ID: 22040.drn

Mr. Robert Pitre
Nelson Technologies
200 E. Chestnut St. #1414
Chicago, Il 60611





Dear Mr. Pitre:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to the windshield wiper blades that your company is developing. I am pleased to provide the information you requested.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (The standards are codified at Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.) This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your windshield wiper blades in a new vehicle (before first sale of the vehicle to the customer) would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the device installed. An FMVSS that might be relevant to the blades is Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, which specifies a number of requirements for windshield wiping and washing systems. A vehicle manufacturer would need to ensure that if a vehicle had your windshield wiper blades, the vehicle's windshield wiping and washing system met all the requirements of Standard No.104.

No standards would apply to your windshield wiper blades to the extent they are sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard (Title 49 of the U.S. Code, section 30122). The blades could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual States have authority to regulate modifications that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on State laws. You should contact the individual States in which you intend to sell your product.

A source of information about State laws is the Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. (AMECA), 1101 15^th St., N.W., Suite 607, Washington, DC 20005. Their telephone number is: (202) 898-0145, and their FAX number is: (202) 898-0148. The AMECA is a centralized voluntary agency that notifies government, industry and the public about items of motor vehicle safety equipment that have been tested by various laboratories in accordance with United States industry, state and federal standards.

Finally, the windshield wiper blades are considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that you or whoever manufactures your blades would be subject to 49 U.S.C. sections 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama this address or at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:104#VSA
d.1/5/00

ID: 22041.drn

The Honorable Todd Tiahrt
United States House of Representatives
155 North Market, Suite 400
Wichita, KS 67202






Dear Congressman Tiahrt:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Office of Congressional Affairs, on behalf of Mr. Maurice Linnens, of Kansas Truck Equipment Co., Inc. Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for school buses, your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your constituent seeks clarification of the effect of Federal regulations on the sale of an "over-the-road activity bus" (motorcoach) to a Kansas school district. Mr. Linnens would like to sell a new motorcoach to a school district, but was told that Federal law would prohibit the sale, even though it would be permitted under Kansas law. You ask for our views on several letters from Kansas officials and from Mr. Roger Theis, Mr. Linnens' attorney, concerning Federal and state school bus regulations.

As explained below, under NHTSA's regulations, any new bus (including a motorcoach) that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events must comply with the standards for school buses issued by this agency under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (formerly referred to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). While Kansas apparently permits schools to purchase motorcoaches as "activity buses," Federal law would not permit manufacturers and dealers to sell a new motorcoach for this purpose unless the vehicle is certified as meeting Federal school bus safety standards.

NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Each new vehicle must meet all applicable safety standards or it cannot be sold. In a 1974 amendment to the Safety Act (Public Law 93-492), Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including school bus emergency exits, seating systems, window and windshields, and bus body structural integrity. The standards we issued became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to each new "school bus" manufactured on or after that date.

Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. ⁽¹⁾ 49 U.S.C. 30125. This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of the comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

The great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of "school bus." More specifically, any new "bus" (including a motorcoach) sold to a school district, or to a school bus contractor, is considered to be a "school bus" when sold for pupil transportation, and as such must comply with the school bus safety standards. A dealer or distributor who sells a new bus to a school district or school bus contractor that does not meet school bus standards is subject to penalties under the statute.

Because our laws generally apply only to manufacturers and dealers of new motor vehicles, we do not regulate a school district's use of a bus to transport school children, even when the bus does not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each state has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.

The letters you enclosed from Kansas state officials reflect an opinion that a new motorcoach purchased and operated for transporting pupils to school-related activities is not a school bus ("route bus") under state law. A state's determination that a motorcoach is exempted from its school bus standards does not affect the Federal requirement that new buses sold by dealers for pupil transportation must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Thus, Federal law would not permit the sale of a new motorcoach to the school district unless the vehicle were certified as a school bus. The views of Mr. Theis on this issue are essentially correct.

As you have pointed out in your letter, a school district can be sold a used motorcoach, even when the bus could not be sold when new. This is because our requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale," i.e., to sales of used vehicles. (See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1).) Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

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

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Womack, Esq., NHTSA's Senior Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/26/00

---

1. NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events.

ID: 22042.drn

The Honorable Jerry Moran
United States House of Representatives
1200 Main St. Suite 402
P.O. Box 249
Hays, KS 67801-0249






Dear Congressman Moran:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Office of Congressional Affairs, on behalf of Mr. Richard Cain, Assistant Superintendent for Finance of Unified School District 489 in Hays, Kansas. Mr. Cain seeks assistance in purchasing an "over-the-road activity bus" (motorcoach) that apparently does not meet Federal school bus standards. The manufacturer of the bus has apparently stated that based on the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the bus cannot be sold to your constituent's school district. Insofar as another school district, USD 457 apparently purchased an identical bus in 1998, Mr. Cain wants to know "whether NHTSA's standards have changed" since that time.

Because NHTSA administers Federal regulations for school buses, your letter has been referred to my office for reply. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses.

Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. ⁽¹⁾ 49 U.S.C. 30125. This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

The great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of "school bus." More specifically, any new "bus" (including a motorcoach) sold to a school district, or to a school bus contractor, is considered to be a "school bus" when sold for pupil transportation, and as such must comply with the school bus safety standards. A dealer or distributor who sells a new bus to a school district or school bus contractor that does not meet school bus standards is subject to penalties under the statute. There has been no change in NHTSA's laws on dealers' sales of new buses to school districts in the past two years. We plan to look into whether the sale of a similar bus to USD 457 in 1998 violated our laws.

Because our laws generally apply only to manufacturers and dealers of new motor vehicles, we do not regulate a school district's use of a bus to transport school children, even when the bus does not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each state has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.

As Mr. Cain has pointed out in his letter, a school district can be sold a used motorcoach, even when the bus could not be sold when new. This is because our requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale," i.e., to sales of used vehicles. (See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1).) Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

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

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Womack, Esq., NHTSA's Senior Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/27/00


---

1. NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events.

ID: 22044

Mr. Matthias Friedrich
Managing Director
Van Riesen GmbH+CoKG
IndustriestraBe 10
D-32130 Enger
Denmark





Dear Mr. Friedrich:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the buckle release on your child restraint system meets the area requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." The answer is no.

S5.4.3.5(c) of Standard No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 ( 571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for push button application shall be 0.6 square inch." You state that your buckle release design would meet this requirement if we add the "press" area (0.39 square inch) of the release button to the bottom area (0.23 square inch) of the release button.

We do not consider your buckle release to be designed for push button application because a sliding action activates the buckle release. In fact, it is apparent from your letter that you concur that the buckle release is not of a push button type. You state in your letter: "The button is not a push-button as described in the FMVSS-standard, [sic] it is as [sic] slide action release button . . . ." Since your buckle release is not designed for push button application, the 0.6 square inch minimum surface area requirement in S5.4.3.5(c) does not apply.

S4.3(d)(2) of Standard No. 209 reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.

(Emphasis added.)

Because your buckle release is designed for slide application rather than push button or lever application, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category. Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), it must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release. None of our staff working on this response was able to place two fingers into your slide action release button to actuate release, and you do not claim otherwise. Thus, we do not agree that your buckle release meets the requirement of S4.3(d)(2).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#209
d.2/6/01

ID: 22052

Mr. Wade Vandiver
Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering
400 Two Allen Center
1200 Smith Street
Houston, TX 77002





Dear Mr. Vandiver:

This responds to your letter in which you request information on Federal seat belt regulations. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your letter raises the issue of whether Federal law requires a person who is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business and who installs temporary benches in the bed of a used pickup truck to equip each seating position with a seat belt. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 required model year 1988 pickup trucks to have a Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing front outboard designated seating position, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other designated seating positions.

NHTSA's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Since the benches were installed in the pickup bed after the first purchase of the vehicle, Standard No. 208 does not apply directly to those benches. However, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) applies in the case of used as well as new vehicles. That section reads as follows:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

Section 30122(b) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Accordingly, looking at the specific factual situation identified by your letter, modifications made by a contractor who has been provided a vehicle for the contractor's sole use and operation are not subject to the provisions of this section .

As I am sure you are aware, however, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles and the operation of these vehicles. We offer no view on the impact of such State laws or whether they would apply to the operation of vehicles off of public roadways. Therefore, you should determine if any state laws govern this particular modification. In addition, while Federal law does not apply to a modification an individual makes to his or her own vehicle, NHTSA urges vehicle owners to exercise care when installing new seats, and to install seat belts for each seating position.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke in NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.4/26/01

ID: 22054.drn

Vincent P. Schulze, Chief
Commercial Bus Inspection and Investigation
State of New Jersey Department of Transportation
Division of Motor Vehicles
P.O. Box 160
Trenton, NJ 08666-0160






Dear Mr. Schulze:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 2000, to Mr. Chris Rotondo, of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) concerning test procedures for bus windows. Because you had questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, which is administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), I have been asked to respond.

In your letter, you state that New Jersey State bus investigators are issuing summonses for safety violations during roadside bus safety inspections. The summonses are issued under the guidelines of a New Jersey statute, the "Bus Safety Compliance Act." One serious violation for which bus operators may be cited is "inoperable emergency exit windows." In your letter, you write:

However, it appears that the lawyers may have found a loophole to have most of these summonses thrown out of court (not guilty) due to a technicality in the Federal regulations that govern the operation of emergency exits. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 217, under Test Conditions, part S6.2 states: "The inside of the vehicle and the outside environment are kept at any temperature from 70 degrees to 85 degrees immediately preceding the tests, and during the tests."

Apparently, a bus company attorney has successfully argued in a New Jersey state court that the New Jersey Department of Transportation did not meet the test conditions specified in Standard No. 217 because it inspected the bus when the outside temperature was below 70 degrees. You are writing for clarification of S6 "Test conditions" in Standard No. 217.

Some background information about NHTSA's statutory authority may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling a new motor vehicle to sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Each manufacturer of a new bus must assure that the bus meets all applicable FMVSSs, including Standard No. 217. Section 30112 does not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale." 49 U.S.C. 30112(b). Nor does it govern operational requirements for vehicles, which are generally established by the States and, for certain trucks, buses, and commercial vehicles, by the FMCSA.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111(a), all FMVSSs must "be stated in objective terms." For this reason, NHTSA includes test procedures in each of its FMVSSs so that manufacturers will be aware of the manner in which NHTSA will conduct its compliance tests. The provision of S6.2 quoted in your letter simply specifies the range of temperatures at which our compliance tests will be conducted, to ensure that the tests are conducted as uniformly and objectively as possible. The specification of test temperatures does not mean that emergency exits are only required to open when the ambient temperature is between 70 and 85 degrees.

We agree with you that the emergency exits should be operable under all the driving conditions to which a bus could be subjected. However, as stated above, this is a matter governed by State law, not by the NHTSA standard. Unless New Jersey has specifically incorporated Standard No. 217 in its entirety, including its test procedures, into its operational requirements, we see no reason why law enforcement officials in New Jersey would only be able to issue citations for inoperable emergency exit windows if they showed that the windows did not function properly within the temperature range specified in the NHTSA standard.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

cc:	Peter Chandler, Transportation Specialist FMCSA Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations 400 Seventh Street, SW Room 3419 Washington, DC 20590

ref:217
d.9/29/00

ID: 22058

Mr. Bob Snyder
Vice President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
424 Fourth Street, Suite C
Annapolis, MD 21403





Dear Mr. Snyder:

This responds to your letter asking about the audible seat belt warning requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response. Specifically, you ask the following questions:

1. Are vehicles allowed to have an intermittent audible warning longer than 8 seconds if a front seat occupant (driver or passenger) does not buckle his or her seat belt?
2. If so, when did the requirement change to allow an intermittent audible warning longer than 8 seconds?
3. Can the intermittent audible warning remain on indefinitely if the seat belt is not buckled?
4. Are continuous audible warnings allowed indefinitely?
5. What were the differences in the audible requirements for automatic and manual seat belt systems?

You asked your questions in the context of an article you read about Ford's "Belt-Minder" device. The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

Paragraph S7.3 has long required that the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

To meet this requirement, a manufacturer must provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that lasts for a period no shorter than 4 seconds and no longer than 8 seconds. The issue raised by your letter is whether a manufacturer that meets this requirement may also voluntarily provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that sounds outside the required 4-8 second period.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that a manufacturer may voluntarily provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that sounds outside the required period. However, as we discuss below, some means must be provided for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal.

We note that the 8-second limitation on the audible signal required by paragraph S7.3 reflects a statutory requirement. 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by . . . using . . . a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position." Congress enacted the predecessor to this provision in 1974 as part of legislation responding to public resistance to seat belt interlock systems, which prevented a vehicle from starting unless its seat belts were fastened. The Conference Report noted that the legislation prohibited the establishment of a continuous buzzer (one longer than 8 seconds) "as a mandatory or optional motor vehicle safety standard." See House Report 93-14521, pp. 44-45.

Given this statutory provision, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have the authority to require, or specify as a compliance option, an audible seatbelt warning that sounds outside the specified 8 second period. However, the statute does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from voluntarily providing audible signals that sound outside that period. Nor do we believe it appropriate to interpret Standard No. 208 to prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily providing audible signals outside that period. We note that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are "minimum standards," and manufacturers are permitted to go beyond the requirements of a standard. Moreover, we believe that Congress, in prohibiting this agency from specifying an audible seat belt warning longer than 8 seconds as a requirement or as an option, wanted to ensure that the Federal government would not be in the position of requiring or inducing vehicle manufacturers to provide a device that was unduly annoying or irritating to vehicle occupants, even though such a device might provide safety benefits. This does not, however, mean that vehicle manufacturers should be precluded from providing audible seat belt warning devices that sound outside the 8 second period that provide safety benefits without being unduly annoying or irritating.

Given Standard No. 208's requirement that the required seat belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Such differentiation could be provided in various ways, e.g., by time (the voluntarily provided signal begins well after the required signal ends) or sound (the voluntarily provided signal has a different sound than the required signal).

I believe the above discussion is responsive to your first four questions. You also asked about the differences in the audible signal requirements for automatic and manual seat belt systems. However, you did not explain what sort of differences you are interested in. I note that the warning requirements for automatic seat belts may be found in paragraph S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208. While there are a variety of differences between S7.3 and S4.5.3.3, both paragraphs require activation, under specified circumstances, of a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

Finally, I note that in a letter to Joseph W. Phebus, Esq., dated August 7, 1996, we took the position, in the context of S4.5.3.3, that a chime that sounded at intervals of one minute if the belt is not buckled would not be permitted, given the requirement that the required audible signal may not be activated for a period of more than 8 seconds. For the reasons discussed above, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.5/25/01

ID: 1985-03.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of FMVSS 101; Controls and Displays

The Daimler-Benz AG (DBAG) Petition for Reconsideration dated August 22, 1984 was denied. The rationale behind the Agency's decision for denial was that DBAG did not adequately address the concerns raised in the Preamble to the final rule of July 27, 1984.

Daimler-Benz AG respectfully petitions the Agency to reconsider its decision in view of the following:

1. Horn Control Symbol:

While we concur with some of the arguments set out by the Agency, we would like to draw attention to the importance of the driver's responsibilities. This would respond to the Agency's concern that certain drivers may have difficulties in locating the horn control in an emergency situation when manufacturers place the horn control in areas other than the traditional location in the steering wheel hub.

Location of controls and displays is specified in paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS 101 in that each required control and display must be visible (when activated) to a driver who is restrained by the crash protection provisions required by FMVSS 208.

From the above it follows that the location of control and displays - even if identified by symbol or words - may vary significantly between manufacturers or even models.

Examples:

- The windshield washer and wiper control may be located either on the right or left side of the steering column and may or may not be combined with the turn signal control.

- The hazard warning signal control may be found anywhere on the dashboard, the steering column or the transmission tunnel.

- Lights may be activated by dashboard controls or separate stalks.

- Even gear shift patterns may be varying.

DBAG firmly believes that the identification of controls by symbols or words can only assist either to distinguish between otherwise similar controls or to locate their position if there is sufficient time left for searching. It will not, however, produce shorter driver reaction times in situations where he is required by circumstances beyond his control, to act immediately and intuitively as long as he is not aware of the general location and operating direction of any one control.

Hence, it follows that it is imperative for a driver, prior to using a car that he is not familiar with, to verify the location and function of every control and display, if necessary with the aid of the owner's manual. If he fails to undergo this learning process it must be assumed that he will also fail to correctly operate the appropriate control in a critical moment - regardless of whether or not that control is labeled.

The above considerations lead us to be convinced that the main distinctive features of the most essential controls in a car - as far as the problem of intuitive operation is addressed - are the variations in location, operating direction and shape, rather than their marking with different symbols. Yet, we would not go so far as to request that the hitherto required control symbols be omitted provided such distinctive features are maintained. We feel, however, that a horn control in such a prominent location as in the steering wheel hub - i.e. closest to either hand of the driver -, with such a simple and unequivocal operating mode -i.e. pressing of a usually adequately large area - can, even if not identified by a symbol, be at least as safely and intuitively operated as any other customary control having a symbol.

On the grounds explained above, DBAG reiterates its petition that the exemption of horn control identification be extended and footnote 4 to table 1 be modified to read: "provided there are no other controls incorporated, identification is not required for horn controls in, or on, the steering wheel hub, or for narrow ring-type controls and air-horns".

2. Brake Symbol

Our request to permit the ISO brake failure symbol has also been denied by the Agency. We would like to comment on the arguments presented in the June 4, 1985 Federal Register as follows:

The rationale of adopting certain ISO symbols, according to the NPRM of November 4, 1982, is that they convey information more quickly and are easily and immediately recognizable. DBAG fully supports this opinion. On the other hand, the Agency mentions the results of a SAE investigation, according to which the percentage of recognition of the ISO brake symbol is only 26 and 21 per cent, respectively, vs. 87 and 52 per cent, respectively, of the word "Brake". This leads the Agency to conclude that it is not appropriate to adopt this particular ISO symbol.

However, in order to fully appreciate the meaning of the above-mentioned percentages, it has to be kept in mind that the ISO brake symbol has not been permitted in the USA so far. Therefore, it is to be assumed that the persons interviewed by the SAE have been confronted with a symbol that they had never seen before. Given this fact, a 21-26 percent recognition of statement and function is not, as the Agency suggests, "extremely low", but has, in fact, to be considered as remarkably high.

Moreover, we would like to emphasize that there is a very strong general trend to replace words by symbols or pictograms, e.g. in public buildings, airports, railway stations, etc. It can be stated that people become very quickly accustomed to such symbols and pictograms even if they are not internationally standardized.

For this reason, we again petition to permit the use of the ISO brake failure symbol instead of the word "Brake".

ID: 1985-03.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Patricia Mascari -- Glass Magazine

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Patricia Mascari Glass Magazine 8200 Greensboro Drive Suite 302 McLean, VA 22102

Enclosed is the article we discussed concerning the effect of Federal safety laws on the application of tinting to the windows of motor vehicles. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on this matter. If you have any questions about the article, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

Enclosure

FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The increasing popularity of window tinting in recent years has led to many questions on the effect of Federal auto safety laws on this practice. Is tinting allowed? If so, by whom and how much? And what about state tinting laws? We appreciate this opportunity provided by Glass Magazine to provide a brief explanation of the Federal laws in this area.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorized NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued a vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including vehicle windows.

In 1967, the agency issued Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials in new motor vehicles and those sold as replacement equipment. In addition to establishing some new provisions, Standard No. 205 incorporates a widely recognized industry standard on the subject --the "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Under the RASI standard, window tinting is permitted, subject to specified performance requirements on light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing.

Windows in New Vehicles

A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that the glazing used in its vehicles conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 205. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to any safety standard is subject to civil penalties and recall action under the Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, all windows required to driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, must meet all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance and abrasion resistance. The agency considers all windows in a passenger car, and the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, to be requisite for driving visibility.

Likewise, if a dealer or other person places tinting film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of tinting film and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the abrasion resistance and other requirements in the standard.

Windows in Used Vehicles

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. The 1974 amendment (15,U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add tinting to windows in a motor vehicle, if that tinting would "render inoperative" the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties (of up to $1000 per violation) for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard. If any of those commercial businesses added tinting material which reduced the light transmittance of the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility to a level below 70 percent, the agency would consider that action a "rendering inoperative" of the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. The statute does not prohibit tinting by commercial businesses, but it does limit the use of tinting.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners may, themselves, add any level of tint to the windows in their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, tinting done by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.

Effects on State Law

Federal law generally preempts any inconsistent state laws on the same subject covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1392(d)) provides:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment , any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Thus, States may not establish provisions regarding tinting or other vehicle window requirements which are either more or less stringent than those provided by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. For example, a State law which specifies a transmittance level less than 70 percent for windows requisite for driving visibility in new vehicles would be preempted. The adoption or retention of such a State law would have no effect on the Federal prohibition of such an installation. Further, any State law or regulation permitting manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses to install tinting materials on a vehicle after its first sale in violating of Standard No. 205 would also be preempted.

States may establish and enforce requirements identical to any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, including Standard No. 205. They may also, as part of their motor vehicle inspection regulations, prohibit vehicle owners from modifying their windows, through tinting or otherwise, in any way that would violate Standard No. 205.

ID: 1985-03.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Moravec -- President, Tow-All, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas J. Moravec President Tow-All, Inc. 10501 E. Bloomington Freeway Bloomington, MN 55420

This responds to your letter of May 20, 1985, concerning Federal requirements applicable to the motorized hitch or "Supplemental Power Unit" (SPU) being developed by your company.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq. (the Act). Under the Act, a motor vehicle is defined as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways." Your letter states that the SPU is a motorized single axle unit with an automatic transmission. In addition, your letter, the accompanying photographs, and descriptive material indicate that the SPU could be attached between a small car and a large trailer to permit the small car to safely pull the trailer long distances at highway speeds.

Based on this information, the agency concludes that the SPU is a motor vehicle and falls within the trailer classification. Under 49 CFR Part 571.3, a trailer is defined as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle." An information sheet for manufacturers is enclosed.

The following regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to trailers:

49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Content Requirements 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (see S567.4 for trailers) Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number Basic Requirements Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Tires Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Tires Standard No. 121, Air Brake System

Copies of these regulations and standards can be obtained by writing to: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. An information sheet for ordering copies is also enclosed.

State regulations applying to trailers and their use on the roads should be checked for any State in which your company's trailers are to be sold.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

May 20,1985

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

This letter is a formal request for the evaluation as to which federal statutes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are applicable to a new motorized road vehicle product that we are developing at TOW-ALL, Inc. As I discussed recently over the phone with Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, we are developing a revolutionary new product: the Supplemental Power Unit (SPU) or "Motorized Hitch". Inclosed are brochures which describe this concept, our first working prototype, and pictures of this prototype. Also inclosed are copies of two patents we own on this concept which may be helpful in understanding the operation of the SPU.

Basically, the SPU is a motorized single axle unit that attaches between a small car (e.g. a Chevette) and a large trailer (e.g. a 24 foot camper trailer) that allows the small car to safely pull the trailer for long distances at freeway speeds. This is explained in detail in the attached documents. I realize that this is a new idea and thus may not fall directly under specific legislation. The purpose of this letter is to determine which federal laws will be interpreted as being applicable.

We intend to manufacture the SPU out of new parts manufactured in the United States and market the unit worldwide. If you have further questions, please contact me at (612)-8818996 or write me at the above address.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Moravec President TOW-ALL, Inc.

THE SUPPLEMENTAL POWER UNIT "MOTORIZED HITCH"

A vehicle of any size, particularly small, could be enabled to tow a large trailer if this trailer could become self propelled. This note describes a novel method for providing this ability for towing the desired trailer. There are at least two primary requirements for pulling all trailers. First, the towing vehicle must have sufficient power to propel both vehicles, and second, the towing vehicle must be able to carry the tongue weight of the trailer. Few automobiles manufactured today and almost no small cars can meet these requirements.

The novel method that this paper is suggesting for solving this problem is what is called the supplemental power unit (SPU). It is also referred to as a "motorized hitch". This SPU is a small motorized trailer which is attached between the towing vehicle and the trailer that is desired to be moved. The motorized SPU has an automatic transmission and a gas or diesel engine. The synchronization of movements of the vehicle combination is provided by the hitching and towing system for the SPU.

The SPU is rigidly attached to the trailer that is to be pulled and pivoted or articulated vertically about the hitch between these two trailers. The SPU now carries all of the pulled trailer's tongue weight and provides the power to pull this trailer combination. The SPU can be manufactured in a number of sizes to meet the range of towing and tongue weight requirements of the consumer, commercial, and agricultural markets.

The rigid connection between the two trailers permits the tongue of the SPU to be hinged about a horizontal axis so no tongue weight or braking or acceleration moments are applied to the lead vehicle. A portion of the physical weight of the tongue (25-40 lbs.) is all the weight the tongue applies. The operation of the control mechanism of the SPU can also easily be reversed to give power and braking in the reverse direction. When towing a trailer, the tongue weight is generally added to the rear of the towing vehicle. This loading can be distributed over the whole vehicle by "load leveling hitches". These are complicated to couple and disconnect. If no "load leveling" is used and tongue weight is high, the traction of the front wheels and steering can become effected particularly in rough terrain. The SPU applies a very small load (25-40 lbs.) to the rear of the towing vehicle and is very easy to couple and uncouple. In general the towing vehicle does not sense the load being pulled with the SPU attached.

Attachment of the SPU to the load trailer is relatively simple. The patented control arm is hooked to the trailer ball of the front vehicle. No other connections are required. Once attached, the load trailer can be moved using the SPU to another location if desired using just its own power if the terrain is not too irregular. The power disc brakes on the SPU greatly aid in stopping the load trailer due to the method of attachment between the trailers and because of the load transfer which is automatically produced by the braking process.

The tongue of the SPU is hinged about a horizontal axis. This feature prevents the transfer of any of the tongue weight during transit and greatly facilitates coupling. Also, when this tongue is detached from the towing vehicle and allowed to hang down, it applies the brakes of the SPU. This feature is particularly useful if using the SPU to move the load trailer by hand.