ID: 1985-03.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Yoshikazu Ito, Manager, Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Section Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. Oguchi-Cho, Aichi Pref. 480-01 Japan

Thank you for your letter concerning the buckle release requirements of Standard No. 208. Occupant Crash Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding to it. You asked for an interpretation of the requirement in S4.5.3.3(a) of the standard that automatic belts must have an emergency release mechanism that is "readily accessible to a seated occupant." The following discussion addresses the specific questions you asked.

The purpose of the "readily accessible" requirement is to ensure that a seated occupant can quickly and easily grasp and then release the buckle in an emergency. You explained that you have been reviewing the accessibility of possible installation locations for the emergency release by using a 5th percentile female and 50th percentile male test dummy in various seating positions. You ask whether in determining if the buckle is readily accessible, you can move the pelvic portion of the test dummy or move the seat back to permit the grasping of the buckle.

The purpose of S4.5.3.3(a) is twofold. First, it is intended to make sure automatic belts are adjustable to fit a wide range of vehicle occupants, as specified in S7.1 of the standard. In addition, it is meant to ensure that the emergency release mechanism for the automatic belt is readily accessible to that same range of occupants. Thus, the release mechanism should be accessible to those occupants with the seat in any design position without the occupant having to take special steps, such as moving the seat back, to grasp and operate the release. I note that the drawing you attached to your letter indicates that your emergency release is located within the latchplate access zone specified in S7.4.4 of the standard. Although S7.4.4 does not apply to the emergency release mechanism of automatic belts, its purpose is to make it easy for occupants to reach the latchplate of a safety belt system. We would consider any emergency release mechanism required by S4.5.3.3(a) that is within the latchplate access zone of S7.4.4 to be readily accessible as long as the occupant does not have to take any special steps to grasp and operate the release.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

TOKAI RIDA CO., LTD.

ESL85/1-7955 February 22, 1985

Ms. Betrinere Stewart Library Technician Technical Reference Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Ms. Stewart:

Although somewhat belatedly, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to your many kindest assistances extended to me when I visited your office. The information we received from you is very valuable.

In the meantime, we have some questions regarding how a sentence of Standard No. 208 should be interpreted, and its details are explained in the attachment.

Would you therefore please give us appropriate answer, and if you are not in a position to reply, you would kindly pass this question to a competent officer so that we may receive the answer.

Your favourable consideration in this matter would be much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Section Overseas Operations Dept.

YI/yi

Attachments

CC: Mr. T. Tanabe, TR/USO

Stipulation: S4.5.3.3, No. 208

An automatic belt furnished pursuant to S4.5.3. shall: (a) conform to S7.1 and have a single emergency release mechanism whose components are readily accessible to a seated occupant.

1. Background of the question:

In designing of a certain passive belt system to be installed on our customer's vehicles, a detachable type buckle for emergency release is built in.

When installing the system on the vehicles, it is difficult for a seated occupant to access to the buckle in some cases (See attachment). So we ask you to give us your appropriate interpretation on the following cases.

2. Question

-1. What is a meaning of the sentence, " ..... whose components are readily accessible to a seated occupant"?

(Our Interpretation)

"readily accessible to" means strictly that a seated occupant can grasp the buckle and then release it in case of emergency.

-2. When reviewing installation condition by using Alderson female dummy (5th percentile), at any seating position (forwardmost, neutral or rearmost), if it is difficult that the dummy access to the buckle, whether the following condition(s) are permitted or not:

a. an occupant (dummy) would be permitted to raise her pelvic portion slightly in order to grasp the buckle.

b. an occupant (dummy) would be permitted to bring down the seat-back in order to grasp easily the buckle.

-3. When reviewing installation condition by using Alderson male dummy (50th percentile), at forwardmost and neutral seating position, if it is difficult that the dummy access to the buckle, whether the followings are permitted or not:

a. the same to above condition - 2-a.

b. the same to above condition - 2-b.

ID: 1985-03.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; SOURCE UNAVAILABLE

TO: Mr. Donald H. Giberson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety 25 South Montgomery Street Trenton, New Jersey 08666

Dear Mr. Giberson:

Thank you for your letter of May 17, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the decorative etching of glazing in vehicles and how it may be affected by our regulations. You explained that the etching is apparently being done by using either vibrator tools with carbide tips, ultra high speed grinders, or sandblasters. You expressed concern that the integrity of the glass may be affected and in some cases the etching is in a position that obstructs the vision of the driver.

You further explained that glazing with etching that obstructs the driver's vision is rejected by your inspectors during New Jersey's annual motor vehicle inspection, but that glazing in areas not used for driving vision cannot be rejected for the same reason. You asked for our comments on this issue.

I hope that the following discussion of how our regulations could affect the practice of etching glass is of assistance. As you know, our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new vehicles or sold as items of replacement equipment; a copy of Standard No. 205 is enclosed. If the windows are etched before the vehicle or the piece of replacement glazing is sold, then the person doing the etching would have to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the light transmittance requirement for glazing in areas requisite for driving visibility. We would be particularly concerned whether the etched items of glazing would continue to comply with the impact resistance requirements of the standard. Please note that impact tests have to be met by items of AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4, AS5, AS8, AS9, AS1O, AS11A, AS11B and AS14 glazing regardless of whether the glazing is used in an area requisite for driving visibility. Purchasers of a new vehicle or glazing may themselves alter the vehicle or glazing as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

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

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

May 17, 1985

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of Chief Council NHTSA 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It has come to our attention that the glazing on many vehicles registered in New Jersey, is being decoratively etched after it has been installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer. We know of three methods being used to etch the glass.

Most people are using vibrator tools with carbide tips, but others are using ultra high speed grinders or sandblasting techniques. The vibrators often leave grooves in the glass deeper than those which could be inscribed with a glass cutting tool.

We are concerned with this problem because the integrity of the glass may be affected and in some cases the etching is in a position that vision is obstructed.

I have enclosed three pictures of vehicles equipped with etched window glass. In each of these cases, the etching is in a position which will interfere with driver visibility. Therefore, the glazing would be rejected during annual inspection and the hazard eliminated.

Etching which is placed on glazing in areas not used for drivers visibility cannot be rejected for the same reason. Although there is a strong likelihood that the glass has been weakened, we are not sure how to handle such cases.

Your advice on this matter would be appreciated. If you need additional information, please advise. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director

DHG:WH:rc

Enclosures

cc: Edward Jettner, NHTSA Edward Gyarfas, NJ DMV

ID: 1985-03.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lee Comeau, Associate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Lee Comeau, Associate Bureau of Educational Management Services New York State Education Department Cultural Education Center Room 3059 Albany, New York 12230

Dear Mr. Comeau:

This responds to your April 12, 1985 letter concerning the January 1985 school bus safety study prepared for the Canadian government (Transport Canada). You were particularly interested in the results of the study relating to safety belts in school buses.

The Transport Canada study found that "The use of a type I seat belt system in any current design of school bus may result in more severe head and neck injuries for a belted occupant than an unbelted one, in a severe frontal collision." You asked for our opinion as to the reliability of the findings, and whether they would be admissible in a court of law. You also asked whether a school district or bus manufacturer can be liable for negligence if a seat belt causes injury to a belted occupant.

I must explain that we are unable to issue an opinion regarding either the admissibility or effect of the Canadian study's findings in a court of law. This agency is responsible for establishing Federal motor vehicle safety standards and investigating alleged safety-related defects. We are not authorized to participate in or render advisory opinions on private litigation. The issues you raised would depend on the type of legal proceeding and the evidentiary rules of the particular court system, as well as other evidence that might be introduced in a lawsuit. questions concerning negligence and private liability would also have to be answered according to the law of the particular jurisdiction. Since these matters are usually governed by state law, I suggest that you consult with your attorney to discuss how New York law would apply.

As to whether the Canadian study is reliable, this agency is in the process of reviewing the study's findings. Thus far, we have no reason to dispute its conclusions, given the nature of the test conducted. The results of the study appear to be in agreement with some laboratory tests conducted within the United States, including sled tests conducted by the agency in 1978. Although the Canadian test results appear to be accurate, we would like to emphasize that the study involved only a severe (48 km/h) frontal barrier crash test. Questions concerning how safety belts would provide benefits in other types of crashes, such as side impacts or rollovers, were not addressed. In addition, it must be noted that the study was based on a test, not on real-world statistics. We believe that these factors should be taken into consideration when evaluating the results of the Canadian study and its implications for safety belts on school buses.

As you may know, our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) do not require the installation of safety belts on new large school buses, but any school district that wishes to have such belts installed is free to do so. We do require safety belts on smaller school buses, because we believe belts are particularly effective in protecting occupants in such vehicles. For larger school buses (those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds), we require "compartmentalization" -- i.e., high seat backs with extra padding -- to provide occupant protection, and we believe the concept works well.

In that regard, I note the Canadian study found that the requirements for compartmentalization required by Canadian safety standard 222 (CMVSS No. 222) "functions as intended during frontal impacts and provides excellent protection for occupants." FMVSS No. 222, our safety standard mandating compartmentalization in school buses, has requirements similar to CMVSS 222. We believe that the Canadian study further supports the effectiveness of the compartmentalization concept required by FMVSS No. 222.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 12, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Canadian government has recently released findings from crash tests that were conducted to test, among other things, the worthiness of seat belts on school buses. The results have been published and are enclosed for your review.

My purpose for writing is twofold:

1. Will you review the Canadian test crash data and determine if the findings are reliable and admissible in a court of law?

2. If the findings are reliable, can a school district, bus manufacturer or seat belt company be held liable for negligence in the event a belted occupant suffers injuries in a school bus accident which are directly related to the wearing of the seat belt?

Since New York has some districts who currently use seat belts and others who are considering the possibility, your timely reply to the inquiry will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lee Comeau, Associate Bureau of Educational Management Services Room 3059 Cultural Education Center Albany, Hew York 12230 (518) 474-4738

ss

ID: 1985-03.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bernard Cantleberry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bernard Cantleberry 5958 Maplewood Road Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124

Dear Mr. Cantleberry:

This responds to your letter to this office, in which you sought approval from the Department of Transportation and this agency for your hydraulic brake lock. Neither the Department nor this agency have the authority to approve any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the manufacturer of the vehicles or equipment is required to certify that it complies with all applicable standards.

The requirement for manufacturer certification is contained in section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (hereinafter "the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1403) which reads as follows:

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

Under Section 114, motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers must them- selves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. The safety certification procedure thus differs from the government type approval procedure used in Europe. Under the European procedure, a manufacturer delivers its product to a governmental entity which tests the product and then determines whether it should be approved. If the product is approved, it may then be sold.

In the case of your hydraulic brake lock, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if you want to have the hydraulic brake lock installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire brake system with the hydraulic brake lock installed satisfied the requirements of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.105; copy enclosed).

Generally speaking, the requirements of Standard No. 105 apply to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith, and not to aftermarket accessories for use with or in the vehicle. The general rule is that your hydraulic brake lock may be added to the vehicle after its first purchase, even if the addition of your brake lock causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105, without violating any legal requirements.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). 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...". The performance capabilities of the hydraulic brake system on the vehicle are considered an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 105. Thus, if any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business adds your hydraulic brake lock to a vehicle and knowingly causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 105, that person or entity has violated the section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibition. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108, and each installation which rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 105 would be considered a separate violation.

You should note that the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design on his or her vehicle, and therefore hydraulic brake locks which are sold to and installed by vehicle owners need not be checked to see if they cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105. Of course, state product liability law would also affect the installation of your device. I suggest that you discuss this matter with a local attorney.

I would also recommend that you per form some testing or analysis to learn what effect the addition of your hydraulic brake lock has on the braking performance of vehicles on which it is installed. If its addition does not affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, the brake lock could be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses without violating any legal requirements. If the addition of the hydraulic brake lock causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 105, it may be sold as an aftermarket accessory, but may not legally be installed on a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

May 6, 1985.

Office of the Chief Counsel: To Whom It May Concern;

Dr. Carl Clark of your dept. recommended that I write to you and put forth what I have and what I want in relation to an innovative Anti Theft device.

I realize that what I have designed is not completely new to the field , but the inner workings, construction , design of operation, safety factors and Anti Theft capabilities are phenomenal, along with other uses.

I am describing a dual hydraulic brake lock that is operated by dual vacuum actuators that work in direct opposite of the way that vacuum actuators operate.

The system is designed in such a way that even while driving down the road and you lose engine power the system does not shut down causing brake failure. The system is also designed that in case of an electrical failure in the vehicle while the brakes are locked you always have full control to open the system to allow towing which is controlled by the only nonpickable lock on the market, and I am not referring to the key system that is designed for the Mercedes with the dimples. The system is designed in such a way that prevents anyone from overcoming it to allow removal of the vehicle, short of cutting the brake lines and driving the vehicle away with the use of the emergency brake, but that all takes time and that generally is what the thieves don't have.

When the hydraulic lock is set it is the absence of vacuum that operates the device, overcoming the device due to my design is impossible.

I keep referring to design , in actuality the partially finished product has been installed on in automobile and has been in test for about two months. By partially finished , I mean that only a single system has been prototyped and was installed on a front wheel drive vehicle. The dual system has been designed and is entering its completed stages. The system works exactly the way it was designed and is operating with no problems.

The device is installed downstream of the differential valve on some models and installed in the brake lines of others that have no differential valve, such as on the one that I am testing it on. The device does not upset the original brake system in any way or does it cause a difference in brake pressure or operation of the original system.

The reason that I am writing to you dept. is that I am looking for sanction from the dept. is that I am Dept. Of Natural Highway Traffic Safety, unless they are one in the same, for my device.

The beauty part of my device is that In testing on and off the vehicle the device held the brakes in a locked up position for a period of approximately two weeks with no pressure loss, unlike two of the other devices that have been produced and that I hive tested and that bears D. O. I. approval.

I am that Service Manager of the largest selling Ford agency in the country and the level of integrity that flows from xxxxxx Mr. Sam Marshall down thru all of his personal is something that would institute a desire for safety in something as in this hydraulic brake lock,I would greatly appreciate your response and requirements pertaining to this device, and what steps I have to take to obtain your approval and sanction.

Thank you for your time and hopefully your assistance;

Bernard Cantleberry 5958 Maplewood Rd. Mayfield Hgts, Ohio 44124

ID: 1985-03.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: K. Weight

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo, UT 84601

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows in automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.

FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a new passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent; clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.

Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver to detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance less than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the "black window" is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so long as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

5/4/85

Elizabeth Dole - PERSONAL National Highway Traffic Admin. 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D. C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Dole:

I wrote you 4/26/85 re several safety questions I had.

I am wondering why black windows are allowed on automobiles now? With kidnappings, and failure for a police officer to see into a car, I am thinking these dark windows should be banned.

If I am writing to the wrong dept. please tell me who to write.

Very truly yours,

K. Weight 65 E 200 N Provo, Utah 84601

ID: 1985-03.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Don Fightmaster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 12, 1985 Mr. Don Fightmaster Director Division of Pupil Transportation Kentucky Department of Education Capital Plaza Tower Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Dear Mr. Fightmaster: Thank you for your letter to former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt concerning the school bus regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I regret the delay in our response. In your letter, you state that Kentucky is planning to contract with commercial bus companies to use Greyhound-type buses to transport deaf and blind students to and from State-operated schools for the deaf and blind. The buses would be used on established routes for 9 round trips per year. You asked for NHTSA's opinion regarding the leasing of Greyhound-type buses in this manner. I would like to begin by explaining that there are two sets of regulations issued by NHTSA that affect buses used for school transportation. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, "school bus" is defined as "passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools..." (Emphasis added.) The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers of new school buses and their dealers or distributors from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. Federal law would prohibit the sale of new Greyhound buses for use as school buses because those buses as currently manufactured do not meet the requirements of our safety standards for school buses. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that the applicability of the school bus safety standards to a particular vehicle is determined by looking at the intended use of the new vehicle at the time of its initial sale. Buses that are not likely to be "significantly used" to transport school students are not "school buses" subject to our school bus safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act would not prohibit leasing companies from leasing Greyhound buses to Kentucky for school transportation, if the buses, at the time of their initial sale, were not "likely to be significantly used" to transport school students. those buses would not be "school buses" subject to the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, new buses that are likely to be significantly used to transport school children would be school buses, and the parties selling the vehicles are required to sell complying school buses. If a leasing company were to buy a new bus, intending to use it to transport your students on 9 round trips a year, then we believe the use of the bus for school transportation would be "significant" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. Accordingly, the leasing company could not be sold a new Greyhound bus for this purpose. Although, from a legal standpoint, you are not prohibited from leasing certain Greyhound buses for school transportation, I would like to emphasize the importance that this agency attaches to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. It remains our position that a school bus meeting the Federal school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. We urge you to consider arranging to have your deaf and blind students transported in complying school buses. The second set of regulations relating to school buses consists of the Highway Safety Program Standards (HSPS). They were issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and apply to state highway safety grant programs. These standards, which are more in the nature of guidelines, have been adopted in varying degrees by the States. One of these standards is HSPS No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. A copy of that standard is enclosed. I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if Kentucky has adopted it. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Champaign 102 North Neil Street Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dear Ms. Samuelson:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1985, to Mr. Gary Butler of our Region V office, which was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Federal law requires safety belts to be installed end used in several types of vehicles. I understand from conversations between my staff and Mr. Butler that Your question is related to the provision of Illinois' belt use law which exempts a person operating "a motor vehicle which is not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law" from the safety belt use requirement. I hope the following discussion is of assistance to you in your effort to ensure that the City of Champaign is in compliance with Illinois' safety belt use requirement. I believe that Illinois' law and your efforts can have an immediate and beneficial safety impact on the citizens of Champaign. I would encourage you to have all occupants of municipal vehicles wear their safety belts regardless of whether they are covered by your State's belt use requirement.

This agency has issued, under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the installation of occupant restraints, such as safety belts, in vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires only the installation of the restraints; it does not require their use. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. I hope the following discussion explains how Standard No. 208 applies to each of the vehicles you mentioned.

You asked about fire trucks and public work trucks. Those vehicles would be governed by S4.2 or 4.3 of the standard, depending upon the gross vehicle weight rating of the truck. Police cars would be classified as passenger cars under our standard and currently would have to comply with the requirement of S4.1.2 of our standard.

The application of the standard to the remaining category of vehicles you asked about would depend upon their construction and use. All of our standards apply only to motor vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (15 U.S.C. 1391(3))

In interpreting this definition, the agency has said that a vehicle which cannot exceed 20 mph and has an unusual configuration which sets it apart from the rest of the traffic is not a motor vehicle and thus does not have to comply with our standards, even if it uses the public roads. These vehicles, typically, are highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers and other similar vehicles. Thus, if the snow plows, road graders and other specialized types of public work vehicles you asked about have a top speed that does not exceed 20 mph and have an unusual configuration, they would not be covered by Standard No. 208 However, if these vehicles are conventional trucks that use the public roads and have specialized work equipment mounted on them, then they would have to meet the occupant crash protection requirements set in Standard No. 208 for trucks.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: City of Champaign Request Formal Date: June 7, 1985 Opinion on Standard 208 as Relates to Municipal Vehicles

From: Donald A. Williamson Reply to Regional Administrator Attn. of: NHTSA, Region V, Homewood, IL

To: Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel, NOA-30 Washington, D.C.

The City of Champaign is concerned that its municipal vehicles comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. As you know, the State of Illinois has a mandatory safety belt use law which goes into effect July 1, 1985. Apparently, the City would like to advise its employees to comply with the State law when in vehicles that are required to be equipped with safety belts.

Please review the attached letter and prepare the appropriate agency response. If additional information is needed, please contact me. I appreciate your attention to this request.

Donald A. Williamson

CITY OF CHAMPAIGN

June 4, 1985

Mr. Gary Butler Program Manager NHTSA 18209 Dixie Highway Homewood, Illinois 60430

RE: Seat Belt Use

Dear Mr. Butler:

After my conversation with you on May 20, 1985, Mr. Stavins, the City Attorney, asked that I write you and ask that you send us a written opinion in relation to certain types of municipal vehicles. We would appreciate a written opinion on whether or not federal law requires seat belts to be installed and used in the following types of vehicles:

1. Fire trucks 2. Squad cars 3. Snow plows 4. Road graders 5. Other specialized types of public work vehicles 6. Public works trucks

Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Kathryn L. Samuelson Assistant City Attorney KLS:eb

ID: 1985-03.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. D. Leeds Pickering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 22, 1985 Mr. D. Leeds Pickering Traffic Safety/Pupil Transportation Department of Education State of Wyoming Hathaway Building Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 Dear Mr. Pickering: Thank you for your letter concerning our regulations on school buses. You asked what problems school districts might encounter if they lease or charter "Greyhound" type buses from a company or individual for use on activity trips. I would like to explain that there are two Federal laws that have bearing on your situation. The first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, under which our agency issues safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. The second law is the Highway Safety Act of 1966, under which we have issued highway safety program standards applicable to State highway safety grant programs. As you know from our letter to Mr. Terry Brown, Pupil Transportation Safety Specialist for the State of Montana, the parties directly affected by the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers of school buses and dealers or distributors selling new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits those parties from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. New Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing so, and therefore, cannot be sold as school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit the occasional rental of a Greyhound bus, however, and school districts that want to occasionally lease or charter such a vehicle for a special school activity may do so. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a "school bus" is defined as "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools..." (Emphasis added.) The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits dealers or distributors from selling new Greyhound-type buses to leasing companies if the dealer or distributor has reason to know that the bus would be "significantly" used to transport school children to and from school or related events. One example of "significant" usage would be a long-term relationship between a leasing company and a school to provide pupil transportation. If the leasing company is seeking a bus to use in this manner, then a dealer or distributor who has knowledge of the intended use of the vehicle would be required to sell a bus which meets the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Conversely, if a bus would be only very occasionally chartered for school service, its use for school service is not "significant." Accordingly, since such a bus is not a "school bus" under Federal law, the dealer or distributor would not be required to sell to the leasing company a school bus that is certified to the school bus safety standards. You asked about a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033; December 31, 1975) which amended NHTSA's regulatory definition of a "school bus" to conform to the Congressional mandate of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974. The notice explained that the definition refers to "introduction in interstate commerce" in order to account for those situations where buses are leased to schools for transporting students. You were concerned as to whether this discussion prohibited leasing companies from leasing buses to schools for activity trips. The term "introduction in interstate commerce" and its reference in the Federal Register notice to leasing arrangements addressed those situations where a new bus is leased by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer directly to a school or school district. In those situations, there is no sales transaction to a leasing company. When a new bus is leased to a school or school district directly from its manufacturer, distributor or dealer, the Vehicle Safety Act requires that the bus must comply with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. State regulations might also affect your use of Greyhound-type buses for activity trips. This agency administers a set of guidelines for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, has recommendations for the color, identification, operation and maintenance of school vehicles. For a State that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation. HSPS No. 17 sets out recommendations for "Type I" and "Type II" school vehicles and defines those vehicle types in the definitions section of the standard. A Type I school vehicle is defined as: any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. This definition includes vehicles that are at any time used to carry school-children and school personnel exclusively, and does not include vehicles that only carry schoolchildren along with other passengers as part of the operations of a common carrier. HSPS No. 17 has different specifications for Type I school vehicles that are operated by a local transit system, and used for common carrier transit route service as well as special route service. The standard itself makes no distinction between vehicles carrying school children that are leased by a school from leasing companies, and vehicles that are owned by a school. However, since a state has the discretion to adopt Standard 17 as it determines to be necessary for its highway safety program, it is up to the state to decide whether the specifications of the standard should apply to leased school vehicles. I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will apply to activity buses operated or leased by your school districts only if Wyoming has adopted it and if Wyoming accepts our view that the specifications should apply. If your State chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with that decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS No. 17. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety program standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of HSPS No. 17, that was photocopied from Volume 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations 1204.4 (1984). Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1984-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David W. Allen; NHTSA

TO: Morton; Lewis; King & Krieg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Charles B. Lewis Esq. Morton, Lewis King & Krieg P.O. Box 2425 Knoxville, TN 37901

Dear Mr. Lewis:

This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1984, asking for an interpretation of 49 C.F.R. 571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S4.6 in pertinent part requires that headlamps when activated shall be steady-burning. You present the situation of a Honda motorcycle which has a headlamp that is illuminated when the engine is running "or while the motorcycle is otherwise moving while in gear." Allegedly, the engine stopped running for awhile and during the period of time the clutch was disengaged, there was no headlight and a collision ensued. Your consultant states that "the engine has to be turning for the headlight to burn and such a system does not comply with the 'steady-burning' requirement of the regulation, since the light would not burn without the engine turning."

The Federal requirement, is that when a headlamp is on, it shall provide a steady beam. The Honda lamp meets this requirement. There is no Federal requirement that the headlamp be on when the engine is running or that it remain on when the engine is not running. The agency's Enforcement office informs us that many motorcycles are wired so that the headlamp remains illuminated when the engine is off, but that the Honda design is not unique.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 22, 1984

Mr. Frank Burndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Honda Motor Company, Ltd. (Hopper) Model XL125S; CFR Title 49

Dear Mr. Burndt:

We have a seemingly unique and serious problem regarding the interpretation of Title 49, S571.108 relating to the definition of a "steady-burning headlamp." The involved unit is a Honda, 1980, XL125S which has a headlight powered by a coil in the AC generator and which illuminates when the engine is running or when the motorcycle is otherwise moving while in gear. Briefly, the engine allegedly stopped running for a short period of time and during the period of time the clutch was disengaged by the rider there was no headlight and a collision ensued.

A professor from Vanderbilt University has checked the regulations referred to hereinbefore and says that when the engine stops turning the headlight stops burning and that this makes this particular unit and those units of all other manufacturers defective and not in compliance with the federal regulations mentioned hereinabove. The professor says the flaw in design is that the engine has to be turning for the headlight to burn and such a system does not comply with the "steady-burning" requirement of the regulation, since the light would not burn without the engine turning. The witness says the light is "steady burning" when the engine is turning and is in compliance with the regulation during such operation. The witness doing this testing says that many other things are defined, such as "flash" but that "steady-burning" is not defined and that it can only mean the above interpretation.

We have talked to your office on several occasions, the last time being with Mr. Taylor Vinson, and were advised that if we would briefly state the facts you could give us an advisory opinion and perhaps other enlightening comments which would assist us. This is very important to all manufacturers of units of this type, in addition to being directly involved in a lawsuit against Honda at this time. It is the desire of all manufacturers, and in particular my client, Honda, to comply with all regulations; and they believe they are in compliance here, but respectfully request the opinion of your office.

Thank you for your assistance and the assistance of the Department in this matter.

Yours truly,

MORTON, LEWIS, KING & KRIEG

Charles B. Lewis

CBL/bs

ID: 1984-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Eugenio Alzati -- General Director, Ferrari S.p.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Eng. Eugenic Alzati General Director Ferrari S.p.A. 41100 Moodena Viale Trento Triesta, 31 ITALY

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steed, the Administrator of this agency, asking that Ferrari be allowed to petition for a low volume exemption from the generally applicable passenger automobile fuel economy standards. Ferrari had filed a petition asking such a request for its 1978 model year vehicles, but was ruled ineligible for a low volume exemption because Ferrari was controlled by Fiat, S.p.A. Now that Fiat has stopped importing vehicles into the US, you stated your belief that Ferrari is in the same position as Naserati, which has been ruled eligible to apply for low volume exemption. I need some further information to determine if Ferrari should be considered eligible to film a petition for a low volume exemption.

By way of background, section 502(c) of the Motor Vehicle information and Cost Savings Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. (2002)(c) provides:

On application of a manufacturer who manufactured (whether or not in the US) fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year proceding the model year for which the application is made, the Secretary may, by rule exempt such manufacturer from (the generally applicable fuel economy standards).

To determine whether Ferrari manufactures fewer that 10,000 passenger automobiles, it is necessary to interpret and apply sections 501(9) and 503(c) of the Act. Section 501(9) specifies: the term "manufacturer" (sic) (except for purposes of section 502(c)) means to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the US, or to import." Section 503(c) reads as follows:

(c) Any reference in this part to automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer shall be deemed-- (1) to include all automobiles manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer; and (2) to exclude all automobiles manufactured (within the meaning of paragraph (1) during a model year by such manufacturer which are exported prior to the expiration of 30 days following the end of such school year.

As you noted in your letter, this agency has determined that Naserati is eligible to file a petition for a low volume exemption under section 502(c) of the Act, even though that company is under common control with Nuova Innocenti, S.p.A., which manufactures more than 10,000 passenger automobiles annually. This petition was allowed because NHTSA believes that the term "manufacture" in section 503(c) means to produce or assemble in the US, or to import into the US. Since none of the Nuova Innocenti automobiles are imported into the US, NHTSA concluded that only Naserati's worldwide production should be counted to determine whether that company was eligible for a low volume exemption.

Your situation is potentially similar to the Maserati situation, if the current importers of what formerly were the Fiat X1/9 and Spider 2000 were not found to be under the control of Fiat S.p.A. To make this determination, I will need answers to the following questions:

1. State whether Fiat S.p.A. owns any stock in either industrie Pininfarina S.p.A. or Carrozeria Bertone. If so, please state the extent of such holdings (both in number of shares and the percentage of total shares outstanding).

2. State whether the models which are sold in the US by Pininfarina and Bartone are sold in any other countries. If so, please state whether those models are marketed as Fiats, or whether they are marketed as Pininfarinas and Bartones.

3. State whether the components used by Pininfarina and Bartone when assembling these automobiles are manufactured by those companies or by another company. If any of the components are manufactured by Fiat S.p.A. or any of its subsidiaries, please identify and list each of these components.

4. Your letter had a Feb. 14 l983 letter from Fiat of North America to the Environmental Protection Agency attached thereto. On page 2 of that letter, the following sentence appears: "We would also like to advise you that we will officially be helping Industrie Pininfarine S.p.A. and Carrozeria Bertone in dealing with certification matters in accordance with instructions received from them and Fiat Auto S.p.A." Please detail any and all assistance Fiat of North America currently provides to Pininfarine and Bertone, what assistance was formerly provided, and when the official assistance was ended, if it has been ended.

5. Indicate whether Fiat currently provides any engineering, design, or servicing advice or assistance to Pininfarine and Bertone in connection with the 21/9 or Spider 2000 models. If so, indicate the motors and frequency of such assistance.

The agency will make a prompt determination of Ferrari's eligibility to file for an exemption under section 502(c) of the Act when we receive your answers to these questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel