ID: 1985-01.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Andrew P. Kallman -- Kallman Marketing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/28/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Andrew P. Kallman (A32; Std. 205; Std. 212); 2/8/88 letter from Andrew P. Kallman to Erika Z. Jones and Susan Schruth (ACC 1569)

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew P. Kallman Kallman Marketing 205 W. Saginaw Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Mr. Kallman:

This responds to your letter of January 14, 1985, concerning what regulations affect a process you intend to market for new and used cars. The process consists of grinding two parallel grooves into the lower portion of the windshield. The grooves are 2mm wide, 0.1-0.3mm deep, and are 2mm from each other. You stated that the purpose of the grooves is to improve the efficiency of the wipers and increase their life expectancy. The following discussions address the effect of our regulations on the process you described.

First, let me explain how our regulations apply to a new vehicle or to a new windshield sold as an item of replacement equipment. Our agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new vehicles or sold as items of replacement equipment. I have enclosed a copy of the standard. If, before they are sold, the safety grooves are ground into either the windshield of a new vehicle or into a new windshield sold as an item of replacement of equipment, the person making the grooves would have to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205 for windshields. I note that the test results enclosed with your letter do not address whether the glazing would continue to comply with the requirements after it has had the safety grooves ground into it. In particular, we would urge you to determine whether the glazing would continue to comply with the requirements regarding impact and penetration resistance, optical deviation and visual distortion after the grooves have been ground into the windshield. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

If the safety grooves are ground into the windshield of a used vehicle, then Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act may apply. That section provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly grind the grooves into a vehicle's windshield if by so doing they would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

205 W. Saginaw Lansing, M 4d833 (517) 484-0699 TLX. 517360

January 14, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Please find enclosed a brochure, technical results, and other testimonials on a new Product called "Turvaura" in Finnish, which being translated means "saftey grooves". Safety grooves consist of two Parallel grooves ground into the windshield on the lower part of the windshield. The grooves are 2 mm wide, 0.1-0.3 mm deep and at a distance of 2 mm from each other.

In the enclosed literature you will find the following points expanded upon:

1. The saftey grooves are an acknowledged Finnish invention (Pat. No. 50229).

2. The saftey grooves increase the efficiency of the wipers improving the wiping result and reducing glare.

3. The saftey grooves reduce the scratching effect of dirt particles on the windscreen and also reduce the amount of washing liquid used due to the increased efficiency of the wiper blades.

4. The saftey grooves increase the wiper blade life expectancy.

5. The saftey grooves do not weaken the strength of the windshield. (See also the enclosed report from the Technical Research Centre of Finland).

6. The saftey grooves need no maintenance and are permanently grooved into the windshield.

Our corporation has obtained from the producer in Finland the national marketing rights for all of the U.S. for both the new and aftermarket applicatlon of these grooves. We would appreciate a response from you regarding the process necessary to obtain approval or waiver in respect to any vehicle saftey standards applicable to this product.

In advance, thank you for your assistance.

Very truly yours,

Andrew P. Kallman Director [Enclosures Omitted)

ID: nht87-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1987

FROM: HUNT, BILL -- PROJECT ENGINEER, HY-GAIN DIVISION-TELEX COMMUNICATION, INC

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/19/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Bill Whiteside (Harris Corp.)

TEXT: I am writing to you concerning the interpretation of CFR 567 and 568 regarding ultimate responsibility for DOT certification.

I have spoken with Joan Tilghmam concerning this. She suggested I write to you explaining the circumstances. Please review the enclosed information. I will call soon to discuss this further.

Thank you.

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

The parties:

Telex Communications - Trailer manufacturer

Customer: Company XYZ

Company ABC - Generator Manufacturer & Installer

Customer: Company XYZ

Company DEF - Radio Equipment Manufacturer & Installer

Customer: Company XYZ

Company XYZ - Buyer of trailer & additional installed equipment.

TELEX

ABC

DEF

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Lincoln, NE.

Manufactures a trailer with running gear, brakes, lights, VTN, etc.

Total vehicle wt = 8000/9000#

Axle rating - 9000# ea., 18,000# total Telex work is complete.

Telex' Customer, XYZ has permanent components added to trailer by two other sub contractors (after delivery from Telex). These are items such as generators (1) & communications equipment (2).

Telex is aware of general nature and weight and location of added equipment. These factors have been used to determine trailer design.

However, Telex does not have any contractual relationship with the other subcontractors. Telex does not install and is not responsible for the installation of the added equipment.

The problem: Certification of trailer.

Telex' position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer and should provide documentation as stipulated in CFR 568.4a.

XYZ's position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer that assumes legal responsibility as in CFR 568.7a. and is responsible for final vehicle certification per 567.5e.

INTERFACE CONTROL DOCUMENT

FOR

LOS SUBSYSTEM ANTENNA TRAILERS

ESD 21410

APPROVED:

R. B. Strock, LOS Subsystem Mechanical Engineer, DATE 2/11/88;

G. M. Turner, LOS Subsystem Manager, DATE 2/10/88;

B.A. Dougherty, Quality Assurance Engineer, DATE 2/12/88;

R.E. Becerra, LOS Subsystem SPO, DATE 2/12/88

REVISION

REVISION RECORD LEVEL APPROVED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REVISION DATE BUYER SELLER A SELLER B SELLER CFirst Release 12/11/87 ( Illegible Rev A 2/10/88 Word)

By acknowledging this document, a subcontractor agrees that the document has been reviewed and recognizes that the requirements contained herein have been imposed. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Title Page 1.0 SCOPE 1 2.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS 1 3.0 REQUIREMENTS 2 3.1 General Requirements 2 3.2 Mechanical Requirements 2 3.2.1 Mechanical Interfaces 2 3.2.1.1 Antenna Trailer - Configuration and Outline Dimensions 2 3.2.1.2 Equipment Mounting Interfaces 2 3.2.1.3 Equipment Envelopes and Mounting Locations 3 3.2.1.4 Fuel Tank Interfaces 5 3.2.1.5 Connector Locations 63.2.1.6 Integrated Antenna Trailer - Weight and Center of Gravity 10 3.3 Electrical Interfaces 12 3.3.1 Contingency Van Configuration 17 3.3.1.1 Mobile Antenna Tower Interfaces 17 3.3.1.2 Contingency Van Interfaces 17 3.3.1.3 Mobile Power Subsystem Interfaces 22 3.3.2 Repeater/RIU Configuration 24 3.3.2.1 Mobile Antenna Tower Interfaces 24 3.3.2.2 Electronics Enclosure Interfaces 25 3.3.2.3 Mobile Power Subsystem 26 Appendix Mechanical Drawings A LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title Page 3.2.1.1.1 Antenna Trailer Outline Dimensions Appendix CV Configuration as Delivered from Subcontractor A A 3.2.1.1.2 Antenna Trailer Outline Dimensions Appendix Repeater/RIU Configuration as Delivered from Subcontractor A. A 3.2.1.2.1 Antenna Trailer Frame Appen. A3.2.1.2.2 Mobile Power Subsystem and Electronic Enclosure Mounting Holes Appen. A3.2.1.3.1 Equipment Envelopes and Mounting Locations - CV Configuration Appen. A3.2.1.3.2 Equipment Envelopes and Mounting Locations - Repeater Configuration Appen. A3.2.1.3.3 Equipment Envelopes and Mounting Locations - RIU Configuration Appen. A 3.2.1.4 Fuel Tank Cluster Plate Locations Appen. A3.2.1.5.1 RIU and Repeater Enclosure Power and Signal Entry Panel Locations 8 3.2.1.5.2 Antenna Trailer Power and Control I/O 9 3.3.1 Interconnection Diagram Contingency Van Configuration 14 3.3.2 Interconnection Diagram, Repeater/RIU Configuration 16 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 3.2.1.3.1 CV Configuration 3 3.2.1.3.2 Repeater Configuration 3 3.2.1.3.3 RIU Configuration 4 3.2.1.3.4 Ancillary CFE - CV Configuration 5 3.2.1.3.5 Ancillary CFE - Repeater/RIU Configuration 5 3.2.1.5 Power Subsystem Connector Locations 6 3.2.1.6.1 CV Trailer Weight and CG Summary 10 3.2.1.6.2 Repeater Trailer Weight and CG Summary 11 3.2.1.6.3 RIU Trailer Weight and CG Summary 11 3.3.1 Interconnection Cables - Contingency Van Configuration 12 3.3.2 Interconnection Cables - Repeater/RIU Configuration 15 3.3.1.2 Pin Assignments - Remote Control and Monitor 20

(Document omitted here.)

ID: aiam1645

Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to your October 3, 1974, questions whether the exemptio for 24,000-pound axle vehicles from Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, until September 1, 1976, applies to fire fighting vehicles, and whether a tandem axle assembly consists of two 'axle systems' for purposes of our definition of 'Gross axle weight rating.'; The answer to both of your questions is yes. A fire fighting vehicl would qualify for exemption until 1976 if any of its axles has a gross axle weight rating of 24,000 pounds or more.; A tandem axle assembly, which we understand to mean a running rea assembly consisting of two axles and associated components, comprises two 'axle systems.' As we pointed out in the preamble to Notice 2 of Docket No. 74- 10, the term 'axle system' is used only to avoid confusion in situations where a suspension system does not employ an axle (39 FR 17550, May 17, 1974).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 15, 1995

FROM: Lee Rabie -- President, Enerco, Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Vehicle Air Bag Restraint Systems

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO LEE RABIE (A43; STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/19/90 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LINDA L. CONRAD (STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT A. ERNST

TEXT: Dear Sirs

The purpose of this letter is to obtain information from you and your Agency regarding any legal requirements or regulations of the Federal government for recycling/remanufacturing of vehicle Air Bags.

First, let us introduce ourselves. Enerco, Inc. is an industrial electronics firm that manufactures a line of industrial electronic products. Enerco has been in the electronic design and manufacturing business for over twenty years. Please find enclose d some of our data sheets that show a few of the products we manufacture which are used by local, state and federal governments for traffic control.

For some time we have been interested in vehicle Air Bags and the possibility of recycling Air Bags. We are aware of the performance requirements for active and passive restraint systems for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes as promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, in 49 CFR Ch. V, Section 571.208; Standard No. 208; Occupant Crash Protection). We know that recycling of the Bags is physically possible because we have developed a me thodology for doing so. However, we are concerned about any requirements of the laws and regulations which your Agency has oversight responsibility as they relate to the acceptance and performance of recycled Air Bags.

Air Bag systems are being required be installed in all cars sold in the United States. An Air Bag Restraint System is extensive and is comprised of the Air Bag and it's associated controls, sensors, computers, cables and indicators. The cost of the Bags themselves (2 Bags will be required for all cars) as purchased new from each manufacturer is very high. As the time period in which these systems have been required increases, and as the number of newer vehicles on the road increases, the number of Bag s which have actually been deployed in crashes is dramatically increasing.

As it stands now, after a vehicle crashes with deployment of an Air Bag, the Bag is removed form the vehicle and is replaced with a new Bag supplied by the manufacturers. The original Bag goes to waste. Additionally, disposing of the blown Air Bag is a lso a problem due to fact that other environmental health regulations prohibit (actual label on the side of the Bags) the placement of Bags in landfills. Therefore wrecking yards and repair shops have a problem of disposing the Bags.

In addition to the waste of reusable equipment and disposal problems there is another large expense problem. As indicated above the cost of a new Bag is very high. This is because the Bag is not recycled and usually the original manufacturers are the o nly source for the replacement Bags. The high replacement cost must be paid by the vehicle owner or his insurance company, even if the vehicle in which it deployed did not sustain major damage. All this points to the fact that there is a dramatic need in our society to have the choice of purchasing from a secondary source quality recycled Air Bags.

Our proposed recycling program would take the original blown Bags which were made and supplied by the original manufacture of the vehicle, and remanufacture them to the original standards. Blown Air Bags and the vehicles in which they have been blown ha ve been examined by us. The vehicles metal structure and steering wheel are designed to withstand the Air Bag deployment. The Bag has a valve to allow deflation without damaging of the Bag. This means that washing, cleaning, refolding, supplying of a new squib and new chemical charge and resealing of the flap that is made to open to allow Bag deployment, would be the focus of the recycling/remanufacturing process.

Enerco would appreciate any facts, information, discourse, thoughts or opinions from your department regarding our proposal to recycle/remanufacture Air Bags. This would include your opinion on whether the present law and regulations would allow recyclin g/remanufacture of the Air Bags (Bags only, not the sensors or computers) to the same MTBF standards using existing, proven technology.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Your timely reply will be very much appreciated.

Brochures omitted.

ID: 1984-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. P.O. Box 3951 Troy, Michigan 48007-3951

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1984, asking two questions with respect to the humidity test for replaceable bulb headlamps specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With reference to paragraph S6.8, you mention the relative humidity figure of 90 +/- 10%, and your interpretation that the six-hour cycle of the test should be run at 90% and that the 10% tolerance "is intended to cover any drift in the instrumentation, controls and the process of generating the humidity." We concur that this is a reasonable interpretation of this requirement.

You have also asked when the headlamp must be inspected after the humidity test, as paragraph S4.1.1.36(d)(7) is silent on this point. It is your interpretation that this inspection must occur directly following the test, and before the photometrics of the lamp are measured, even though, in your view, it would be more convenient to check it after the photometric test. Your interpretation is correct; this inspection must occur within the 9 to 11 minutes specified for beginning the photometric test after completion of the humidity test.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

25 April, 1984

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation -- FMVSS 108

Dear Sir:

With the Federal Register publication of June 2, 1983, environmental tests are now specified for replaceable bulb headlamps. We have two interpretations regarding the humidity test for these lamps for with we ask your concurrence.

1. Humidity Specification -- The humidity test, S6.8, requires that the lamp be subjected to 20 consecutive six-hour cycles at a relative humidity of 90 +/- 10% and then soaked for 1 hour in lower temperature and humidity. It is Volkswagen's interpretation that the six-hour cycle portion of the humidity test should be run at 90% and that the tolerance of +/- 10% is intended to cover any drift in the instrumentation, controls and the process of generating the humidity.

2. Inspection - Sections 4.1.1.36(d)(7) requires that after the humidity test in accordance with S6.8, that "the inside of the headlamp show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation", and the lamp must meet the photometric requirements. The section does not, however, specify exactly when the inspection is to take place.

It is Volkswagen's interpretation that the regulations require the inspection to take place immediately after the completion of the final one hour portion (30% relative humidity) of the humidity cycle and before the photometric measurements. This is not very practical (because of the 10 +/- 1 minute limitation on beginning the photometric tests), and inspection after the photometric measurement would be much more convenient, however we have reached this conclusion based upon our reading of the regulatory language.

Your prompt response to this request will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations

JPS/bLc

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John C. Bobak -- President, Crest Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John G. Bobak President Crest Industries, Inc. 3841 13th Street Wyandotte, MI 48192

This responds to your letter of May 9, 1984, regarding the application of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 212, Windshield retention and standard No. 216, Roof crush resistance to aftermarket windshield adhesives. Your specific question concerned a statement made by Kent Industries that its urethane windshield adhesive "meets and exceeds" those two standards.

You are correct in your understanding that Standards Nos. 212 and 216 only apply to newly manufactured motor vehicles. The standard establish a certain level of performance for those vehicles and do not set specifications for such individual vehicle components as windshield adhesive. In addition, neither of these standards apply to item of motor vehicle equipment, such as windshield adhesive, sold as aftermarket products.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel LETTER FROM JOHN G. BOBAK IS NOT LEGIBLE.

ID: Ocean_imports_scooter_03-9045.2version2

Mr. Brian Lambert
Panalpina Inc. / Ocean Imports
18600 Lee Rd.
Humble, TX 77338

Dear Mr. Lambert:

This responds to your letter asking whether several models of scooters you are considering importing into the United States are "motor vehicles" for the purpose of the regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, it is our opinion that the two models with a maximum speed greater than 20 mph are motor vehicles.

The legislation establishing NHTSAs vehicle safety authority is set out at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" (Emphasis added.) "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a) as:

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

In a November 26, 2003, letter addressed to Mr. Amir Ambar, we addressed the issue of whether a scooter that he wished to import into the United States was considered a motor vehicle under this definition. We will consider the points we made in that letter in responding to your request.

In responding to Mr. Ambar, we noted that when determining if a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, the agency first looks to see if the vehicle has on-road capabilities.

We also noted that in an October 3, 1969, notice, the agency determined that while "mini-bikes" have on-road operating capabilities, they are not motor vehicles for

the purpose of our standards (34 Federal Register 15416; enclosed). At that time the agency found that "mini-bikes" were precluded from operation on public roads by a vast majority of States. The agency has determined this to still hold true. Further, "mini-bikes" were at that time promoted and advertised solely for off-road use.

The scooter at issue in our November 2003 letter was described as a "toy" intended for off-road use only. The literature submitted stated that the maximum speed of the scooter ranged between 12.5 and 16 miles per hour (mph). The scooter was shown to have an engine displacement of 36 cc, a height of 33 inches, and wheel diameters of ten and nine inches (front and rear, respectively). The owners manual and a label on the scooter warned against operating the scooter on public roads.

Based on the description provided, including its speed capabilities and small size, we concluded that the "scooter" at issue was properly characterized as a "mini-bike," and therefore was not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Chapter 301. We explained that the scooters low speed capability would prohibit it from being operated in normal moving traffic. This was reflected in the warning label. Further, the low sitting height and small wheel diameters were comparable if not smaller than those of the mini-bikes considered under the 1969 notice.

We also stated that while the scooter at issue in that letter could theoretically be operated on public roads, we anticipated that because of its small size and absence of a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), which is generally required by States for vehicles authorized to operate on public roads, incidents of its actual operation on public streets, roads, and highways would be comparatively rare. We recognized that the scooter was equipped with a headlight, horn, turn signals, and a mirror. We noted that while this equipment may be seen as equipping the scooter for road use, such equipment is also sometimes present on bicycles and other non-motor vehicles as well.

Finally, we stated that while we had concluded at that time that the scooter was not a motor vehicle, we might re-evaluate our determination if we were to receive additional information indicating that the scooter (or similar ones) were being used on public roads on more than an incidental basis, the scooter were to be advertised for use on public roads, or the characteristics of the imported scooters were not consistent with the descriptions provided.

We will now turn to the scooters you asked about. In your e-mail, you stated that the three scooter models you are considering importing are intended for off-road-use only. The JC 50 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 49 cc, a maximum speed of 15 mph, and a height of 32.6 inches. The JC 70 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 72 cc, a maximum speed of 37 mph, and a height of 37.4 inches. The JC 90 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 85.7 cc, a maximum speed of 50 mph, and a height of 37.4 inches. Your e-mail stated that all three models are marked for off-road use and all three models have VINs. You further stated that sales of these scooters would be primarily through the internet. As advertised on the internet, the scooters are shown with headlights and mirrors.

ID: aiam3963

Dear Mr. Benfield: Thank you for your letter of April 12, 1985, concerning stat regulations that might affect a product you are considering. You explained that your product would fit inside the rear window of a vehicle. While we do not have information on state laws, I can explain the possible effect of Federal law on your potential product. I suggest you contact vehicle safety officials in the states in which you plan to sell your product to learn of their laws.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agenc to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has issued Federal Motor Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment, a copy of the standard is enclosed. If your product is mounted on, rather than inside, the rear window, it could be affected by Standard No. 205.; The performance requirements of the standard include ones regulatin the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing. Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility conforms with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or dealer places your product on the rear window in a new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.; In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act to address the problems of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle by adding section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor safety standard....<<<; Thus no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business may add material to the glazing materials of a motor vehicle, if that material would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on a individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any material they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that material would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.; If your product is not mounted on the window itself, it still may b affected by our standards. Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors, a copy of the standard is enclosed. The standard provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. If the field of view of the inside mirror in a new vehicle is obstructed by anything other than head restraints or seated occupants, then an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger's side of the vehicle.; Thus, if your product were mounted inside the rear window of a ne vehicle by a manufacturer or dealer at the time of its sale, and if installation of your product would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to ensure the vehicle was equipped with the necessary additional mirror required by Standard 111. Just as with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) would apply to the installation of your product in used vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops. Thus, if your product is mounted inside the rear window and its installation would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, an outside passenger side mirror would have to be installed. Again, section 108(a)(2)(A) does not limit the actions of individual vehicle owners.; If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: 24179.ztv

Mr. Rusty Riggin
Willow Development, Inc.
621 B Crazy Horse Road
Hutchinson, KS 67502

Dear Mr. Riggin:

This is in reply to your fax of March 15, 2002, relating to a lighting invention called "tailbeam." You stated that you are holding further development of this device until the Government "provides us with a legal boundary to work within."

The schematic you sent depicts a lamp mounted on the rear of a van-type vehicle in the lower right hand corner. Its light source is a halogen bulb which, you indicate, has the same intensity as a fog lamp, and, indeed, your prototype is a modified fog lamp. When the right turn signal is activated, the lamp would project a beam to the right, parallel to the rear of the vehicle, across the adjacent traffic lane. The beam is intended to provide a visual line of reference enabling the driver to determine if the rear of the vehicle has cleared a vehicle in the adjacent lane before the driver enters the adjacent lane. You believe that the "line of reference should be beneficial in reducing accidents caused by lane changes." You also state that the device "is also useful for backing a long vehicle toward and near a building or obstruction (again for a reference point)."

The same issue was addressed in a slightly different manner by another inventor who wrote us (see enclosed copy of a letter from this Office dated June 19, 2000, to a correspondent who requested anonymity). The invention that was the subject of this letter would be mounted on a trailer of a tractor-trailer combination and would project a light beam down and across an adjacent traffic lane visible to an approaching driver only when the driver was in the tractor drivers blind spot. We advised the inventor that the device did not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal law, and hence was permissible, but that we were concerned that it might impair driver performance.

"Tailbeam" appears to differ from that invention in that the beam is projected by a fog lamp light source and is operated by the turn signal control. As the enclosed letter indicates, a non-standard lighting device is permissible as original vehicle equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (the Federal lighting requirement that motor vehicles must be manufactured to meet).

Standard No. 108 does not prescribe requirements for front or rear cornering lamps. Some steady-burning lamps that supplement turn signal lamps (i.e., those front and rear cornering lamps that meet appropriate SAE Recommend Practices) are not prohibited by Federal or State laws. Under SAE Recommended Practice J1373 APR96 "Rear Cornering Lamps For Use On Motor Vehicles Less than 9.1 m in Overall Length" a rear cornering lamp is a supplemental lamp "used to provide illumination to an area to the side and rearward of the vehicle when it is backing up." The SAE also recommends that "the rear-cornering lamp should be illuminated only when the ignition switch is energized and reverse gear is engaged." Although "tailbeam" may assist in backing the vehicle, it is not a rear cornering lamp as defined by the SAE because it is operated by the turn signal switch.

If "tailbeam" is configured as a fog lamp, we believe it possible that it could impair the effectiveness of the turn signal by creating momentary confusion in a following driver who, unfamiliar with the "Tailbeam," might be distracted from the message the turn signal is sending. Moreover, at night, depending on its intensity, the fog lamp light source could create distracting glare as well. A cornerstone of the National Highway Highway Traffic Safety Administrations opinion letters on motor vehicle lighting is that signals must be clear and unambiguous in nature so that vehicle operators may respond quickly and appropriately to them. Because "tailbeam" is similar to a rear cornering lamp, we suggest that you test it for photometric conformity to the requirements specified in SAE J1373 (copy enclosed). If the halogen light source you wish to use does not exceed the candela maxima specified in the SAEJ1373, that would address our concerns about glare. If it does exceed these maxima, you may wish to consider using a different light source.

As noted in the enclosed letter, your invention is also subject to relevant state laws; we are unable to advise you on these.

We note your offer to come to our headquarters to demonstrate "Tailbeam." Generally, it is not practicable for us to accept such offers because of the need of our limited number of engineers and attorneys to address the agencys ongoing programs of established safety priorities.

Enclosures

ref:108

d.8/2/02

ID: aiam4145

Dear Ms. Hartman: Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1986, asking how ou regulations affect a product you are considering. In your letter, you asked the agency not to disclose your idea for this product. In a phone conversation of April 28, 1986, with Stephen Oesch of my staff, you waived your request for complete nondisclosure and agreed to the disclosure of a generic description of your product. As you requested, we will not disclose the specific details of your product or the sketches you enclosed with your letter.; Your product is designed to reduce the possibility that a young chil could unbuckle a vehicle safety belt. The product would enclose the buckle of the safety belt, so that it is difficult for a child to operate the buckle release.; We have significant reservations about your product. I hope th following discussion explains our reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.; Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable t new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to you product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:; >>>The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle forc release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985).<<<; In addition, use of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One requirement of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, is that the pushbutton release for a safety belt must have a a (sic) minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business could be prohibited since it apparently would substantially reduce the minimum area available for applying the release force to the safety belt pushbutton. In addition, Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that the safety belt no longer meet (sic) the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) (sic) does not apply t individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person could be inconsistent with that policy.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3921

Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to your inquiry about ventilation holes in the front o motorcycle helmets currently being manufactured by other companies. You give the location of these ventilation holes as being between the reference plane and the test line, one inch above that plane, and ask whether these holes are permitted under Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; Standard No. 218 requires, in paragraph S5.4, that: 'Each helmet shal have a protective surface of continuous contour at all points on or above the test line described in S6.1.3.' In paragraph S6.1.3, this test line is required to be drawn one inch above the reference plane in the frontal portion of the helmet. The continuous contour requirement is important because both the impact attenuation and penetration tests in the standard are performed on the helmet area above the test line. This helmet test area is the shaded area illustrated in Figure 2 of Standard No. 218. Therefore, any ventilation holes located between the reference plane and the test line in the front portion of a helmet would be permitted under the standard, as long as they are not located on or above the test line.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel