ID: nht92-5.32

DATE: July 1, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth Lenz -- HME Incorporated

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/24/92 from Kenneth Lenz to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 7449)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." (S S4)

Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks should be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206.

You also asked about the possibility of obtaining an exemption from Standard No. 206 for fire trucks. The only provisions for exemptions from safety standards are those set forth in 49 CFR 555, a copy of which is enclosed. As you will note, the circumstances under which exemptions may be granted and the scope of such exemptions are very limited.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Attachments

Copy of 49 CFR 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Copy of S 571.206, Standard No. 206; Door locks and door retention components. (Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: 86-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Geral L. Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Geral L. Cox FLIRRZ 8931 Upper DeArmoun Road Anchorage, Alaska 9951

Dear Mr. Cox:

This responds to your letter seeking this agency's opinion of a reflective device you plan to sell to be installed on semitrailers and other motor vehicles. As explained in your letter, these reflective devices would be installed on the center plug hub of wheels on semitrailers and trailers. You asked me to send you a letter stating either that your devices comply with applicable Federal standards or that you don't need DOT approval to sell these devices. You are correct that you do not need approval from this agency to market your product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq., hereinafter "the Act") does not permit this agency to assure a manufacturer that its products comply with all applicable requirements or to "approve" a manufacturer's products. Instead, section 114 of the Act (copy enclosed) requires the manufacturer itself to certify that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this statutory requirement, the National highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot "approve" products or offer assurances of compliance by the product.

With respect to your reflective devices, there is no provision in our standards expressly prohibiting such reflectors. The installation of those reflectors would be subject only to the requirement set forth in section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 2571.108). That section provides that no additional reflectors that impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 shall be installed on motor vehicles. This prohibition applies to parties installing your product on vehicles, and not to you as the manufacturer of the product. This is because the installer is the only party that can ensure that the reflectors are installed so that they do not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Generally speaking, this requirement of Standard No. 108 applies only to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories added to a vehicle after that purchase. The general rule is that aftermarket accessories may be added to vehicles.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..." NHTSA considers it an element of design on vehicles that they have lighting and other equipment that are required by Standard No. 108 and whose effectiveness is not impaired by additional lights or reflectors. If the installation of your reflectors would impair that effectiveness, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing such reflectors would be rendering inoperative that design element of the vehicle, and thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each vehicle on which this element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation. You should note that the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to a vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design on his or her vehicle. Hence, if your aftermarket reflectors are sold to and installed by vehicle owners, those persons would not be subject to the prohibition of section 108 referenced above.

It appears from the materials enclosed with your letter that these reflectors would be installed so that they project outwards several inches beyond the wheel of the vehicles on which they are installed. have enclosed a copy of standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps, for your information. This standard does not apply to trucks, trailers, or large buses, which are the vehicle types on which you indicated your reflectors would be installed. However, Standard No. 211 prohibits passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles from incorporating winged projections on their wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. This prohibition is intended to prevent the potential hazard to pedestrians and cyclists from projections extending beyond the wheel of these vehicles. I hope that this potential hazard will not be present on vehicles on which your reflectors are installed.

You should also be aware of the responsibilities imposed by the Act on manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as your reflectors. If either you, as a manufacturer, or this agency determines that your product does not comply with an applicable safety standard or that the products contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would be required to remedy that noncompliance or defect. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if an item of motor vehicle equipment fails to comply with an applicable standard or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Jan. 30, 1986

To the Chief Counsel

Mr. Kennerly Digges National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington,D.C.

Mr. Diggs,

Back in December we had a phone conversation about D.O.T. approval on new safety devices to be introduced to the trucking industry. It is my understanding that I don't need to have any D.O.T. approval as long as I fall within all of the guidelines listed in the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Regulations handbook.

I have enclosed a few sketches and a brief explanation as to what my invention and safety device are designed to do. According to my understanding of the rule book, I feel that I fall well within the Federal guidelines. I have read section #393.26(e) lines 1-5 concerning non-required reflectors, which is the only section I could find that would relate to my device, I feel that I fall well within these guidelines.

What I would like to have from the NHTSA is a documented letter stating that they feel that I fall well within the Federal guidelines and/or that I don't need any D.O.T. approval to go ahead on manufacturing and sales of my device. We hope to hear from you soon as we hope to start manufacturing these devices as soon as the first week of March, our future is riding on a letter from you and the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Division, we hope to get a letter from them in the very near future.

I want to thank you for your co-operation and any and all that you could do to help us on to what we hope to be a very prosperous future.

Again thank you,

Sincerely

Geral L. Cox

"FLIKRZ"

A TRUCK/TRAILER WHEEL MOVEMENT INDICATOR

"FLIKRZ" are a safety device for all Semi-Trucks that operate this nations highways. "FLIKRZ" are the idea, design and invention of Gerry Cox, a long time professional Truck-driver in Alaska.

After many years of hands-on operation and observation of heavy-duty Semi-Trucks in Alaska's harsh environment, Gerry noticed a very hazardous, expensive and to common occurrence, locking, skidding trailer tires.

The most common cause of unnoticed wheel skids occurs during the winter months when a trailer is parked after normal, trouble free operation and ice forms between the brake shoe and brake drum setting the brakes in the lock position. A driver will release his brake switch and drive away with what he believes to be free wheeling trailer, when in reality he may be skidding one or more of the trailer wheels behind him without realizing he is in the process of destroying hundreds of dollars worth of tires.

Another common cause of unnoticed tire skidding occurs with over application of the trailer brakes on slippery downhill grades. During slippery conditions, one or more wheels can lock-up without indication causing unnecessary tire wear or even throw the trailer dangerously out of control.

"FLIKRZ" are a simple, install in seconds wheel reflector that allows a driver at all times, at any speed, day or night to know exactly if and when his trailer wheels are moving or not.

"FLIKRZ" are made to fit most 15-24 inch trailer wheel assemblies equipped with the common 1-1/8 inch removable center plug hub. They install in seconds and come in a variety of colors (RED, WHITE, BLUE, ORANGE, YELLOW AND GREEN) FOR EASY IDENTIFICATION OF EACH AXLE ASSEMBLY.

"FLIKRZ" are not only an effective, maintenance reducing device, they are also a public safety aid. If and when a Truck loses all tail and marker lights to the trailer, traffic approaching from the front, rear or sides will see the "FLIKRZ" in motion and be aware of a moving Semi-Truck or one that may be parked on the side of the road for that matter. During the winter months, snow blowing up and covering the tail-lights is a far to common and dangerous problem. If by chance a Semi-Truck and trailer are parked on the edge of the road with no lights and safety flares or safety markers aren't available for the moment, then "FLIKRZ" will allow a driver the time he needs to place the necessary safety devices for warning on coming traffic.

In addition to being a wheel movement indicator, public safety aid or skid detector, "FLIKRZ" also aid a driver in backing his trailer into dark places during night time operations. With the aid of back-up light, the reflector will let him know exactly where his trailer tires are at all time.

I feel so strongly about the safety, maintenance reduction and striking appearance that this simple, inexpensive device has to offer to any independent trucker or an entire fleet for that matter, that I forsee the day that near all Semi-Trailers on this nation's highway will be willingly and satisfactorily equipped with FLIKRZ"....

NOTE

DRIVE WHEEL ADAPTERS AVAILABLE FOR SEMI-TRACTORS, DELIVERY TRUCKS, SCHOOL, MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC BUS LINES, ETC....

ID: 2669o

Ms. Beth Whitman
Marketing Services Manager
Ken-Tool
768 East North Street
Akron, Ohio 44305

Dear Ms. Whitman:

This responds to your letter of September 25, l987, concerning the use of "steel duck-billed hammers" to change farm and truck tires. You expressed concern that a competitor is using a safety chart produced by NHTSA to support its claim that the use of these tools is prohibited.

The NHTSA safety chart, "Safety Precautions for Mounting and Demounting Tube Type Truck/Bus Tires," includes two specific references to hammers/hammering. Under the heading "Deflation and Assembly," the chart states: "Never use a steel hammer to assemble or disassemble rim components--Use a lead, brass, or plastic type mallet. Proper tools are available through rim/wheel distributors." Under the heading "Assembly and Inflation," the chart states: "Never hammer on components of an inflated or partially inflated assembly." These precautions apply to steel hammers and hammering in general, and the chart does not state that steel duck billed hammers should not be used for other applications in changing tires.

We note that you enclosed a copy of a July l3, l987 letter from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), stating the following:

[OSHA] does not prohibit the proper use of a steel duck billed hammer for servicing wheels used on large vehicles such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines.

Under the OSHA regulations at 29 CFR l9l0.l77(d)(6), employers are required to furnish and assure that only tools recommended in the rim manual for the type of wheel being serviced are used to service rim wheels. Further, under 29 CFR l9l0.l77(f)(8), the regulations specify that: No attempt shall be made to correct the seating of side and lock rings by hammering, striking or forcing the components while the tire is pressurized.

You state that you are concerned that your competitor's tool may not meet OSHA regulations and may be less than safe to use. We suggest that you contact OSHA about this concern. You may also wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning your belief that your competitor's advertising is misleading.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:110#120 d:2/ll/88

ID: 07-26-01_Rubel_ltr_spw

Eric A. Rubel, Esq.
Arnold & Porter
555 Twelfth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1206





Dear Mr. Rubel:

This is in reply to your letter, written on behalf of DEKA Research and Development Corporation (DEKA), asking whether certain products would be considered "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by this agency. You generally described the products. You stated that the products in question, which to date have not been marketed or sold, would have either two or four drive wheels, would operate on battery power, and would be intended primarily for use on sidewalks. You also stated that the products could be described as low-speed electric personal assistive mobility devices, which are self-balancing, can operate on two non-tandem wheels, have an electric propulsion system, and have a maximum speed on a paved level surface of less than 20 mph, when powered solely by such a propulsion system and ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined, in part, as one "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." 49 U.S.C. ' 30102(a)(6). Accordingly, only vehicles which are operated on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of their primary uses, are considered to be motor vehicles. In determining whether a particular product is operated on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of its primary uses, we consider a number of factors, including whether the vehicle can be licensed for use on public streets, roads and highways. If a vehicle cannot be so licensed, we consider whether the vehicle is, in fact, used on public streets, roads, and highways by a substantial number of people.

Considering that the vehicles you describe are still in the planning stage (i.e., are not presently available for sale to the general public), no data are available concerning their actual use. In situations like this, where such data are unavailable, this agency has looked to the use patterns of vehicles similar to the ones in development. Given the general nature of the description, identifying like-vehicles is difficult. This problem is compounded by the fact that the vehicles DEKA is planning to manufacture appear to be unique. Nevertheless, we note that they have characteristics that, at least in some respects, are similar to those of motorized wheelchairs.

This agency does not consider motorized wheelchairs to be "motor vehicles." They are not licensable and are not used on public streets, roads, and highways by a substantial number of people. Thus, they are not subject to this agency's safety regulations. Based on our understanding of the characteristics of the vehicles in question and on the assumptions that they would not be licensable and would be used in a fashion similar to motorized wheelchairs, we would not consider the vehicles to be "motor vehicles."

If our assumptions about licensability and actual usage proved incorrect, we would reconsider this position.

If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.8/3/01

ID: nht95-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allen F. Brauninger, Esq. -- Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/29/94 LETTER FROM ALLEN F. BRAUNINGER TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10534)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brauninger:

This responds to your letter asking whether a window shade intended for use on an automobile is motor vehicle equipment. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. From the materials you sent us, we assume that you are referring to the roll-down shades that suction onto the rear side window of vehicles, usually for the purpose of keeping the sun off the faces of children strapped into child safety seats.

The answer to your question is yes. The window shades are an accessory (a type of motor vehicle equipment) under 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(7). As explained in my September 16, 1994, letter from this office to Mr. Harleigh Ewell of your office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an "accessory." The two criteria are whether:

(1) A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

(2) it is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Applying these criteria to the window shades, we conclude that they are accessories. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available informa tion about the actual use of the product. We assume that the window shade you are referring to has packaging that shows that its purpose is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun while the vehicle is in operation. The shade would typically be acquire d and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle). Since the shade satisfies both criteria, it is considered to be an "accessory" and thus motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has issued no safety standards that apply specifically to window shades that are sold separately from the vehicle.

However, as you know, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are responsible under our statute for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you will send us the information you have regarding the incidence of accidents cause d by these window shades, we will forward it to the appropriate NHTSA office.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10534

Allen F. Brauninger, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington, D.C. 20207-0001

Dear Mr. Brauninger:

This responds to your letter asking whether a window shade intended for use on an automobile is motor vehicle equipment. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. From the materials you sent us, we assume that you are referring to the roll-down shades that suction onto the rear side window of vehicles, usually for the purpose of keeping the sun off the faces of children strapped into child safety seats.

The answer to your question is yes. The window shades are an accessory (a type of motor vehicle equipment) under 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(7). As explained in my September 16, 1994, letter from this office to Mr. Harleigh Ewell of your office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an "accessory." The two criteria are whether:

(1) A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

(2) it is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Applying these criteria to the window shades, we conclude that they are accessories. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. We assume that the window shade you are referring to has packaging that shows that its purpose is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun while the vehicle is in operation. The shade would typically be acquired and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle). Since the shade satisfies both criteria, it is considered to be an "accessory" and thus motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has issued no safety standards that apply specifically to window shades that are sold separately from the vehicle.

However, as you know, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are responsible under our statute for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you will send us the information you have regarding the incidence of accidents caused by these window shades, we will forward it to the appropriate NHTSA office.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:4/24/95

ID: nht88-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: BETH WHITMAN -- MARKETING SERVICES MANAGER KEN-TOOL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/09/87 FROM LEO CAREY TO BETH WHITMAN; LETTER DATED 01/21/87 FROM SL LEPOSKY TO DISTRIBUTORS; UNDATED LETTER FROM SL LEPOSKY TO ALL DISTRIBUTORS AND SALESMEN RE NON USE OF DUCK BILL STEEL TIRE HAMMERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Whitman:

This responds to your letter of September 25, 1987, concerning the use of "steel duck-billed hammers" to change farm and truck tires. You expressed concern that a competitor is using a safety chart produced by NHTSA to support its claim that the use of these tools is prohibited.

The NHTSA safety chart, "Safety Precautions for Mounting and Demounting Tube Type Truck/Bus Tires," includes two specific references to hammers/hammering. Under the heading "Deflation and Assembly," the chart states: "Never use a steel hammer to assemble or disassemble rim components--Use a lead, brass, or plastic type mallet. Proper tools are available through rim/wheel distributors." Under the heading "Assembly and Inflation," the chart states: "Never hammer on components of an inflated or partially inflated assembly." These precautions apply to steel hammers and hammering in general, and the chart does not state that steel duck billed hammers should not be used for other applications in changing tires.

We note that you enclosed a copy of a July 13, 1987 letter from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), stating the following:

[OSHA] does not prohibit the proper use of a steel duck billed hammer for servicing wheels used on large vehicles such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines.

Under the OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1910.177(d)(6), employers are required to furnish and assure that only tools recommended in the rim manual for the type of wheel being serviced are used to service rim wheels. Further, under 29 CFR 1910.177(f)(8), the regulations specify that: No attempt shall be made to correct the seating of side and lock rings by hammering, striking or forcing the components while the tire is pressurized.

You state that you are concerned that your competitor's tool may not meet OSHA regulations and may be less than safe to use. We suggest that you

contact OSHA about this concern. You may also wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning your belief that your competitor's advertising is misleading.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: 1983-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: 3M Center -- Mary Ruth Harsha, Office of General Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/30/76 letter from Frank Berndt to Mark T. Lerche (Sun Control Products of Virginia, Inc.); Also, 11/10/76 letter from Frank Berndt to M.P. McNiff (3M Company, Solar Control Products); Also, 4/18/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Charles H. Percy

TEXT:

Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha Office of General Counsel 3M Center P.O. Box 33428 St. Paul, Minnesota 55133

Dear Ms. Harsha:

This responds to your company's recent letter regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety regulations to the sale and application of sun control films on motor vehicles. You ask whether our November 10, 1976, letter to your company on this same subject is still applicable, as well as several other questions.

Our November 1976 letter is still current. Solar films themselves are not considered glazing materials under Safety Standard No. 205. As stated in that letter, however, the application of such films to motor vehicles by certain persons does give rise to responsibilities under Federal law. I am enclosing a copy of a recent letter of interpretation which discusses the pertinent Federal law on this subject.

I am also enclosing a copy of a telegram that we recently sent to the Hawaii Department of Transportation which discusses the preemptive effect of Safety Standard No. 205 over State laws governing the same aspect of motor vehicle performance, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seg.). The Hawaii legislature has passed a law which attempts to allow dealers and businesses in that State to apply solar films on motor vehicles. Those films are allowed to reduce transmittance down to 35 percent. As pointed out in the enclosed telegram, Safety Standard No. 205 preempts that State statute in certain respects. The letter of interpretation and the telegram should answer all of your questions.

Please note that under Safety Standard No. 205 all windows in a passenger car are considered requisite for driving visibility. Thus, all windows in a passenger car must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. In vehicles other than passenger cars, typically, only the windshield and front side windows are considered requisite for driving visibility. This means, for example, that a van could have solar films installed on windows behind the driver, since no transmittance requirements are specified for those windows.

I hope this has answered all your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures (4/18/83 letter from NHTSA to Charles H. Percy omitted here:)

2/17/83

TO: PAUL J PHILLIPSON STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCH BOWL STREET, 5TH FLOOR HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813

THIS LETTER RESPONDS TO YOUR FEBRUARY 11, 1983 LETTER REGARDING BILL CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED IN THE HAWAII LEGISLATURE.

THE BILL, S.B. NO. 57, RELATES TO LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE THROUGH VEHICLE GLAZING AND PRACTICE OF ATTACHING A "SUN SCREENING DEVICE" TO SUCH GLAZING. BILL PERMITS ADDITION OF SUN SCREENING DEVICE TO SIDE WINDOWS AND REAR WINDOWS IF LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE AND LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING AND SCREENING DEVICE TOGETHER ARE EACH NOT MORE THAN 35 PERCENT.

THIS BILL, IF ENACTED, WOULD BE AT LEAST PARTIALLY PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND WOULD NOT, IN ANY EVENT, ALTER PROHIBITION IN FEDERAL LAW AGAINST AFFIXING OF TINTING FILM OR OTHER MATERIALS OR DEVICES SO AS TO REDUCE LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING BELOW THAT REQUIRED IN FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS. SECTION 103(d) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT, AS AMENDED 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) PROHIBITS STATE FROM HAVING SAFETY STANDARD REGULATING ASPECT OF PERFORMACE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARD UNLESS STATE STANDARD IS IDENTICAL TO FEDERAL STANDARD.

GLAZING IS AN ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARDS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 103(a) OF THE STANDARD ACT (15 U.S.C. 1392(a)), NHTSA HAS ESTABLISHED FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR 571.205). STANDARD NO. 205 REGULATES GLAZING MATERIALS IN NEW VEHICLES AS WELL AS REPLACEMENT GLAZING TO BE INSTALLED IN USED VEHICLES. STANDARD REQUIRES THAT ALL GLAZING USED IN CARS TO HAVE LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF AT LEAST 70 PERCENT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT S.B. NO. 57 WOULD PERMIT ADDITION BY ANY PERSON, SUCH AS A DEALER, OF TINTING FILM OR OTHER DEVICE OR MATERIALS TO THE GLAZING IN NEW CARS OR TO THE GLAZING TO BE INSTALLED IN USED CARS SO THAT LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE IS REDUCED BELOW 70 PERCENT, THAT BILL WOULD NOT BE IDENTICAL TO STANDARD NO. 205. ACCORDINGLY, THE BILL WOULD, IN THAT REGARD, BE PREEMPTED UNDER SECTION 103(d).

FURTHER, PRACTICES PROHIBITED BY SAFETY ACT COULD NOT BE MADE LAWFUL BY S.B. NO. 57. ENACTMENT OF THAT BILL WOULD NOT ALTER PROHIBITION IN SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) OF SAFETY ACT AGAINST ALTERING VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT SO AS TO RENDER INOPERATIVE SAFETY FEATURES OR PERFORMANCE INCORPORATED IN THOSE VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT. PROHIBITION APPLIES TO MOTOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS AND MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESSES, BUT NOT TO PERSONS WHO ALTERS HIS OR HER OWN VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT.

EFFECT: OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IS TO PROHIBIT ANY OF LISTED PARTIES FROM INSTALLING " SUN SCREENING DEVICE" ON CAR GLAZING, IF THAT INSTALLATION WOULD REDUCE LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING BELOW 70 PERCENT. THIS PROHIBITION APPLIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER GLAZING IS ALREADY INSTALLED ON CAR OR WHETHER CAR IS NEW OR USED. NHTSA HAS STATED IN PREVIOUS LETTER OF INTERPRETATION THAT AUTO TINT SHOPS OR ANY PERSON WHO INSTALLS SOLAR TINTING FILM ON CAR GLAZING FOR COMPENSATION WOULD BE CONSIDERED MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT DEALER OR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESS AND THUS SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION.

PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) CAN BE SUBSTANTIAL. SECTION 109 OF SAFETY ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THAT SECTION IS SUBJECT TD CIVIL PENALTY OF UP TO $1,000 PER VIOLATION. THUS, IF PERSON VIOLATES SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IN ALTERING 10 CARS, HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY OF UP TO $10,000. SECTION 109 ALLOWS TOTAL PENALTY OF UP TO $800,000 FOR RELATED SERIES OF VIOLATIONS.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT NHTSA INTENDS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ENFORCE SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) PROHIBITION AGAINST IDENTIFIED PARTIES WHO ADD "SUN SCREENING DEVICES" IN VIOLATION OF THAT SECTION.

FINALLY, WE NOTE THAT IF "SUN SCREENING DEVICE" INSTALLED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IS FACTOR IN CAUSING ACCIDENT, INSTALLER MAY BE SUBJECTED TO SUBSTANTIAL LIABILITY AS RESULT OF PRIVATE LAW SUITS.

Original signed by Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 30, 1983

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

Re: Application of Sun Control Films to Motor Vehicles

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am legal counsel to the Energy Control Products Project of 3M, a division of 3M engaged in the manufacture and sale of sun control films.

On November 10, 1976 your office wrote to Mr. M. P. McNiff of 3M Company regarding the applicability of federal motor vehicle regulations to the sale and application of sun control films. A copy of this letter is attached for your reference.

As you are aware, various state laws and the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission Regulation, VESC-20, have been enacted relative to the use of sun control films since the date of your November 10, 1976 memo to Mr. McNiff, and my office has recently reviewed various inquiries regarding the applicability of these latter regulations and the federal standards. I would therefore appreciate receiving an update to your November 10th memo and a clarification from your office relative to the following matters:

1. Is either the sale or application of sun control films to motor vehicles governed by any provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? If so, to what degree is applicability affected by the following factors:

a) whether the film is applied by a dealer specializing in film application versus a private individual;

b) whether the vehicle is a passenger automobile versus a recreational vehicle; or

c) the location of the application, i.e. to the back windshield versus the front windshield.

2. Are VESC--20 and the various state laws which have been enacted relative to sun control films preempted by federal regulations? If so, pursuant to what statutory authority and to what degree?

Your opinion relative to the foregoing matters would be greatly appreciated. Please forward your comments to my associate Mary Ruth Harsha, Division Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 3M Center, P. 0. Box 33428, St. Paul, MN 55133.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Harsha directly on 612/736-1791.

Very truly yours,

Claudia J. Davis CJD:kmm cc: Mary Ruth Harsha

Enclosure (11/10/76 letter from Frank Berndt to Solar Control Products omitted here.)

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: nht88-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/18/88

FROM: R. C. ROST -- PRESIDENT; MINNESOTA BODY & EQUIPMENT CO.

TO: CHIEF COUNCIL -- U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: WE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COLOR OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO R.C. ROST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J. LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/11/88 TO SHANON L. FOND FROM JERRY SMITH RE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF S CHOOL BUS USER; LETTER DATED 02/25/88 TO SHARON FOR FROM JERRY SMITH; UNDATED BROUCHERS ON SCHOOL BUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: Dear Council:

We request clarification of a matter pertaining to buses sold to Headstart organizations. As a bus dealer we are in a catch 22 situation where no matter what we do it is wrong. According to Department of Transportation Chief Council in 1977 Headstarts must comply as a school bus which would include construction, seats, roof warning lights and all items covered in FMVSS part 571, amended in the federal register (40FR60033) on Dec. 31, 1975.

1. All "school" buses over 10 passenger require roof warning lights whether yellow or non yellow.

2. Regional Headstart in Kansas City, Mr. Frank Magona, 816-426-5401, tells his district roof lights are not required on non yellow headstart buses and it is up to the individual states to set their own regulations and that Headstart does not recognize federal D.O.T. rulings. The same is true of Central Headstart in Atlanta.

3. The State of Iowa D.O.T. and Department of School Transportation say buses used for Headstart cannot be yellow and cannot have roof warning lights.

J. P. Golinvaux District Representative Iowa Department of Transportation Air and Transit Division State Capitol DesMoines, IA 50319 515-281-4265 Dwight R. Carlson Assistant Chief Bureau of School Adm. and Accreditation Grimes State Office Building DesM oines, IA 50319-0146 515-281-5811

4. The State of Wisconsin Department of School Transportation and Wisconsin D.O.T. say buses used for Headstart cannot be yellow and can not have roof warning lights.

Mr. Frank Potts Division of Planning Wisconsin Dept. of Transp. Po Box 7913 Madison, WI 53707 Donald Schneider Director School Transportation Supv. Pupil Transportation Po Box 7841 Madison, WI 53707 608-266-2853

5. We have no problem building a bus to meet school safety standards. School standards do not require the bus to be yellow so color is no problem. The only problem is the requirement for roof warning lights on a non yellow bus. If the conflict was no t considered in the previous 1977 ruling we ask that it be considered at this time. Since the buses do not say "school bus" they cannot use the lights to safely stop traffic.

6. What ever your decision we request that you start enforcing your ruling and make public to Headstart, all the states and the bus manufactures what your ruling is.

Since Headstart has several million dollars set aside to buy buses in 1988 we ask you to make this ruling as soon as possible.

Yours truly,