Clear" that become visible to the driver in a passing vehicle through the rear view mirror when the lamp is illuminated. The rear end mounted signal lamp, on the other hand, is provided with lattering such as "Thanks" so that the driver of the passing vehicle may acknowledge receipt of the "Clear signal by illuminating the rear mounted lamp. The illumination produced by the two lamps is of different colors so that the messages may be readily distinguished from each other at a glance.

These together with other objects and advantages which will become subsequently apparent reside in the details of construction and operation as more fully hereinafter described and claimed, reference being had to the accompanying drawings forming a part hereof, wherein like numerals refer to like parts throughout.

Figure 1 is a simplified top plan view of a pair of road vehicles in a passing situation, the vehicles being provided with the signaling system of the present invention.

Figure 2 is a perspective view illustrating one of the signal lamps associated with the system of the present invention.

Figure 3 is a perspective view illustrating the other of the lamps associated with the signaling system.

Figure 4 is a longitudinal sectional view through one of the lamps.

Figure 5 is a simplified electrical circuit diagram corresponding to the system of the present invention.

Referring now to the drawings in detail, Figure 1 illustrates a typical two lane road generally referred to by reference numeral 10 on which vehicles travel in the same direction. A vehicle generally referred to by reference numeral 12 traveling in the right-hand lane is accordingly shown being passed by another vehicle generally referred to by reference numeral 14 traveling in the same direction in the left-hand or passing lane. As is well known, the passing lane is only used during the passing maneuver and the passing vehicle will return to the right-hand traveling lane after passing another vehicle, with sufficient clearance. Figure 1 illustrates this passing situation wherein the passing vehicle has cleared the vehicle 12 being passed.

The system of the present invention is shown installed on relatively long vehicles which include, for example, a tractor cab 16 at the front end to which a trailer 18 is hitched. Each vehicle mounts a pair of signal lamps including a signal lamp 20 mounted adjacent the front end of the vehicle and a signal lamp 22 mounted adjacent the rear end of the vehicle. When the passing vehicle 14 has cleared the vehicle 12, as shown in Figure 1, the driver of the vehicle 12 will cause signal lamp 20 thereon to be illuminated producing illumination 24 emitted forwardly therefrom, which will be observed by the driver of the passing vehicle 14 through the rear view mirror. This signal will then be acknowledged by the driver of the vehicle 14 by causing the rear mounted signal lamp 22 to be illuminated producing illumination 26 emitted rearwardly therefrom.

Each of the signal lamps 20 and 22 is similar in construction and operation to each other except for the signaling indicia and color of it light transmitting cover 28 as shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4. Each lamp includes a relatively rigid base 30 adapted to be fixedly mounted on the vehicle. The base includes a relatively flat, rectangular reflective portion 32 from which a peripheral flange 34 extends rearwardly terminating in a seating rim 36 adapted to abut the surface of the vehicle. Extending from the front face 38 of the cover 28, is a peripheral rim 40. The rim 40 of the cover is provided with a plurality of spaced projections 42 adapted to be snapped into retainer openings 44 formed in the flange portion 34 of the base 30. A sealing gasket 46 is sandwiched between the rims 36 and 40 of the base and cover, when the cover is assembled on the base as shown in Figure 4. Ventilation holes 48 are formed in the flat reflective portion of the base so as to permit dissipation of heat generated within the space 50 enclosed by the cover.

A pair of incandescent bulb assemblies 52 are mounted on the reflective portion 32 of the base within the space 50 in order to emit illumination through the colored cover 28 on which the signal indicia is mounted as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Electrical conductors extend from the bulb assemblies 52 through a central opening in the base lined by a nonconductive grommet 54.

As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the indicia mounted on the cover of lamp 22 is in the form of letters spelling "Clear" in order to signify that a passing vehicle has sufficiently cleared another vehicle as shown in Figure 1. The lamp 20 on the other hand is provided with indicia on its cover which spells "Thanks" thereby acknowledging receipt of the "Clear" signal. The lamps may be selectively controlled by the driver in a vehicle from the cab by means of switches 56 and 58 as shown in Figure 5 which thereby complete parallel lighting circuits through the associated lamps connected, for example, to the vehicle battery 60.

The foregoing is considered as illustrative only of the principles of the invention. Further, since numerous modifications and changes will readily occur to those skilled in the art, it is not desired to limit the invention to the exact construction and operation shown and described, and accordingly all suitable modifications and equivalents may be resorted to, falling within the scope of the invention.

What is claimed as new is as follows:

1. In combination with an elongated, road vehicle having front and rear ends, a signaling system comprising, a pair of lamps respectively mounted adjacent the front and rear ends of the vehicle, and means for selectively illuminating said lamps to signal another vehicle traveling in the same direction, the lamp on the front end bearing indicin signifying clearance in the direction of travel and the lamp on the rear end bearing acknowledgment indicia.

2. The combination of claim 1 wherein said lamps respectively include covers of different colors.

3. The combination of claim 2 wherein each of said lamps includes a relatively rigid base having a substantially flat reflective surface and a rim portion provided with retainer openings, each of said covers having a peripheral flange provided with projections received within said retainer openings, and incandescent bulb means mounted on the reflective surface enclosed within the cover.

4. The combination of claim 1 wherein each of said lamps includes a relatively rigid base having a substantially flat reflective surface and a rim portion provided with retainer openings, a cover having a peripheral flange provided with projections received within said retainer openings, and incandescent bulb means mounted on the reflective surface enclosed within the cover.

5. The combination of claim 4 wherein the cover for the lamp adjacent the front end is colored green as background for the indicin "clear", while the cover for the lamp on the rear end is colored blue as background for the indicia "thanks".

6. The combination of claim 1 wherein said lamps include light transmitting covers respectively colored green and blue, the indicia on the cover for the front end mounted lamp reading "clear" while the indicia on the cover for the rear end mounted lamp reading "thanks".

ID: 16008-1.pja

Mr. Jay Reese
Engineering Manager
Fontaine Specialized
P.O. Box 289
5398 U. S. Highway 11
Springville, AL 35146

Dear Mr. Reese:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether four different trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. In some cases they are excluded, and in others they are not and a guard would be required. Each trailer design is addressed separately below, with reference to the drawings you enclosed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996, at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are wheels back vehicles, low chassis vehicles and special purpose vehicles.

Design 1: Drawing #BTS-5104 Flatbed

You believe that this vehicle meets the description of an excluded wheels-back vehicle. Wheels-back vehicles are excluded by S3 of Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection. The term is defined in S4 as a "trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of [the tire] on that axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle."

The drawing you enclosed of the trailer your company manufactures shows that the rear surface of the tires on that axle is within 305 mm of the rear extremity. Assuming the axle is "permanently fixed," this is a wheels back vehicle, and no guard is required.

Design 2: Drawing BTS-4748 Hydraulically operated dovetail with flipunder approach plate

You believe this flatbed trailer meets the definition of a special purpose vehicle. The vehicle has an 8 foot long tail section that tilts down at a 15 degree angle to permit loading of wheeled vehicles. At the rear of the section is depicted a triangular full width approach plate that, during loading, extends farther rearward and downward, bridging the gap between the tail section and the ground. Its purpose is to allow construction equipment to transition from the ground up onto the bed without encountering the "bump" of the edge of the tailpiece. During transit, this approach plate folds under the tail section and fits into an indentation in the bottom of the chassis. The forwardmost edge of the plate locks into position on the bottom of the chassis. In this position, the lower surface of the approach plate is 22 inches above the ground, and the rear face of the vehicle presents a vertical surface from 22 to 37 inches above the ground.

A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ Again, the approach plate is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied be the rear underride guard. Therefore, the approach plate would have to be considered work-performing equipment for the trailer to be excluded.

There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971. Taken together, NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Approach plates do not perform work in this sense because they merely form a ramp between the ground and the vehicle driving onto the tilt bed.⁽²⁾ Therefore, the approach plate is not work-performing equipment and the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle.

We now turn to the question of whether your trailer is excluded as a low chassis vehicle. Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your vehicle that may meet these configuration requirements is the rear edge of the folded approach plate itself, so the question becomes whether the approach plate is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicle. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure."

To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit.

To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load.

Applying these principles to your approach plate, we conclude that it is part of the chassis. The folded approach plate conforms with the outline of the underside of the trailer bed, maintaining a constant bed thickness and helping to define the outline of the bed. Your approach plate is hinged along the entire rear of the trailer and, when folded, locks at its forward edge into a place fitted for it on the underside of the chassis. NHTSA considers the approach plate on your trailer to be "locked" into the frame of the vehicle sufficiently that it is considered integral with it, as one unit, and therefore a part of the frame structure. By contributing to the structural integrity of these frame members, NHTSA considers the approach plate to be supporting load. Therefore, the approach plate is part of the chassis, and the trailer is a low chassis vehicle, excluded from the underride guard requirements.

Design 3: Drawing #BTS 5110 Fixed dovetail with flipover approach plate

This trailer is similar to design 2, except that the downward-tilted dovetail section is not hydraulically operated, but attaches rigidly to the flatbed. The approach plates on this design are not full-width, and they swing up instead of down and lie on top of the dovetail when the vehicle is in motion. The rear face of the dovetail itself appears to meet the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3.

NHTSA considers the dovetail section to be an integral extension of the main chassis frame members, and therefore the vehicle is excluded as a low chassis vehicle, according to the analysis in Design 2.

Design 4: Drawing BTS-2844 Pusher bumper

This vehicle, which you state is for off-road use, is a flatbed trailer with a lower chassis surface that is 31 inches above the ground. There is a "pusher bumper" cantilevered rearward from the rear underside of the trailer. It extends slightly behind the rear of the chassis and its lower surface is 17 inches from the ground. The pusher bumper is used to push the vehicle out of the soft ground in the oilfields. Your drawing notes that "pusher bumper guard assy supplied by customer." You stated that this trailer falls under the special purpose vehicle exclusion, meaning that you regard the pusher bumper as work-performing equipment.

Your questions raises two main issues: (1) whether the bumper is "work-performing" equipment, and (2) whether the "off-road" nature of your trailer excludes it from our definition of a "motor vehicle." Both of these issues are addressed below.

The pusher bumper is not work-performing equipment. As explained in the above discussion of Design 2, "work-performing"equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Pusher bumpers do not themselves actively exert force, but are instead passively pushed against by other equipment. Therefore, the pusher bumper is not work-performing equipment and the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. In fact, it appears that you currently consider the pusher bumper to be an underride guard. Your diagram refers to it as a "guard assy" and it appears to meet the configuration requirements for an underride guard.

Many underride guards may perform passive pushing or holding functions on occasion. For example, many trailers use their guards to secure the trailer at a loading dock using a dock locking device that holds the underride guard. When performing this function, these guards are subjected to forces in the forward-aft direction, although the forces may be less than a pusher bumper experiences. To say that all these guards are work-performing equipment would mean that many, if not most, standard van-type trailers would be excluded; clearly not what the agency intended by its special purpose vehicle exclusion.

Your diagram stated that the pusher bumper is "supplied by" the customer. Regardless of who supplies it, you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for installing a device that will enable you to certify that your trailer complies with Standards No. 223 and 224.⁽³⁾

You state that "the trailer is for off-road use in the oil field business." This raises the possibility that it is not a motor vehicle subject to our laws. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 USC  30102(a)(6).

Whether NHTSA considers a piece of oilfield equipment to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

If the trailers are specially designed for use in the oilfields and their use of the roads is infrequent and incidental to their primary mission in the oilfield, then they are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition and our regulations would not apply to them. However, we are unable to make that determination based on the very few statements in your letter.

If your Design 4 trailer is not excluded, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures: Parts 555, 512
ref:224
d.5/22/98

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

2. To the extent that this interpretation is inconsistent with interpretation letters to Mr. Thomas M. Joyce and Mr. R. H. Anderson of Landoll Corporation, interpreting the frame rails of tilt bed trailers as work-performing equipment, those prior interpretations are superceded. The basic answer in those letters did not depend on this point, and the analysis in this letter is more thorough.

3. NHTSA's regulations do not control modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. However, the Federal Highway Administration's regulations may require compliant guards to be maintained after the vehicle is sold.

ID: 1985-02.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Frederick B. Locker, Esq. -- Locker, Greenberg and Brainin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Frederick B. Locker, Esq. Locker Greenberg & Brainin, Esq. One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10001

This responds to your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a belt which is attached to and is not easily removed from a movable shield is an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c), and may therefore be attached when the restraint is tested in test configuration II of Standard No. 213. Such a belt is an integral prt of the movable shield and may attached during test configuration II.

Your client, Collier-Keyworth, has designed a child restraint that integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and the movable shield in a continuous connection, with the bottom of the crotch strap webbing intended to be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is positioned in the restraint. As described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed therewith, the crotch strap portion of the webbing is considered an integral part of the movable shield, because it is formed as a unit with that shield. Hence, section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213 allows you to attach the crotch strap portion of the webbing to the base of the seat during configuration II testing.

I suggest, however, that Collier-Keyworth incorporate into the restraint some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled into the base of the seat. This suggestion is based on past experience with child restraints which have both a movable shield and a crotch strap which must be buckled to adequately protect the child.

In the late 1970's there were several child restraint designs which had a crotch strap permanently attached to the base of the seat and a movable shield which lowered in front of the child. The designers of these restraints intended that the crotch strap be attached to the shield to properly restain the child. However, such restraints were often misused by consumers who did not attach the crotch strap to the shield. NHTSA was concerned that in the event of a crash, a child occupant would submarine partly or completely out of restraints whose crotch straps were not fastened to the shield.

When amended Standard No. 215 was being promulgated, the agency decided to include some procedure for testing those child restraints whose design could lead a parent to believe that a child was adequately protected when the restraint was, in fact, being misused. In the case of restraints with movable shields, the agency believed that some parents would conclude that a child was protected by the restraint simply by lowering the movable shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. Test configuration II in Standard No. 213 was intended to address this situation, by attempting to ensure that child restraint designs which would likely be misused would afford some minimal level of protection when they were misused. To achieve this end, test configuration II requires that child restraints with a movable shield in front of the child be tested in a 20 mile per hour crash with the shield in front of the test dummy, but without attaching any belts which are not an integral part of the shield.

Many previous interpretations of this standard explained that section S6.1.2.3.1(c) allows belts which are an integral part of the movable shield to be attached during configuration II testing because the agency believed that the need to buckle such belts would be more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. That is, a parent would be less likely to conclude that the child was adequately protected if the integral belt was not buckled.

During 1980, the manufacturers of the restraints with movable shields to which crotch straps were to be attached asked NHTSA if the crotch straps could be attached to the shield during configuration II testing if the movable shield were spring-loaded so that it would not stay in front of the child unless the crotch strap were attached. The agency concluded that the rationale for not allowing the nonintegral crotch strap to be fastened during configuration II testing would not apply if the crotch strap were to be fastened to spring-loaded movable shields. Unless these crotch straps were attached, there would be nothing in front of the child to restrain him or her in the event of a crash. Therefore, NHTSA decided it was unlikely that a parent would conclude that a child would be adequately protected without attaching these crotch straps, and permitted spring-loaded movable shields to attach nonintegral crotch straps during configuration II testing under Standard No. 213.

The shield on the Collier-Keyworth child restraint is not spring-loaded and thus would remain in front of an occupant regardless of whether the crotch strap is fastened. Our examination of the photographs and materials enclosed with your letter suggests that it is possible a parent might conclude that a child was adequately protected simply by lowering the shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. For instance, Figure 5 of Exhibit B shows the shield lowered and staying in place without buckling the crotch strap. I am sure that Collier-Keyworth wants to minimize the chances of this sort of misuse occurring, and will want to incorporate some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled. Such a means could be spring-loading the movable shield, as would be required if the crotch strap were not an integral part of the shield, or could be a "warning" label on the front of the shield explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap.

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

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure Via Express Mail

April 12, 1985

Steve Kratzke, Esq. U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administation Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 7th Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Collier-Keyworth Safe & Sound II Car Seat

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

We represent Collier-Keyworth Company with regard to the above referenced product.

As per our previous telephone conversations, we are writing in order to obtain clarification from your office regarding the interpretation of Section S 6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213) and its applicability to the above referenced product.

49 CFR 571.213 S6.1.2.3.1(c) specifically provides in appropriate part as follows:

"For a child's restraint's system with fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2 which is being tested under the conditions of test configuration II do not attach any of the child restraint belts unless there are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface." (Emphasis supplied).

We understand that standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problems and misuse of child restraints which primarily involves failure to attach buckles and latches, and that to insure that children placed in child restraints are afforded adequate protection, notwithstanding such use, the aforementioned sections of the standard provide that the belts are to be attached to restraining shield during testing only if they are "integral" parts of the shield.

The common English definition of "integral" is "formed as a unit with another part".

We believe that a belt which is attached and not easily removed from the shield is an integral part of the shield since the belt is intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and is not subject to the types of misuse which the standard intended to minimize.

Our client continually strives to design, manufacture and produce child restraint systems which provide the utmost protection for a child placed in them and eliminate foreseeable misuse of the product. To this end the Safe & Sound II has been developed. The Safe & Sound II consists of a tubular steel frame, a padded molded plastic shell, one piece molded plastic base capable of adjustment for reclined positioning and a harness/shield restraint. The character of the product can be seen from the enclosed instructions and photographs.

The product can be used as a rear facing system for infants and as an upright forward facing system for children 20-40 lbs. Thus, a single purchase enables a consumer to effectively provide protection for his child from birth through 40 lbs. in weight.

The Safe & Sound II Restraint System integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and impact shield in a continuous connection. The strapping together with a molded plastic unit form a continuous loop when the crotch strap is buckled. This arrangement provides a variety of advantages as follows:

1. The system provides a secure 5 point harness system and guarantees that the occupant will be properly positioned within the system in the event of an accident.

2. A large padded surface on the impact shield located at the lower torso area provides for maximum distribution of impact forces over a large an area as possible. This shield is also designed to eliminate the need for separate lap belt assembly and avoid the roping, twisting and cutting into the pelvic areas associated with lap belts. Additionally the shields in connection with the straps form a continuous secure loop.

3. The belt of the upper torso restraint are routed from the back support surface of the system and through the impact shield so that at all points there is assurance that the belts will "lie flat".

4. This child restraint system minimizes the potential for misuse and provides for a simple one-step placement of the child into a secure restraint system. A user need only lift the shield, with its integrated straps, place in the child in the system close the shield and snap the safety buckle to the base of the shield.

For your better understanding and reference, I have enclosed a set of instructions for the Safe & Sound II (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Additionally, photographs labeled Figure 1 through 9 have been attached to this letter as Exhibit B. The instructions will provide you with a full understanding of the capability of the product and the photographs indicate that the straps, movable shield, and seat are fully integrated with one another.

The photographs indicate the following:

Figure 1 shows the restraint system from a forward view with a buckle attached.

Figure 2 shows the buckle unattached and the shield moved upwards as would be the case prior to the placement of a child within the system.

Figure 3 shows the manner in which the strap forms an unbroken loop around the buckle and the manner in which the buckle snaps to the recessed based clip.

Figure 4 indicates the manner in which the straps flow continuously through the rear seat support and the movable shield assuring that they "lie flat". Figure 5 shows the buckle portion of the strap as positioned when unattached.

Figure 6 provides a close-up view of the manner in which the buckle secures into the seat base. The belt buckles much like an ordinary seat belt.

Figure 7 indicates that the straps are securely attached to the movable shield. See also Figure 4.

Figure 8 shows a view of the bottom portion of the shield showing that even when the straps are pulled upward they are incapable of separating from the shield since a continuous loop and buckle prevent their detachment.

Figure 9 shows the rear view of the restraint system and indicates the manner in which the straps follow through the rear plastic molded back support and are secured around the tubular steel frame. You should note the very end of the strap has a metal clamped piece placed around it to inhibit removal of the strap through the buckle.

We believe that this product incorporates child restraint belts which are "an integral part" of the fixed seat and the movable shield portion of the unit.

Therefore, it is our opinion that the buckle should be attached under the conditions of test configuration II of the Standard.

We would appreciate your opinion regarding this product.

If you have any questions, or wish to discuss any item in greater detail, please do not hesitate to call. As previously discussed, I am prepared to visit you in Washington with a sample of the Safe & Sound II if you deem it necessary. We look forward to your prompt response.

Very truly yours, LOCKER GREENBERG & BRAININ, P.C. BY Frederick B. Locker FBL:dd cc: Mr. James R. Fuller

ID: nht88-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager, Regulatory Affairs MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Ms. Bakker:

This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you asked about a situation in which a car line (the Mitsubishi Galant) was designated as a high theft lin e beginning in the 1987 model year, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 542. Mitsubishi applied for and received an exemption from the Parking requirements of the theft prevention standard because of a standard equipment antitheft device to be i nstalled in the Galant. This exemption, issued pursuant to Part 543, applied beginning in the 1987, model year.

For the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and a new nameplate was assigned to the line. It is now called the Galant Sigma. Additionally, Mitsubishi plans to introduce a new car line in the 1989 model year called the Galant. Thi s line is, according to your letter, completely redesigned from the 1987 line that was called the Galant, bears no resemblance to the Galant Sigma, and will cost less than either the Galant Sigma or the 1987 line called Galant.

You posed the following questions:

1. Should a new theft determination be made for both the Galant Sigma and the redesigned Galant?

ANSWER: No. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 198J Galant line and the Galant Sigma is a new model within the Galant line.

As a general matter, section 601(2) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021(2)) defines the term "line" as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design." As noted in your letter, the agency uses the same language to define the term "line" in 5541.4. This language treats groups of motor vehicles as a continuation of an existing line if the group s have the same name and are similar in construction or design. We have applied this language in the following manner.

With respect to the redesigned Galant, I addressed such a question in my March 6, 1987 letter to Mr. Jeffrey Link (copy enclosed) as follows:

The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles Here continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same n ame as previous groups of vehicles here nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the pre decessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles.

The redesigned Galant obviously has the same name as the 1987 model year Galant. Additionally, the redesigned Galant is similar in construction and design to the 1987 Galant, notwithstanding the new sheet metal and different drivetrains. Accordingly, we believe that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line. This means that the redesigned Galant is subject to the previous high theft determination for the Galant line.

With respect to the Galant Sigma, we conclude that this is a new model within the Galant line, not a new line. In our preamble to the insurer reporting requirements in 49 CFR Part 544, we discussed the application of the terms "model, make, and line" as follows:

"Make" refers to the general name used by the vehicle manufacturer. For example, Dodge, Ford, and Pontiac are makes of vehicles. "Line" refers to the nameplate assigned by the manufacturer to a group of vehicle models of the same make. For example, Dodge Charger, Ford Thunderbird, and Pontiac 6000 are lines of vehicles. "Model" refers to a specific grouping of similar vehicles within a line. For example, the Dodge Charger 2.2 2-door, Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and Pontiac 6000 LE 4-door are models. 5 2 PR 59, at 65; January 2, 1987.

In general, if a manufacturer calls a group of vehicles by the same general name as it applies to another group, but adds a further description to that name (e.g., Honda Civic CRX, Volkswagen Golf GTI, and Porsche 911 Carrera), we presume that the furthe r description indicates a unique model within that line. This presumption can be overcome only if the vehicle with the further description in its name is not "similar in construction or design." Thus, we have determined, for example, that the Honda Civic CRX is simply a model within the Civic line, notwithstanding the fact that its driveline and body styling are different from all other Honda Civic models. It is similar in construction or design (all are front-wheel drive passenger cars) and bears the s ame name as other Civics.

On the other hand, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is not considered a model within your Colt/Mirage line. The Station Wagon bears the same name as other Colt/Mirage models. However, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is classified as a multipurpose passenger v ehicle, while the other Colt/Mirage models are passenger cars. This difference is substantial enough that the vehicles are not "similar" in construction or design.

In the case of the Galant Sigma, we agree that it is not identical in construction or design to the other redesigned Galant models. However, it is similar in construction and design to the other Galant models, since all are front-wheel drive passenger ca rs. Hence, the Galant Sigma is simply a model within the Galant line.

2. If a new high theft determination should not be made for the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma, which of the vehicles is designated as high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the old Galant be used?

ANSWER: As explained above, the Galant Sigma is not a separate car line, but is simply a model within the Galant line. The redesigned Galant line is a continuation of the older Galant line. Thus, the previous high theft determination applies to all model s in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma.

The exemption that was granted to the older Galant line can be used for the redesigned Galant line if the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, includi ng the Galant Sigma. If the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is not installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, you would be required to mark all cars in the redesigned Galant line to conform t o Part 541.

3. If one or both the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma are newly designated as high theft lines, can the exemption granted for the Galant in the 1987 model year be used for either or both car lines, or would the exemption be invalidated because of the change in body style?

ANSWER: Because the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is just a model within the redesigned Galant line, as explained above, the exemption granted under Part 543 to the 1987 Galant line continues in full eff ect for the redesigned Galant line. Your company has the option of installing anti-theft devices as standard equipment in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma, in accordance with the 1987 exemption, or marking all major parts in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, in accordance with Part 541.

4. If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with Part 541, can installation of the anti-theft device be discontinued at any time?

ANSWER: Yes. Exemptions are granted only, among other things, after a determination has been made that the line in question is a high theft line that should be listed in Appendix A of Part 541. Section 541. 3 states that the parts marking requirements of Part 541 apply to all lines listed in Appendix A. Section 541. 5 requires each major part that is original equipment on a line designated as high theft to be marked with certain information. Section 541.6 requires each replacement major part for high th eft lines to be marked with certain information. Thus, each line listed in Appendix A must comply with the requirements of sections 541.5 and 541.6.

There is a single exception to this requirement. Part 543 sets forth procedures by which a line that has been determined to be a high theft line can be exempted from the marking requirements of Part 541. To be eligible for an exemption under Part 543, an antitheft device must be installed as standard equipment in all cars in the line. The lines that have been granted exemptions under Part 543 are listed in a special subset of Appendix A, Appendix A-1,. Men a manufacturer gets an exemption for a line und er Part 543, it is given two options to comply with the requirements of Part 541. First, the manufacturer can install the antitheft device that was the subject of the exemption proceeding under Part 543 as standard equipment on all cars in that line, in accordance with the terms of the exemption. However, the manufacturer is not required by Part 543 or any other provision to install standard equipment antitheft devices in that line. If the manufacturer chooses not to use the antitheft device exemption f or that line, the manufacturer must choose the second option - that is, marking the major parts of every car in the line, in accordance with 5541.5, and marking the replacement major parts for that line; in accordance with 5541.6. If a manufacturer has c omplied with both of these options in a particular model year, by marking every vehicle and every covered major replacement part for a line and by installing an antitheft device that was the subject of a Part 543 exemption proceeding in every marked vehi cle, as posted in your example the manufacturer is free to discontinue either, but not both of the courses of action at any point during the model year. When the manufacturer chooses to discontinue either course of action for even a single vehicle in the high theft line it is then required to follow the other course of action until the end of the model year in question.

Please note that this choice exists only if the manufacturer has complied fully with the requirements of Part 541.5 and Part 541.6 and with the terms of the exemption granted under Part 543. If some vehicles in a line or some of the replacement major par ts were not marked in accordance with Part 541, the manufacturer must install the antitheft device that was the subject of the Part 543 proceeding in all vehicles in that line for the rest of the model year. When the next model year for the subject line begins, the manufacturer is permitted to discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and to comply with the requirements of Part 541 for that line in the new model year. However, for any particular model year, each of a manufacturer's lines must fully comply with either the requirements of Part 541 or the exemption granted under Part 543.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, we would like to request an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.

A high theft determination was made for the Mitsubishi car line designated Galant beginning in the 1987 model year. Within this car line was one body style designated Galant. Subsequent to the high theft determination, an exemption from the parts making requirements was granted and an antitheft device was installed on the Galant for the 1987 model year. Additionally, after the exemption was granted, the vehicles were still labeled in accordance with the parts marking requirements.

Beginning with the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and given a new nameplate, Galant E. This model is equipped with an antitheft device and is also labeled. In addition to the Galant E introduced in the 1988 model year, a new model designated Galant will be introduced as a 1989 model year vehicle in early 1988. This model is completely redesigned from the original Galant model, hears no resemblance to the Galant E, and falls into a lower price class than either the original Galant or the Galant E. Enclosed are sales brochures which show the design differences between these models.

Under the provisions of 5414, definitions, the difference in body style between the Galant and Galant E would separate each model into separate car lines. Should a new theft determination be made for both car lines? If not, which vehicle would be designa ted high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the Galant be used?

If one or both car lines are newly designated as high theft, can the exemption granted for the Galant beginning in the 1987 model year be used for either/or both car lines or would the exemption be invalidated due to the change in body style 7.

If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with the parts marking requirements, can installation of the antitheft device be discontinued at any time?

We look forward to your expedited response. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager Regulatory Affairs

DB/nas Enclosure

cc: Ms. B. Kurtz, Office of Market Incentives

Ms. J. Schraff, Office of Market Incentives

ID: nht73-2.17

DATE: 11/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1973, in which you asked that we review an enclosed opinion by the California Attorney General on the question of preemption of California motor vehicle regulations by Federal standards. The opinion concluded that the California requirement that motorcycles be wired so that their headlamps are lit whenever their engines are running was not preempted. This conclusion was contrary to the position taken in an NHTSA letter of November 14, 1972, to Mr. Edward Kearney.

We adhere to the position stated in the November 14, 1972, letter that the California requirement is preempted, and consider the legal opinion by the California Attorney General to be an erroneous view of the Federal law.

The opinion properly viewed the question as turning on the application of the phrase in @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), "applicable to the same aspect of performance." If the Federal standard (Standard No. 108, 49 CFR 571.108) covers a given aspect of performance, any State requirement must be identical to it. The California opinion relied on the language in the main opinion of one of the Super Lite cases, Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (1969), that preemption should be "narrowly construed", and went on to find that since Standard 108 does not specifically address the matter of wiring the headlamps when the engine is running, that aspect of performance is not covered by the standard and the California law is valid.

More important, however, than the nebulous concept of whether preemption is "narrowly" construed (a concept with which Judge Friendly, concurring in Chrysler, did not agree) is the point made at the end of the main opinion, that the administering Federal agency was supporting the State's position regarding the scope of the Federal regulation. The Court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court in Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 276 (1969):

[W]hen construing an administrative regulation,'a court must necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt. . . .[T]he ultimate criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'

In this case the situation is the opposite of that in the Super Lite cases. The NHTSA's position is that the standard does cover the aspect of performance in question. As stated in the NHTSA letter of November 14, 1972, the standard "establishes requirements for motorcycle headlighting, along with special wiring requirements for motorcycles and other vehicles." It is the intent of the NHTSA that its requirements for headlamp performance, configuration, and wiring cover all aspects of performance directly involving headlamps, and thus preempt any non-identical State Standards relating to headlamps.

The implication of the California opinion is that any mode of design or performance that is not expressly dealt with in the Federal standard is open to regulation by the States. Such a position is impractical, where the agency's intent is to have a comprehensive, uniform regulation in a given area. In order to preempt the field it would be necessary for a Federal agency to anticipate the imaginative regulatory impulses of future State agencies or legislatures and include in a standard such provisions as, "It is not required that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running." Congress clearly intended the NHTSA to establish a single set of uniform standards to which manufacturers must comply, and that intent would tend to be defeated by the position taken in the California opinion. Federal regulation has a negative as well as a positive aspect: in determining that there should be certain requirements in an area, we also are deciding against imposing others. The only way to effectuate such a decision is to declare, as we have done here, that our regulation is intended to be exclusive, and to describe as necessary its outer limits.

The California opinion's factual comparison with the Super Lite cases is also inapt. The Super Lite itself was a new type of lighting equipment, a supplementary lamp, for which Standard 108 contained no requirements. Headlamps, by contrast, are comprehensively regulated by the standard.

For these reasons, we conclude that the California requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running is preempted by Standard 108, and void.

While we feel constrained by law to so conclude, I want you to know that I have instructed my staff to consider the merit of amending the Federal lighting standard to include the California requirement in 108.

Sincerely,

October 1, 1973

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, U. S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

A copy of Mr. Douglas Toms' letter of November 14, 1972, to Mr. Edward Kearney expressing his opinion that a recently passed California law relative to motorcycle headlamps was preempted by Federal Standard 108, was received by this Department on November 20, 1972.

The opinion expressed by Mr. Toms prompted a request by this Department to the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California for an opinion on the question of federal preemption as related to this recently enacted statute. A copy of the Attorney General's Opinion on this matter is enclosed for your review.

You will notice that the Attorney General's Opinion is not in accord with that expressed by Mr. Toms; therefore, we are proceeding on the premise that all motorcycles first manufactured and registered in California after January 1, 1975, will be required to meet these headlamp requirements.

After your review of the enclosed material, I would appreciate your comments on this very important issue.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

W. PUDINSKI Commissioner--Dept. of California Highway Patrol

Enclosure

cc: Senator Donald L. Grunsky; Edward Kearney

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

SAN FRANCISCO

September 13, 1973

W. Pudinski, Commissioner-- Department of California Highway Patrol

Dear Commissioner Pudinski:

You have requested the opinion of this office on the question of whether California Vehicle Code sections 25650.5 and 24253 are pre-empted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

We conclude that these Vehicle Code provisions are not pre-empted by that Federal Act.

Our conclusion is based upon the following analysis:

In 1966 the Federal Government assumed a paramount role in the field of motor vehicle safety with the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq. (hereafter Federal Act). Basically this Act establishes a comprehensive system for the formulation and implementation of safety standards for the performance and equipment of new motor vehicles.

The enactment of such an extensive federal law naturally gave rise to the question of whether State legislation in the same field was pre-empted. n1E. g., see Chrysler Corporation v. Rhodes, 416 F.2d 319 (1969); Chrysler Corporation v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (1969).

n1 See U.S. Const. art. VI, @ 2, the so-called Supremacy Clause.

Congress anticipated the question in their enactment of a provision in the Federal Act expressly dealing with issue of pre-emption, 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d). It provides: "(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard."

This pre-emption provision (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)) was succinctly summarized by the United States Court of Appeals in Chrysler Corporation v. Tofany, supra, 419 F.2d 499 (1969). In that case the Court declared:

"This provision indicates that state regulation of an item of motor vehicle equipment will be preempted only if the following factors appear in combination: (1) a federal standard in effect which covers that item of equipment; (2) a state safety standard . . . for the item which is not identical to the federal standard; and (3) application of the state and federal regulations to 'the same aspect of performance' of the item of equipment." 419 F.2d at 506.

In connection with the present inquiry, the question of federal pre-emption has arisen with respect to two provisions in the State Vehicle Code: Vehicle Code section 25650.5 (relating to the activation of motorcycle headlights) and Vehicle Code section 24253 (relating to the duration of tail lamp illumination). It is noted that there are federal standards issued pursuant to the Federal Act which are (1) applicable to the same "items of equipment" (viz., motor cycle headlights and tail lamps); and (2) which are "not identical" to the State regulations. Hence in determining whether or not the State regulations are preempted, the specific question here is whether the State and federal regulations apply to "the same aspect of performance" of these specified items of equipment. In making this determination, it would be appropriate to first ascertain whether the phrase "same aspect of performance" is to be given a narrow or broad construction; i.e., whether the pre-emptive effect of the Federal Act is to be narrowly or broadly applied.

This specific point was considered by the United States Court of Appeals in Chrysler Corporation v. Tofanv, supra, 419 F.2d 499. In evaluating Congressional intent with respect to the Federal Act's pre-emptive effect, the Court noted that "uniformity through national standards" was merely "a secondary objective." 419 F.2d at 511. On the other hand, the Court declared that "the clear expression of purpose in section 1381 and other evidence of legislative intent indicate that the reduction of traffic accidents was the overriding concern of Congress. We think that these expressions of legislative purpose should govern our assessment of the preemptive effect of the Act and the standards issued under it." 419 F.2d at 508. (See also Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. Lowery, 452 F.2d 431, 438 (1971), where the Court reiterates this conclusion.) Accordingly, the Court determined that "the 'aspect of performance' language in the preemption section of the Act must be construed narrowly." 419 F.2d at 510. The Court further stated: "If traffic safety is furthered by a traditional type of state regulation under the police power, . . . a narrow construction of the preemptive effect of the federal Act and [the standards issued pursuant thereto] is required." 419 F.2d at 511. n2.

n2 See Allway Taxi, Inc. v. City of New York, 340 F.Supp. 1120, 1124 (1972), which cites Chrysler Corporation v. Tofanv, supra, for the proposition that "[w]here exercise of the local police power serves the purpose of a federal Act, the preemptive effect of that Act should be narrowly construed." See also Chrysler Corporation v. Rhodes, supra, 416 F.2d 319, 324, n. 8 (1969).

Thus in view of the judicial constraint upon the scope of the Federal Act's pre-emption provisions, it is apparent that the states are still afforded substantial leeway in the enactment of vehicle equipment safety regulations.

In this light we now compare the State statutes in question with the pertinent federal standards issued pursuant to the Federal Act to determine if they cover the "same aspect of performance."

With respect to motorcycle headlamps:

(1) State Law

Vehicle Code section 25650.5 provides that after January 1, 1975, all motorcycle headlamps shall "automatically turn on when the engine of the motorcycle is started and which remain lighted as long as the engine is running."

(2) Federal Standards

The standard pertinent to motorcycle headlamps is found in 49 CFR section 571.108, Standard 108, subsection S4.5.7(b). This standard provides: "When the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps and side marker lamps shall also be activated."

In comparing these two provisions, it can be seen that the State law relates to the mechanism or event of activation and duration of activation of the headlamps. The federal standard, on the other hand, is unconcerned with these factors. It merely constitutes a designation of other lamps whose activation is to accompany the activation of headlights. It would appear reasonable to conclude that these two provisions apply to different aspects of performance of motorcycle headlamps and that, accordingly, the State provision is not pre-empted. As will be seen, our conclusion is the same as to State law regulating taillamps.

With respect to taillamps:

(1) State Law

Vehicle Code section 24253 provides in essence that all motor vehicles and motorcycles shall be equipped with taillamps that will remain lighted at least one-quarter hour if the engine stops.

(2) Federal Standards

49 CFR section 571.108, Standard 108, subsections S4.5.3 and S4.5.7(b) provide that the taillamps shall be activated upon the activation of the headlamps. Subsection S4.5.7(a) provides that the taillamps shall be activated upon the activation of the parking lamps.

Thus the State law is solely concerned with the duration of illumination, while the federal standards are directed to the event of activation. Again, it would appear that, just as in the case of headlamps, these State and federal regulations are each addressed to separate and distinct aspects of taillamps performance. Accordingly then, the State provision is not pre-empted by the Federal Act.

Our conclusion that the State headlamp and taillamp regulations relate to aspects of performance different from those covered by federal standards, is fortified by the analysis engaged in by the Court in Chrysler Corporation v. Tofanv, supra, as it compared the state and federal standards at issue in that case. There state law prohibited a type of auxiliary headlight because of its unacceptable glare and dazzle effect (419 F.2d at 502, n. 5, 503) and because it emitted a blue light, a color of light which the states had reserved for emergency vehicles (419 F.2d at 503). The pertinent federal standards prohibited such auxiliary headlights only if they impaired the effectiveness of the required lights (419 F.2d at 506). The Court concluded that the federal standard applied to the impairment of light emission from the required headlights to the extent that such impairment affected the visibility of the driver of the car (419 F.2d at 511). On the other hand, the Court determined that the state provisions purported to regulate the effects of the light upon drivers of oncoming cars. The Court concluded that this was "a different aspect of performance" and thus the states' "attempts at regulation are not preempted." (Ibid.)

Thus we have a case where even though the state and federal regulations both related to the quality of the illumination itself which was emitted by the headlight, the Court nonetheless found that these regulations were directed to "different aspects of performance," because of the distinction between the effect of the illumination upon the driver of the car in question, and the effect upon drivers of oncoming cars.

If such closely related factors are deemed to constitute "different aspects of performance," a fortiori, such manifestly distinct elements of operation as the event or mechanism of light activation on the one hand, and the duration of illumination on the other hand, must be deemed to constitute "different aspects of performance."

In view of the explicit quality of this difference, our conclusion that it constitutes a different "aspect of performance" would appear to be warranted whether the phrase "aspect of performance," as used in the pre-emptive provisions of the Federal Act (viz., 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)), is given a narrow or broad construction. n3 It is thus our opinion that Vehicle Code sections 25650.5 and 24253 are not pre-empted.

n3 The concurring opinion in Chrysler Corporation v. Tofanv, supra, 419 F.2d at 512-515, argued that the pre-emptive provisions of the Federal Act should be broadly construed (419 F.2d at 512-513). Yet it concluded that the state regulations were not pre-empted because one of the basis for restricting the auxiliary headlight was the fact that it emitted light of a blue color (a color reserved for emergency vehicles), and that this was an aspect of performance different from that encompassed by the federal standard; viz., impairment of the effectiveness of the required lights (419 F.2d at 515). It would appear that the aspects of performance under consideration here are at least as distinct as those aspects of performance found to be different under the concurring opinion's broad construction of the Federal Act's pre-emption provisions.

Very truly yours,

EVELLE J. YOUNGER --

Attorney General,

VICTOR D. SONENBERG --

Deputy Attorney General

ID: nht74-2.34

DATE: 02/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Busby Rivkin Sherman Levy and Rehm

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 1973, asking whether glazing in the rear quarter windows of the Datsun model HLB-210 may, consistently with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, be manufactured of AS 3 glazing material. This depends, as you point out, on whether this glazing is used "at levels requisite for driving visibility" under American National Standards Institute Standard ANS Z26.1-1966, incorporated into Standard No. 205. You refer in your letter to section 1017(a) of the California Vehicle Code which states:

Side windows to the rear of the driver and the rear windows not used for vision directly to the rear are not considered areas requisite for driving visibility.

The locations where the use of AS 3 glazing is permitted are set forth on page 12 of ANS Z26. AS 3 glazing may be used, "anywhere in a motor vehicle except in passenger car windshields and in the following locations at levels requisite for driving visibility . . . . (2) Passenger automobiles and taxicabs. Glazing of all windows including rear window, all interior partitions, and all apertures created for window purpose. (emphasis added)

The only exclusion from the broad prohibition against the use of AS3 glazing in passenger cars is "at levels not requisite for driving visibility." We do not agree with the California Code provision. We consider the word "levels" in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to the driver's eyes. We, therefore, cannot concur in the application of the "levels requisite for driving visibility" concept as it appears in Standard No. 205 to complete windows or other glazing areas of passenger cars.

With respect to the Datsun model in question, there is no evidence in your letter that the windows in question are not at a level requisite for driving visibility. In fact, they appear to include levels of a driver's normal eye point.

The NHTSA presently hopes to publish a revised notice of proposed rulemaking regarding direct fields of view in the fall of 1974. Previous proposals regarding this subject were withdrawn by notice published March 7, 1973 (38 FR 6194).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 13, 1973

Guy Hunter -- Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Hunter:

This will confirm our conversation of December 7, 1973 relative to the specification of "levels requisite for driver vision" in the ANSI Standard referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

Specifically, we would like your assurance that the guidance provided in the enclosed California Highway Patrol Regulations is in agreement with your interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements. As marked, the California regulations permit the use of AS-3 glass in side windows to the rear of the driver (rear quarter windows).

Further, we would appreciate any indication from you regarding the timing of the proposed rule making on "direct fields of view", which we presume would establish precise future requirements for the location and light transmittance of motor vehicle glazing.

Our interest in this matter arises from the newly introduced model Datsun HLB-210 of our client, Nissan Motor Company. This vehicle has a small fixed pane of AS-3 glazing in what would otherwise be a solid rear quarter panel. I am enclosing a picture of this vehicle.

Respectfully submitted,

BUSBY RIVKIN SHERMAN LEVY and REHM;

George C. Nield -- Engineering Advisor

Enclosures

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL P. O. Box 898 Sacramento 95804

ORDER ADOPTING, AMENDING, OR REPEALING REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

After proceedings had in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code, Title 2, Div. 3, Part 1, Chapter 4.5) and pursuant to the authority vested by Section 2402 of the Vehicle Code, and to implement, interpret or make specific Sections 2402.5, 26106 and 26704 of the Vehicle Code, the Department of the California Highway Patrol hereby adopts, amends, or repeals regulations in Chapter 2, Title 13, California Administrative Code as follows:

(1) Repeals Article 7 of Subchapter 4

(2) Adopts Article 7 of Subchapter 4 to read:

Article 7. Safety Glazing Material

1010. Scope of Regulations. This article shall apply to safety glazing material governed by Sections 535, 26701, 26703, 26704, and 26705 of the Vehicle Code and required to be approved before sale or use.

1011. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply wherever the terms are used in this article:

(a) Safety Glazing Material. Safety glazing material is any glazing material so constructed, treated, or combined with other materials as to reduce, in comparison with ordinary sheet, plate, or float glass, the likelihood of injury to persons by glazing material whether it may be broken or unbroken.

(b) Areas Requisite for Driving Visibility. "Areas requisite for driving visibility" are glazed areas at levels established in Section 1017 of this code for the windshield, the windows and in Section 1017 of this code for the windshield, the windows and wind deflectors to the right and left of the driver, and the rear window, except for rear windows on vehicles equipped with left- and right-hand mirrors.

(c) Daylight Opening. The "daylight opening" is the maximum area of unobstructed visibility in the glazed window.

(d) Camper. A camper is a structure designed to be mounted upon a motor vehicle and to provide facilities for human habitation or camping purposes.

(e) ANSI Standard. An ANSI Standard is a standard issued by the American National Standards Institute, formerly referred to as ASA, American Standards Association, and USASI, United States of America Standards Institute.

(f) Approved Laboratory. An approved laboratory is a laboratory which has facilities and equipment for testing glazing material to ANSI Standards and has been approved by the department in accordance with the provisions of Sections 850 through 859 of this code.

1012. Application for Approval. Requests for approval or reapproval of safety glazing material shall be submitted on forms provided by the department, shall be accompanied by the items specified in following subsections (a) or (b), and (c) and (d), and shall be sent to the following address:

California Highway Patrol Engineering Section P. O. Box 898 Sacramento, California 95804

(a) Test Reports. Test reports shall be those issued by a laboratory approved by the department in accordance with Sections 350 through 859 of the code. Reports shall show compliance with Section 1015 of the code and shall contain at least the following information:

(1) Thickness of samples tested

(2) Color, shade, or tint of samples tested

(3) Size and spacing of conductor, size of bus bar, and spacing from periphery of glass, when electrical conductors are used

(4) A reproduction of the identification markings used on the material required by Section 1014 of this code

(5) Detailed results of each test required by ANSI Standard Z26.1-1966 (6) Date of test completion.

(b) Comparison Reports. Comparison reports shall include the following items:

(1) Copy of original test report for previously approved glazing material

(2) Written statement from the original manufacturer of the material authorizing its use by the applicant under a new identification marking

(3) Addendum to the original test report stating that "The new material is identical in every respect to the original material tested with the exception of the marks of identification. The old marks of identification are and the new marks of identification are ." This statement shall be signed by a representative of the approved laboratory.

(c) Identification Markings. One actual size reproduction of the identification markings used on the glazing material shall be reproduced in black on white paper and submitted with the application.

(d) Samples of Material. Samples of material shall be furnished as follows:

(1) One 2-inch or larger square sample of each color, tint, or shade of plastic glazing material bearing the required identification markings

(2) One 4-inch square sample of any glass containing an electrical conductor and bearing the required identification markings.

1013. Approval of Safety Glazing Material. Safety glazing material shall be approved as follows:

(a) Certificates of Approval. Certificates of approval for glazing material issued between January 1 and June 30, inclusive, shall expire on July 1, five years after the date of the test report. Certificates issued between July 1 and December 31, inclusive, shall expire on January 1, five years after the date of the test report. Certificates issued for a limited term of less than five years shall expire on the date shown on the certificate.

(b) Approval by Comparison. Certificates of approval for glazing material approved on the basis of a comparison report shall have the same expiration date as the certificate for (Illegible Words) glazing material.

(c) Reapproval. Reapproval certificates shall expire five years from the dates of the laboratory reports.

(d) Noncurrent Safety Glazing Material. Noncurrent glazing material for which the certificate has expired may continue to be used on the motor vehicle or camper on which it was installed at the time of expiration and may be transferred between vehicles or campers. Stock on hand in California may continue to be sold for two years after the expiration date of the certificate. Replonishment of stock with material for which the certificate has expired is prohibited.

1014. Identification Markings. Each piece of safety glazing material shall be permanently marked so as to be visible and legible when installed on a vehicle or camper.

(a) Name and Model Designation. Markings shall include the following information:

(1) The manufacturer's name, initials, lettered trademark, or United States Department of Transportation (DOT) assigned code number, which shall be clearly different from those of other manufacturers

(2) The letter "M" followed by the manufacturer's model number for each different type, thickness, color tint, shade, or construction of the material

(3) The letters "AS" followed by the item number in the ANSI Standard with which the material complies, such as ASI or AS2.

(b) Recommended Format. Glazing material submitted for approval on or after September 1, 1970, should have the markings required by subsection (a) arranged so that the manufacturer's name, initials, lettered trademark, or DOT code number and the model number appear in succession on a single line below the trade symbol with no other markings except the "AS" designation on the same line. The following examples illustrate acceptable format:

(Graphics omitted)

(c) Shaded Areas. Shaded areas of less than 70 percent light transmittance which adjoin areas of 70 percent or more light transmittance shall be marked "AVS1" or "AIllegibleS2" at the dividing line. The arrow shall indicate which portion of the material complies with the item number shown.

(d) Size of Markings. The markings required in subsections (a) and (c) shall be in letters and numbers at least 0.070 inch in height. Additional markings may be of any height, shall be immediately above the required markings, and may be changed without notification to the department provided no change is made in the glazing material.

1015. Applicable Safety Glazing Material Standards. Safety glazing material shall meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 and requirements of ANSI Standard Z26.1-1966.

1016. Electrical Conductors. Heating elements used for doing fogging and deicing, and wire and printed conductors used for other purposes manufactured in safety glazing material are acceptable for use in areas requisite for driving visibility in accordance with the following guidelines:

(a) Wire and Printed Conductors in Material Marked AS1. Heated wire conductors in material marked AS1 should not exceed 0.001 inch in diameter, should not be spaced closer than 0.040 inch or further apart than 0.150 inch, and the bus bar which connects the ends should be within 0.5 inch of the periphery of the daylight opening. The diameter of conductors used for other purposes should not exceed 0.010 inch for wire or 0.020 inch in width for printed types. Only one such conductor should be placed within 2 inches of and generally parallel to the periphery of the daylight opening; and not more than two should be centered vertically in the glazing material and spaced not more than 2 inches apart.

(b) Wire Conductors in Material Marked AS2. Wire conductors in material marked ASE should either meet A31 requirements in preceding subsection (a), or they should not exceed 0.0015 inch in diameter nor be spaced closer than 0.080 inch. The bus bar connecting the ends of the conductors should be within 0.5 inch of the periphery of the daylight opening.

(c) Printed Conductors on Material Marked AS2. Printed conductors on glazing material marked AS2 should not be more than 0.040 inch in width nor spaced closer than 0.900 inch. The bus bar connecting the ends of the conductors should be within 0.5 inch of the periphery of the daylight opening.

1017 Determination of Areas Regisite for Driving Visibility. The following methods for determining the levels of glazed areas requisite for driving visibility are recommended and considered acceptable until such time as a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard defining the levels becomes effective:

(a) Levels. The established levels requisite for driving visibility include all levels below a horizontal plane 28 inches above the undepressed driver's seat for passenger cars, and 30 1/2 inches for other motor vehicles, except as specified in following subsections (b), (c), and (d). Measurements are made from a point 5.0 inches ahead of the bottom of the backrest and directly behind the center of the steering wheel, with the driver's seat in the rearmost and lowest position and the vehicle on a level surface. Areas requisite for driving visibility include all glazed areas below this plane and all of the glazed area of windows capable of being lowered. Side windows to the rear of the driver and the rear windows not used for vision directly to the rear are not considered areas requisite for driving visibility.

(b) Special Vehicles. Corresponding eye heights, based upon an average seat depression of 3.3 inches for passenger cars and 2.0 inches for other vehicles, apply to specially designed vehicles or vehicles designed for a standing driver.

(c) Curved Windshields. In order to accommodate manufacturing procedures for curved windshields, it is permissible for shaded windshield glazing material to have less than 70 percent luminous transmittance over areas extending inward from each corner post for a distance not exceeding 10 percent of the windshield width. These areas of reduced luminous transmittance should not extend more than 1.5 inches below the level requisite for driving visibility. The curved windshield exceptions should not apply to motor vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1972.

(d) Motorcycles. The established levels requisite for driving visibility for motorcycles include all planes between a horizontal plane 15 inches above the lowest portion of the seat when the seat is depressed by the operator and a horizontal plane 31 inches above the undepressed seat.

1018. Locations of Safety Glazing Material. Safety glazing material shall be used in accordance with the "AS" number marked on the material as follows:

(a) AS1. Laminated safety glass marked AS1 is required to be used in the windshield of every motor vehicle except a motorcycle and is acceptable for use anywhere in motor vehicles and campers.

(b) AS2 and AS3. Laminated or tempered safety glass marked AS2 is acceptable for use anywhere in a motor vehicle except in the windshield, and anywhere in a camper. Material marked AS3 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(c) AS2-26 and AS3-26. Laminated safety glass marked AS2-26 is acceptable for use anywhere in a motor vehicle except the windshield, and anywhere in a camper. Material marked AS3-26 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(d) AS4 and AS5. Rigid plastic safety glazing material marked AS4 is acceptable for use in interior partitions, auxiliary wind deflectors, folding doors, standee windows in buses, flexible curtains, readily removable windows, openings in roofs, rear windows of soft tops, rear doors of taxicabs, and windows of campers. Material marked AS5 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(e) AS6 and AS7. Flexible plastic safety glazing material marked AS6 is acceptable for use in the rear windows of soft tops, windshields for motorcycles, flexible curtains, and readily removable windows. Material marked AS7 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(f) AS8 and AS9. Wire glass marked AS8 is acceptable for use in folding doors, standee and rearmost windows in buses, and windows to the rear of the driver in trucks and truck tractors. Material marked AS9 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(g) AS10 and AS11. Laminated safety glazing material marked AS10 or AS11 is for use only in armored cars for which permits have been issued under Section 21713 of the Vehicle Code. Bullet-resistant glass marked AS10 is required in the windshields and is acceptable for use anywhere in the vehicle. Bullet-resistant glass marked AS11 is acceptable for use anywhere in the vehicle except the windshield.

(h) Shaded Material. The dividing line in the "AVS1" or "AVS2" markings on shaded glazing material shall be located so that the darker side of the dividing line is outside the areas requisite for driving visibility.

This order shall take effect on September 1, 1970, as provided in Section 11422(d) of the Government Code.

Dated: July 22, 1970

DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; A. E. SHAFFER, Captain -- Acting Commander Safety Services Division

ID: nht76-2.34

DATE: 02/17/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1975, referring to our letter to Ideal Corporation of September 17, 1975. You commented that "customers believe that the NHTSA approves the unqualified use of variable-load flashers for replacement turn-signal applications." You have requested "confirmation that the intent of Standard 108, @ 4.5.6 is to only permit a variable-load flasher to be used only on an Excepted Vehicle." Your interpretation is incorrect.

Although the NHTSA does not approve of the use of variable-load turn signal flashers as replacement for fixed-load flashers, the choice of replacement equipment for a vehicle in use is that of the consumer, and is not subject to Federal control. We have no authority to require that the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher replace it with a fixed load flasher. This may be the reason for your confusion with respect to the NHTSA's reaction to Ideal Corporation's petition for rulemaking. It was not necessary to amend the standard as requested by Ideal, since it already allowed the type of replacement suggested, and this agency generally does not regulate modifications by consumers. Such an amendment would have been superfluous.

As indicated in our letter to Ideal, we continue to believe it preferable that consumers be informed that a variable load flasher will not provide an outage indication. To this end the NHTSA is considering rulemaking that would require labeling on containers of variable-load flashers.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

December 11, 1975

Frank A. Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have recently seen your letter of September 17, 1975 to Mr. Martin Rothfield, General Manager, Flasher Division, Ideal Corporation. In your letter there appears a statement which relates to the meaning and interpretation of the provisions of @ 4.5.6 of Standard No. 108 (as amended effective June 6, 1974).

Your letter is a discussion of the meaning of @ 4.5.6 regarding permitting the use of variable-load flashers. We believe your letter was intended to mean that a variable-load flasher may be used as replacement equipment for a fixed-load flasher on any of the vehicle classes specified in S2 as covered by the Standard pursuant to the provisions of @ 4.5.6. S2 specifies passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, (except pole trailers and trailer convertor dollies), and motorcycles. @ 4.5.6 provides an exception to its provisions for a truck (including a truck capable of accommodating a slide-in camper), bus, multi-purpose passenger vehicles (but only those 80 or more inches in overall width), or for any vehicle (including a passenger car and multi-purpose passenger vehicles less than 80 or more inches in overall width) equipped to tow trailers. That is to say, if any vehicle specified in S2 ordinarily requires an illuminated pilot indicator and also turn-signal lamp failure indication under @ 4.5.6, it would be excepted from those requirements and still be in compliance with the Standard if it was one of the class of vehicles within the meaning of the "except where" language of @ 4.5.6. Consequently, it would be a vehicle as specified in S2 as covered by the Standard pursuant to the provisions of @ 4.5.6.

Customers of Ideal Corporation see a much broader meaning to your letter. We disagree with that meaning and would like to have your concurrence with our interpretation of your letter as indicated above. In this connection we would like to trace the history of @ 4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, as we know it, since our interpretation is based upon such history.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 ("Standard 108" or the "Standard") as it existed at the time of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued on January 3, 1970, provided in pertinent part as follows:

"@ 3.4.7 - Except on vehicles using variable-load flashers, a means for indicating to the driver that the turn-signal system is energized, shall be provided in accordance with SAE Standard J588d "Turn Signal Lamps", June, 1966."

In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making concerning Standard 108 which was issued on January 3, 1970 (35 FR 106), the preamble of the NPRM noted:

". . . @ 3.4.7 [of Standard 108] currently exempts all vehicles using variable-load flashers from the requirement for providing an indication to the driver that the turn-signal system is energized. This should apply only to those vehicles which are equipped to tow trailers (which require variable-load flashers and a turn-signal circuit), and it is proposed that the exemption be restricted accordingly (@ 3.5.6)."

The text of @ 3.5.6 as proposed in the NPRM reads as follows:

"All vehicles having turn-signal operating units shall have an illuminated pilot indicator. Except on truck tractors and vehicles equipped to tow trailers, failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June 1966."

In the ammouncement of the adoption of Rule Making issued on October 1970 (35 FR 16840) the preamble states:

"(p) It was proposed that all vehicles be equipped with a turn-signal pilot indicator, and that those vehicles not equipped to tow trailers (i.e. vehicles with a fixed load flasher) be provided with a lamp failure indicator . . . .

Many comments objected to the proposal for a lamp failure indicator on vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width. Heavy-duty flashers used on these vehicles are not presently available with a failure indicator. However, this type flasher is considerably more durable than the fixed load type, used on vehicles of lesser width, which indicates a lamp failure, and the continued use of present heavy-duty flashers for wider vehicles is warranted. Also, vehicles of 80 inches or more overall width are generally used commercially, and many of them are subject to the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration; such vehicles are more frequently inspected and failed lamps more promptly repaired. For the foregoing reasons, vehicles of 80 or more inches overall width are excluded from the requirement in the amended Standard for a turn-signal lamp failure indicator." [Emphasis added.]

The Standard was thereupon amended, effective July 1, 1971, so that @ 4.5.6 provided:

"Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Except on a truck, bus or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches overall width, and on any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d "Turn-Signal Lamps," June, 1966."

Following the foregoing amendment to Standard 108 on October 31, 1970 (35 FR 16840), petitions for reconsideration of the amendment were filed by a number of manufacturers. In response to those petitions the NHTSA on February 3, 1971 (36 FR 1896 to 1897) stated:

"8. Paragraph S4.5.6 International Harvester asked that the exemption for lamp outage indication be extended to vehicles equipped with auxiliary lamps or wiring, since these vehicles, like vehicles equipped to tow trailers, use variable-load flashers. However, fixed-load flashers providing lamp outage indication are available on the market for the increased load of an auxiliary lamp. The manufacturer can provide the appropriate flasher with foreknowledge of the intended end configuration of the vehicle, and International Harvester's petition is therefore denied."

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard was then the subject of the following proposed amendment published on January 3, 1974 (38 FR 822) pursuant to a petition by the Ford Motor Company.

"@ 4.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn-Signal Lamps", June 1966, except on a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, provided that an excepted vehicle is equipped with a variable-load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard as it existed prior to January 3, 1974, exempted from the requirement of turn-signal lamp failure indication a class of vehicles which included only a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers (the "Pre-1974 Excepted Vehicles"). Such class of vehicles had to use a variable-load flasher to ensure uniform flash rate so as to comply with the flash per minute requirements of Standard 108.

The 1974 proposed Rule Making originally was intended to only add "a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper" to the list of Pre-1974 Excepted Vehicles. Such exemption, as contained in the Standard prior to the 1974 amendment, was obviously a result of (Illegible Word) NHTSA's judgment that while it recognized the value of lamp failure indication, it also recognized that there were certain vehicles on which a uniform flash rate within the flash per minute perimeter of Standard 108 was more beneficial than a lamp failure indication, and on which uniform flash rate could not be obtained without the use of variable-load flasher which without special circuitry could not provide the lamp failure indication. Accordingly, the NHTSA obviously concluded that those vehicles and only those vehicles which would require a variable-load flasher so as to ensure a uniform flash rate, need not comply with the lamp failure indication requirements of @ 4.5.6.

In the announcement of the adoption of Rule Making issued on May 31, 1974 (39 FR 20063) Mr. James B. Gregory, Administrator, NHTSA, stated:

"The NHTSA has determined that the availability of variable load flashers ensuring flash rate control within the limits of the standard is desirable, and should be permitted on trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers, despite the lack of lamp failure indication. In order to make clear the intent of the regulation, language is being added to specify that the exception applies only to vehicles with variable-load flashers."

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard was ultimately amended, effective June 6, 1974, (39 FR 20063) to read as follows:

"@ 4.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June, 1966, except where a variable-load turn signal flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers."

(The enumeration of vehicles in the "except where" language - to wit a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any vehicle equipped to tow trailers being hereinafter referred to as "Excepted Vehicles").

The Standard therefore presently requires each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit to also have an illuminated pilot indicator, and further requires turn-signal lamp failure indication (sentences 1 and 2, @ 4.5.6). The effect of that requirement is to either (1) mandate the use of a fixed load flasher on all vehicles, including certain vehicles in which the use of a fixed load flasher will increase the flash rate to a level generally exceeding the maximum specified by Standard 108, or (2) render such vehicles which must use a variable-load flasher to ensure a uniform flash rate and hence comply with the flash per minute requirements of Standard 108, to be in non-compliance with the provisions of $ 4.5.6 of Standard 108 relating to turn-signal lamp failure indication unless such vehicle is also equipped with special circuitry which is necessary to sense and indicate a failure in a variable-load system.

We submit that taken in its entirety the language of the Standard 108 and the history of its amendments require the interpretation that only those vehicles which require a variable-load flasher to ensure a uniform flash rate within the limits of Standard 108 should use a variable-load flasher and hence be exempted from the lamp failure indication provisions of Standard 108.

As further support of this we recall that Messrs. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn filed a petition for rule making on January 19, 1971 on behalf of Ideal Corporation for an amendment of @ 4.5.6 of Standard 108 which proposed to add the following sentence to @ 4.5.6:

"Variable-load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment by Standard 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 herein, where such devices shall operate in accordance with Tables I and III, as applicable."

The effect of such proposed amendment would have been to render meaningless the turn-signal failure indication requirement of Standard 108 because to permit variable-load flashers as replacement equipment for any vehicles contemplated by paragraph S2 (which includes passenger cars as well as the Excepted Vehicles) would mean no turn-signal failure indication on any passenger car having a variable-load turn signal flasher without needing one to ensure a uniform flash rate.

In reviewing the petition for rulemaking, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel, in a letter dated February 23, 1971 addressed to Mr. Earl W. Kintner, states among other things that:

"[Ideal] wishes to continue its established marketing practice of selling variable-load flashers in the after market and of advertising these flashers as "all purpose" flashers. We understand further that variable-load flashers frequently are purchased as replacements for fixed load flashers. When a variable-load flasher is installed as a replacement for an original equipment fixed load flasher, it does not provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6. Your client therefore questions whether, under these circumstances, it would properly certify compliance with Standard 108 when the standard becomes applicable to replacement equipment."

After reciting the sentence proposed to be added to the Standard by the petition, Mr. Schneider continues as follows:

"In our view Standard 108 permits your client to continue its practice and to properly certify compliance. S2 states in pertinent part that the standard applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this Standard applies." This means that equipment must comply with applicable requirements regardless of whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. For example, original and replacement variable-load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers" October 1965. It is not intended that a variable-load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

Such statement was obviously intended to mean that should an owner of a vehicle requiring a variable-load flasher to ensure uniform flash rate choose to use a variable-load flasher, the manufacturer of that variable-load flasher did not have to have such variable-load flasher meet the turn-signal failure indication requirement of the Standard in order to certify that such variable-load flasher meets the other requirements of Standard 108. This is evidenced by the following language taken from Mr. Schneider's comment quoted above:

"For example, original and replacement variable-load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers" October 1965. It is not intended that a variable-load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher."

As long as a variable-load flasher is to be used on an Excepted Vehicle, Ideal could continue to certify compliance to Standard 108 even if it knew such flasher was to be used to replace a fixed load flasher on an Excepted Vehicle. Standard 108 provides a specific exception for that situation. Mr. Schneider knew that. He also knew that @ 4.5.6 required each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator, and he knew that Ideal's proposed amendment would render such requirement meaningless and detract from safety. This is evidenced by the concern expressed in the following language quoted from Mr. Schneider's response to the Ideal's 1971 petition for rule making:

"Although there presently is no legal prohibition on the advertising and sale of variable load flashers, we believe that your client should, in the interest of safety, either market variable load flashers only as replacements for like items or call prospective purchasers' attention to the fact that the flashers do not provide an outage indication. While the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher should be free to balance the merits of a fixed load flasher (such as the outage indication) with those of a variable load flasher (such as the continuing flash), he should not be misled as to the characteristics of each type, including the one with which his vehicle was originally equipped.

Please advise us within 10 days of the date of this letter if you wish to pursue this petition further; otherwise we shall consider the petition withdrawn."

Ideal apparently then withdrew its petition.

Reference must again be made to the 1974 Rule Making (38 FR 822). It is clear that the meaning of the statements contained in your letter are clearly as we interpret them when read in light of such rule making. @ 4.5.6 as originally intended to be amended in January 1974 read as follows:

"Each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June 1966, except on a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, provided that an excepted vehicle is equipped with a variable-load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

It is obvious that the underlined language could be interpreted to read that it would appear to mandate equipping such vehicles with variable-load flashers originally. Such was not the intent, for they could be equipped with a fixed-load flasher (having turn-signal lamp failure indication but non-uniform flash rate), and hence the clarifying language was added to the June 6, 1974 final version of the rule which makes it clear that you need the pilot indicator and that the failure of the lamps to operate must be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, except where a variable-load turn signal flasher is used as either original or replacement equipment on an Excepted Vehicle.

Your reference to "any of the vehicle classes specified in S2 as covered by the Standard" obviously does not refer to all passenger cars per se (one class covered by S2 but not enumerated as such in the list of Excepted Vehicles in @ 4.5.6), but to passenger cars "equipped to tow a trailer." For you could not have intended to disregard the explicit provision for turn signal pilot indication and turn signal lamp failure indication which has been an integral part of Standard 108 since prior to January 1970.

In reliance upon your letter of September 17, 1975 to Ideal Corporation, customers believe that the NHTSA approves the unqualified use of variable-load flashers for replacement turn-signal applications. In view of the foregoing discussion contained herein we believe that your letter is not being read as you intended and we request confirmation that the intent of Standard 108, @ 4.5.6, is to only permit a variable-load flasher to be used only on an Excepted Vehicle.

That is our interpretation of @ 4.5.6 and we have so advised our customers. There is confusion on this point and we would like to have the matter cleared up.

Very truly yours,

Kenneth R. Arnold -- Secretary and General Counsel