ID: nht89-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: PAUL WALKER -- PRESIDENT SUNGUEST, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/17/89 FROM PAUL WALKER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 3157

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walker:

Thank you for your letter regarding your company's efforts to export a product to Saudi Arabia. The product in question is identified in your letter as "remote-controlled electronic automobile window shades." Your letter indicates that your company's to tal production for the next two years will be for export only. It is my understanding that your company must provide the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization with a statement from this agency that we would "have no objection to the product in the U.S. m arket" before "large quantities" of the product can be shipped into Saudi Arabia. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your request.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the United States does not use a certification process similar to that used by the European countries, in which a manufacturer delivers its products to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer of the product is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable U.S. safe ty standards. After the manufacturer has made the necessary certifications, the product may be sold to the public without any "approvals" or "endorsements" from this agency.

In the case of your window shades, NHTSA has no standard that establishes requirements for window shades as items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, your company is not required to make any certification of the window shades before offering them for sale . We do have two safety standards that might affect the installation of window shades in new vehicles. The first is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles. These requirements in clude specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The second is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which sets forth flammabili ty

resistance performance requirements for window shades installed in new vehicles. No manufacturer or dealer could legally install any window shades, including the shade developed by your company, in a new vehicle unless the manufacturer or dealer cer tifies that the vehicle with the window shade installed complies with Standards No. 205 and 302, as well as any other applicable standards.

To enforce the requirements in our laws and regulations, we conduct spot checks of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment after they have been certified and/or sold to the public or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce. For these s pot checks, we purchase the vehicles or item of equipment and test it according to the procedures specified in the applicable safety standard. If the product passes the tests, no further steps are taken. If the product fails the tests and is determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of the product is required to remedy the problem, by repairing or replacing the product at no cost to the purchaser. Since your product has not yet been sold in the United States, NHTSA has not made any spot checks or other evaluations of your product.

With that explanation, we will state that the window shades developed by Sunquest, Inc. could legally be sold to the public in the United States and could legally be installed on new vehicles to be sold to the public in the United States, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the vehicle with the window shades installed complies with all applicable safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: PAUL ULTANS -- VICE PRESIDENT GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SUBARU OF AMERICA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/13/88 TO PAUL UTANS FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 STANDARD 208, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 08/18/78 TO D. BLACK FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN, STANDARD 210, RE NOA - 30

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Subaru of America, requests your interpretation of how the requirements of various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to a belt system Subaru would like to offer as standard equipment on its U.S. station wagon models, beginning in m id-model year 1989. This system is a manual, single-loop, 3-point (combination lap-shoulder) belt for use at the rear outboard seating positions.

Subaru currently offers a manual lap belt at the rear outboard positions of our station wagons. The belt system that we would like to offer is now used in European versions of these autos. It has a single-point buckle mechanism and is automatically adjustable. The upper anchorage for this European belt is located outside the FMVSS 210 "approved range", but within the ECE Regulation No. 14 "permitted area". (See enclosed Figures 1 and 2.) n1

n1 The vehicles in question have an additional upper anchorage located in the U.S. approved range, as required by FMVSS 210. However, the European belt system cannot directly be used with the U.S. anchorage, due to the need for additional bolt holes to accommodate the European belt and its retractor.

It is our view that the installation of the European-type belt in the ECE anchorage is permitted under the various FMVSSs. The European system qualifies as a "Type 2 belt assembly", as required in FMVSS 208. The European belt assembly is certified t o meet the requirements of FMVSS 209 by the belt manufacturer. The anchorages required under FMVSS 210 (including the current upper anchorage in the U.S. approved range) would continue to be provided. Therefore, we believe all the explicit requirements of these standards would continue to be met.

The minimum FMVSS seat belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions provide for lap belts and an additional upper anchorage (in a specified location). The upper anchorage is included to permit owner retrofit of a 3-point belt system, if desi red. Under our proposal, we would continue to provide these items. In addition, Subaru would voluntarily provide the shoulder portion of the belt and an additional anchorage. We believe the additional, voluntarily provided, items should not be subject to regulation, so long as they do not impair the functioning of any required safety equipment. We do not believe that the additional upper anchorage and shoulder belt section will in any way impair the operation of the lap belt section. To the contrar y, we believe that the additional items will provide further safety benefits. Permitting use of the European-type belt and anchorage would enable Subaru to provide U.S. vehicle purchasers with the benefits of three point restraint in an automatically adj ustable system at the earliest possible date. Requiring the use of an upper anchorage within the U.S. acceptable range would result in delay while anchorage and/or belt modifications are engineered and implemented.

In order for Subaru to begin offering the proposed belt system by mid-model year 1989 (e.g., to arrange for the necessary supplies of belt systems), we would need to receive your response to this letter no later than November 1, 1988. Therefore, we r equest your expeditious consideration of this proposal. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

FIGURE 1

1989 SUBARU STATION WAGON PROPOSED REAR SEAT THREE-POINT SEAT BELT INSTALLATION

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

FIGURE 2

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

1989 SUBARU STATION WAGON PROPOSED REAR SEAT THREE-POINT SEAT BELT INSTALLATION

ID: nht88-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/88

FROM: PAUL SCULLY -- VICE PRESIDENT, PETERSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF "EFFECTIVE PROJECTED LUMINOUS AREA"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO PAUL SCULLY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The members and counsel of the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, who met with you on April 14, 1988, requested that I send you a summary of the interpretations which industry has been using regarding the term, "effective projected luminous area" . This relates to an inquiry from Wesbar and the agency's response on the meaning of this term.

On October 28, 1970, the National Highway Safety Bureau issued the following interpretation:

"The effective projected luminous area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, which is not obstructed by an opaque object, such as a mounting screw, mounting ring, or an ornam ental bezel or trim. This allows the area of rings or other configurations (raised portions) molded in the lens to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output."

On October 28, 1979, an interpretation was issued by Roger Compton, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs, to American Motors Corporation which read as follows:

"The effective projected luminous area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, which is not obstructed by an opaque object. This interpretation allows the area of rings, or ot her configurations molded to the lamp to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output."

The above interpretations are basically the same. The vehicle lighting industry has been using these definitions, based on opinions from your agency, for about 18 years. Prior to that time, this same basic definition was even used by a number of indivi dual states. Also, the independent testing laboratories throughout the nation, as well as all manufacturers, have been excluding reflex areas in calculating "effective projected luminous area" for well over 40 years.

In 1987, the Society of Automotive Engineers through the SAE Lighting Committee adopted the following language which is now a part of SAE J387-Terminology:

"Effective projected luminous area" is the part of the light emitting surface measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of a lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, (but including congruent reflexes), which is not obstructed by opaque objects such as mounting screws, mounting rings, bezels or trim or similar ornamented feature areas. Areas of optical or other configurations, for example, molded optical rings or markings, shall be considered part of the total "effective projected luminous area" even if they do not contribute significantly to the total light output. The axis of the lamp corresponds to the H-V axis used for photometric requirements."

Again, you will note that the SAE term clearly excludes the reflex reflector areas. A prismatic reflex reflector is constructed to return light from an outside source. In contrast, a lens optic is designed to direct light which originates inside the le ns area. While it is true that a small amount of light escapes through the prismatic reflector area, this light cannot be controlled or directed and provides nothing more than a minimal glow of light.

I confirmed that the vehicle manufacturers in Detroit have also relied on the interpretations issued by your agency and its predecessor as described above.

The letter to Wesbar Corporation, dated March 16, 1988, appears to have been caused by a misunderstanding involving some engineering terms. We respectfully suggest a prompt clarification should satisfy everyone.

Very truly yours,

ID: 11-001987 nelson.may18

ID: 11804.ZTV

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We have received your letter of April 15, 1996, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to trailer lighting.

You have informed us of "lowbed trailers [with] narrow goosenecks that are attached to a wider load deck which may be less than 15 inches above the ground." Because Table II of Standard No. 108 requires side marker lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more to be mounted at a height of not less than 15 inches, you have asked if the lamps may be mounted at a height of less than 15 inches if the height of the mounting location is "as high as practicable."

Your question is asked with reference to a combination clearance/front side marker lamp. As we explain below, this combination lamp cannot be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in the manner you posit.

The requirement of Standard No. 108 for front side marker lamps is that they be located "as far to the front as practicable" and, at the front, "not less than 15 inches" above the road surface. Thus, the minimum mounting height is expressed as an absolute rather than, like the horizontal location, in terms of practicability. It is our observation that the gooseneck on lowbed trailers is more than 15 inches above the road surface, and that it would be practicable to mount a side marker lamp there, thus complying with the location requirements of Table II.

You have also informed us that, on the typical lowbed trailer with a gooseneck, the combination front clearance/front side marker lamp is mounted at an angle on the front corners of the deck. The manufacturer chooses this location because "[i]f front clearance lamps were mounted on the front face of the deck directly behind the tires of the towing vehicle, they would likely be damaged by debris thrown by the towing vehicle's tires." Based upon certain NHTSA interpretations which you quoted, you asked for confirmation that a combination lamp mounted at such a location complies with Standard No. 108 "without needing to be visible at 45 degrees inboard."

Upon review, we did not find that the interpretations you quoted really provided confirmation of the interpretation that you seek. However, you also called our attention to the following:

"Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear . . . for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." (49 CFR 571.108, S4.3.1.1.1)."

This provision (now renumbered as S5.3.1.1.1) does allow mounting clearance lamps "at a location other than on the front" if the manufacturer determines that the alternate location is needed to protect the lamp from damage during normal operation of the trailer. We believe that the lamps should also be protected from damage if the alternate location is chosen. It seems to us that mounting the clearance lamps at an angle on the front, rather than on the front involves a move of only a few inches at most, and might not provide any greater protection from road debris than mounting the clearance lamps on the front. We ask you to consider this in determining the appropriate location for the clearance lamps, keeping in mind that their primary purpose is to indicate the overall width of the trailer.

This means that a combination clearance/front side marker lamp will not meet the location requirements of Standard No. 108. A separate front side marker lamp must be provided and located on the gooseneck. A separate clearance lamp must be provided, and located in accordance with the views expressed in the preceding paragraph.

If you have any further questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/28/96

ID: nht80-1.48

DATE: 04/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Whitley & Whitley, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William N. Whitley Vice President, Whitley & Whitley, Inc. 20600 Chagrin Boulevard, Tower East Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122

Dear Mr. Whitley:

This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter asking whether the CarVan that you manufacture would be required to comply with Federal safety standards. The CarVan is designed to be mounted over the trunk of a car and weighs approximately 80 pounds.

The CarVan is considered a piece of motor vehicle equipment for purposes of compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards. Since it does not slide into the cargo area of a truck, however, it would not be considered a slide-in camper subject to Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading. However, as a piece of equipment, it would be required to comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I am enclosing an information sheet detailing where you can obtain a complete copy of all motor vehicle safety standards.

The agency notes that the CarVan would be installed in such a location that it would obscure the rear lights of the vehicle upon which it is mounted. The agency considers this to be very dangerous and concludes that you should adopt a tail light system for the CarVan. The Federal safety standard for lighting is Standard No. 108. Without a tail light system, the agency concludes that the installation and use of your CarVan would constitute a safety related defect, and we would exercise our authority to require any such defect to be remedied. We note also that many States prohibit any device that covers the license plates.

The agency would like to take this opportunity to correct some misinformation that was supplied to you on May 4, 1978, when we responded to your previous request for information on a camper that was designed to be loaded in a car's trunk. In that letter, the agency stated that the camper would be required to comply with Standard No. 126. That statement is incorrect. Since your camper is designed for a passenger car and not a truck, it would not be required to comply with Standard No. 126. It would be subject to the other standards mentioned above for the CarVan. We regret any inconvenience our error may have caused you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 8, 1980

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Administrator for Rulemaking

Dear Sir:

We are considering manufacturing the CarVan. The CarVan is described in the enclosed resume.

Please indicate how the CarVan will be classed and be regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Please note the CarVan will not slide into the car trunk but will be supported over the trunk.

I am enclosing a copy of your response to my request on a larger but similar type unit.

Sincerely,

WHITLEY & WHITLEY, INC.

William N. Whitley Vice President

WNW:Cj

The CarVan is a new light weight (80 pound) foldable gas saving recreational vehicle (RV). The unit can be attached to a standard or compact automobile trunk and meet the minimal living needs of two adults without increasing the gas comsumption of the automobile. The CarVan provides safe, secure, private space for sleeping, resting, cooking, eating, changing clothes and can be used for all day sports activities, fishing, hunting, skiing, overnight recreational or business travel.

The CarVan will appear and function (without wheels) as an extension of the car. The dimensions of the CarVan in the up position provide sufficient room for comfortable sitting, sleeping and standing, but extend the length of the car by only two feet. The unit folds down for easy road travel. The rear view mirror and regular side view mirrors of the car are functional while driving with the CarVan attached. No additional driving skills are required. Standard size garages and parking spaces may be used for car storage with the CarVan attached.

ID: nht94-4.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1994

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

TO: Larson, Victor P. E. -- Cryenco, Inc. (COLORADO)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 5/17/94 From Victor Larson To John Womack (OCC 9984)

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of May 17, 1994, with reference to the application of conspicuity material to the sides of cryogenic tank trailers.

You point out that the only side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road is at the center of the tank, approximately 90 inches above the road surface. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that conspicuity material can be placed at this location "if that is the only available mounting area" and that it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface.

We confirm your understanding. Standard No. 108 specified an original mounting height for conspicuity material as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicab le to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers should mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers, in order to achieve the full conspicu ity benefits of the material. In the case of your tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at a belt line that is 90 inches above the road surface would be considered to have been mounted as c lose as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

You inform us that some trailers have rear and midship cabinets that could be used, in conjunction with the belt line location, to provide a location for striping, although this would result in a non-aligned striping pattern. With respect to trailers eq uipped with cabinets, you asked whether compliance would be satisfied if only the belt-line location is used. The answer is yes, provided that the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) is met, i.e., which provides that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." Since the strip need not be continuous, this would allow discontinuities in a strip mounted at 90 inches in which the cabinet s were not used.

Your final question is the required orientation of striping for conspicuity; some of your customers have requested placement of material at a downward angle of approximately 30 degrees to accommodate their graphics better. The standard does not explicit ly address the issue of orientation. However, as noted in response to your first question, trailer manufacturers should mount conspicuity material in a vertical plane, or as nearly thereto as the trailer shape allows, so that the full conspicuity benefi ts of the material may be realized. If there is no available vertical surface on which the material can be mounted, we urge that a wider stripe of conspicuity material be used to provide the minimum required performance at the installed downward angle. The manufacturer of the conspicuity material which you use should be able to determine whether an increase in the width of the striping would allow the material mounted at or near the downward angle that your customer prefers to provide performance comp arable to a narrower strip mounted in a vertical plane.

ID: nht94-3.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Walter Lavis

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/6/94 from Walter Lavis to John Womack (OCC-10080)

TEXT: We have received your letter of June 6, 1994, with respect to your "Saf-T-Flec" reflectors.

You say that you have been informed by a NHTSA representative that "using the standard DOT approved reflector tape would allow the use of my reflector for the trucking industry." Judging from the red, white, and amber samples you have enclosed, your "ref lectors" appear to be retroreflective tape which adheres to a semicircular aluminum base and is intended for vertical mounting on the side and back of vehicles. Several potential customers have asked whether your concept was "DOT approved", and you have asked for a reply.

The Department of Transportation has no authority to "approve" items of motor vehicle equipment. We advise inquires whether manufacture or use of any particular item of equipment is prohibited or permitted under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard s and associated regulations. However, if an item is deemed permissible, this must not be represented as "approval" by DOT.

Your letter is somewhat unclear as to the intended use and market for Saf-T-Flec. The fact that you have enclosed a highlighted copy of S5.1.1.4 leads us to believe that one application you envision for Saf-T-Flec is as a substitute for original equipme nt side reflex reflectors. This substitution is permitted if the reflective material conforms to Federal Specification L-S- 300 (September 7, 1965) and, as used on the vehicle, meets the performance standards of SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors, Jan uary 1977. Accordingly, if your red and amber samples meet these two requirements, they may be used as the side front, intermediate, and rear reflex reflectors that Tables I and III require on trucks and trailers. However, Standard No. 108 does not all ow sheeting material to be used on the rear of vehicles in lieu of reflex reflectors.

What if your reflectors do not meet the two specifications listed above? In this instance, they may be used as supplementary side reflectors to the reflectors that are

2

required by Standard No. 108, and you may employ amber devices for this use as well as red and white. As supplementary equipment, they are subject to the Federal restriction only that they not impair the effectiveness of the required reflex reflectors. We do not believe that additional reflectors would have this effect. Supplementary lighting equipment such as additional reflectors is subject to the laws of the individual states. We are not able to advise you as to their acceptability under state la ws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) provides opinions on state law. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

As you may know, S5.7 of Standard No. 108 requires red and white retroreflective material to be applied to the side and rear of large trailers that have been manufactured since November 30, 1993 (those whose overall width is 80 inches or more and whose G VWR is more than 10,000 pounds). This material may be retroreflective sheeting or reflectors. If sheeting is used, it must meet the photometric specifications of Figure 29. If reflectors are used, they must conform to SAE J594f, and provide specified minimum millicandela/lux at specified light entrance angles. Your initial question indicates that you may be interested in marketing Saf-T-Flec for use as a substitute for the conspicuity materials that conform to Standard No. 108. Manufacturers of con spicuity sheeting certify it with the material in a flat vertical plane (as evidenced by the DOT-C2 marking on your white sample). We have reservations whether the curved red and white Saf-T-Flec devices could meet the photometric specifications of Figu re 29, for sheeting, or J594f and the millicandela/lux specifications of S5.7.2.1(b) or (c) for reflectors. Amber is not one of the specified colors for conspicuity treatment, and could not be used as a substitute.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht94-8.42

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ramin Bogzaran -- General Manager, Remedquip International Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/1/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to John Womack; Also attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Amar Chhabra to whom it may concern; Also attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 1, 1993, in which you asked whether two trailers on which are mounted specialized equipment would be classified as motor vehicles. We are sorry we were unable to respond by your requested date of December 14, 1993.

You stated that the trailers in question were manufactured in Greenville, TN in 1991 and Shipped to a company in Canada which is no longer in business. A transportable soil remediation plant was mounted on the trailers, but they have not been used or moved since their delivery. You stated that you now expect to import the trailers with their mounted equipment into the U.S. for use as a transportable soil remediation plant. You stated that the trailers will not be registered and will be moved only with permits because the anticipated projects for the equipment are long term and "the trailers will hardly see the road in their lifetime." You stated that the trailers will be inspected before they are moved to assure their safety, and that you will assure the safety of the equipment on the road while transporting it from Vancouver, Canada to your shop in San Diego, CA. You enclosed with your letter a certificate of origin, pictures of the trailers with the equipment mounted thereon, a letter from the company that originally purchased the trailers, and a letter from the manufacturer of the trailers.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S. Code S1381 to S1431, as amended (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles or new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. The term "motor vehicle" is defined in the Safety Act as:

(A)ny 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.

NHTSA has interpreted that language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or that are otherwise incapable of highway travel are clearly not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices, are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles, nor is equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spends

extended periods of time at a single job site. Those vehicles or equipment are not considered motor vehicles because their intended use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary off-road use.

Based on your representations that your trailers will be utilized on long-term off-road projects, they would not be classified as motor vehicles. Therefore, they would not be subject to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards nor the import requirements of 49 CFR 591.5. That determination, however, does not mean that the trailers would necessarily be exempt from state motor vehicle requirements, especially the states through which you intend to transport the equipment from Vancouver to San Diego. For information on state laws in that regard, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22204, (703) 522-4200.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht74-5.53

DATE: 08/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Adams & Westlake Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hansing:

This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1974, regarding Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. You requested that we reconsider our opinion of June 11, 1974, that a bus emergency release mechanism which you describe must meet the requirements for emergency exit release in S5.3.2 of the standard after as well as before the retention test required by S5.1, when the glass breaks during the retention test.

Paragraph S5.3.2 requires that the release requirements be met both before and after the retention test. We do not find sufficient justification to relax this requirement in the situation you described. First, it is not clear that it is as easy as you represent to eliminate by hand all of the glazing material left in the frame. More importantly, however, we still question whether most persons are sufficiently cognizant of the qualities of tempered glass to attempt to remove the remaining fragments in an emergency situation. Finally, glazing with completely different breakage characteristics may be used to replace the original tempered glass at some time during the life of the bus. For these reasons, our conclusion of June 11 remains the same.

Yours Truly,

July 3, 1974

Office of Chief Counsul

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention Mr. Richard Dyson

In regard to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217, "Bus Window Retention and Release S5.3.2 and our previous correspondence (here enclosed), please reconsider our request for exemption from having operable release mechanisms after the retention test when glazing with tempered glass.

In my letter to you of April 16, 1974 we noted that tempered glass once broken made the operation of any release mechanism unnecessary, as any glass remaining in the opening would be easily removed by touch. We therefore asked for exemption from the requirement that the release mechanism be operable after the retention portion of the test on the basis that the release mechanism would no longer be necessary in the event of glass breakage.

Our design, which is proposed for use on short and mid-range transit busses, uses an extruded aluminum frame which is screwed to the coach body. The glass is glazed directly into the frame; the stationary lite being returned by a rubber extrusion and bedding tape. The sliding glass is also retained directly in the frame and glides horizontally in a pocket weatherstrip. The release lock mechanism is bonded directly to the sliding lite and retains it in a closed position by engaging a groove in the extruded frame rail.

To meet the opening requirement of S5.2.2B of the spec, the release lock mechanism is disengaged and the sliding lite is moved foreward or rearward, depending on which half contains the sliding lite, until the minimum opening width of 20 inches is obtained. See drawing #DK-1553 and test pictures which show the type of window proposed.

This system meets the preliminary release test and the retention test without question, but if the tempered sliding glass shatters during the lotter test most of the glass, often including the release lock mechanism, falls out of the opening. This obviates any further practical need for the release

lock mechanism as the required opening, if not immediately obtained by the breakage of the sliding lite, can be obtained by touching any remaining glass cubes which will cause them to crumble and fall out. In the event that the tempered glass does not break during testing, or more importantly during crash impact, the mechanism would obviously be required to function.

We feel that our system fully meets the intent of the specification in providing unobstructed openings for emergency agress. We respectfully request that you reconsider our request for exemption from the portion of paragraph S5.3.2 which requires that the release lock mechanism remain operable after the retention test when tempered glass is used in this manner and has broken out during that test. Please give this request your earliest consideration as a reply is urgently needed by August 1, 1974.

Ronald J. Hansing Project Engineer

(Graphics omitted)