ID: 3134o

Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll
Vice President
Transportation Equipment Corp.
712 North Van Buren Way
Hopkins, MN 55343

Dear Mr. Mikoll:

This responds to your recent request for confirmation of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equipped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards.

The new device you are considering producing is a "safety bar." This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are parallel to the seat and are covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the "safety bar," so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this "safety bar" is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the latitudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the "safety bar" and then sit down. The "safety bar" will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash.

The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety belt. S4.1.2 gives manufacturers the option of substituting a protection system "that requires no action by vehicle occupants" for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions.

Your proposed "safety bar" requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants; i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the "safety bar" could not be considered a protection system that "requires no action by vehicle occupants," for the purposes of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this "safety bar" must also be equipped with safety belts.

Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of "safety bars" in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the "safety bars" could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses.

To install these "safety bars" in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the "safety bars" installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the "safety bar" was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the "safety bar" would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these "safety bars" installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the "safety bars" could not obstruct emergency exits located adjacent to seats.

If you decide to manufacture these "safety bars," your company will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). As such, you will have several responsibilities, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:208#222 d:ll/3/88

ID: 3135o

Mr. Al Cunningham
Chief Engineer
Wesbar Corporation
P.O. Box 577
West Bend, WI 53095

Dear Mr. Cunningham:

This is in reply to your letter of September l4, l988, attaching two lamps, and asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 with respect to each. Specifically, you wish clarifications of SAE J588e, "the definition...2.2 'Multiple Compartment Lamp' and the term used in 3.1 'Single Compartment Lamp'".

SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08, defines a multiple compartment lamp as "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts such as a housing or lens." The term "single compartment lamp" is not used in section 3.1, though the term "single compartment photometric requirements" is used in referencing the values for one "lighted section" given in Table 1 of J588e. For purposes of this discussion we shall define a "single compartment lamp" as one that gives its indication by one lighted area.

You have described your first lamp as "a housing with back and four sides containing a two filament bulb with a single lens covering face of housing." The lamp photometrically complies to the basic requirements of a Class A tail, stop and turn signal lamp. You have asked if this lamp is a single compartment lamp. The answer is yes; your model 3504 Exp. contains a single light source and has a single lighted area.

Your second lamp is described as "a housing with a back, two sides and one end, containing one #57 bulb and one #ll57 (2 filament) bulb. This housing is closed with two red lenses, one on the end and one on the face with an additional clear lens on bottom side. This lamp also complies to all standards of a class A tail, stop and turn lamp plus side marker clearance, license plate illuminator and class a reflex reflector side and rear". You ask if this also is a single compartment lamp. The answer is yes. The term "separately lighted area" in the definition of a multiple compartment lamp is understood to mean an area that is illuminated by a separate light source. In your model 3504 the turn signal light is provided by the #ll57 bulb alone, and not in tandem with the #57 bulb.

I hope that this provides the clarification you seek. We are returning your lamps under separate cover.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:ll/3/88

ID: 3136o

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

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in response to your letter regarding Volkswagen's (VW) plan to introduce ceramic dots on selected areas of passenger motor vehicle windows in order to reduce energy transmission on the car's glazing. I sincerely apologize for the delay in this response.

In your letter, you suggested that one possible means of reducing energy transmission into the interior of cars would be to apply extensive tinting or ceramic dots over extended areas of the glazing on those cars. You provided, in Attachments I and II of your letter, diagrams of the proposed areas of the glazing that would be shaded under your proposal, which included shading at the top (in the shade band areas) of the windshield as well as at the bottom. Shading on side and rear glazing was also shown. You offer a rationale that all of these areas may have less than 70% light transmissibility, and still comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205).

Your rationale begins with the observation that Section 4.2 of ANS Z26.1 has specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the "levels required for driving visibility."

These footnotes are referring mainly to shade bands on the upper edge of the windshield. You also referred to SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands), which defines a "glazing shade band" as "an area of the vehicle glazing through which light transmission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by [ANS] Z26.1." SAE J100 recommends shade bands only on the upper edge of the glazing. However, you implied that this recommended practice does not necessarily result from a determination that all other portions of the glazing are at "levels required for driving visibility," the limitation set forth in Standard No. 205.

Instead, your letter set forth a suggested definition of the term "levels required for driving visibility." In a February 15, 1974 letter from this agency to Mr. George Nield, NHTSA said, "We consider the word "levels" in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to the driver's eyes." You noted that EEC Directive 77/649 specifies levels requisite for driving visibility in the driver's 180 degree forward direct field of vision, and that Section 5.1.3 of this Directive specifies the boundaries for the driver's forward direct field of vision. You stated that this Directive provides guidelines for determining which areas of the glazing are "requisite for driving visibility." You stated that VW has tested its proposed shade bands around the lower edge and vertical sides of the glazing, as shown in Attachments I and II of your letter, according to the specifications of Directive 77/649 and concluded that "ceramic dots in the area defined in [the EEC directive] very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small drivers' eyes, which are 'requisite for driving visibility'." Based on this information, you asked the agency whether your proposal to include tinted bands or ceramic dots with light transmittance of less than 70 percent in areas beyond the shade band of the windshield would comply with Standard No. 205. The answer to your question is no.

We agree with your observation that neither Standard No. 205 nor ANS Z26 explicitly states how one determines whether or not an area is "requisite for driving visibility." Our February 15, 1974 letter explained that one would make such a determination by considering the vertical height of the glazing in relation to the driver's eyes.

We subsequently considered this subject again in a June 19, 1987 letter to a manufacturer whose identity was kept confidential. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information. As you will see, we concluded in this letter that the particular proposed head-up display described in the manufacturer's letter would not be located in an area of the windshield that was "requisite for driving visibility," and therefore vehicles equipped with this head-up display would not appear to violate Standard No. 205. This conclusion was based on the fact that the display would not obstruct the driver's forward visibility any more than typical hood designs or unretracted head lamps.

Applying this reasoning to your plans to tint a band along the bottom of the windshield, it appears that this area is "requisite for driving visibility," except for that portion through which the shortest driver sees the hood or other parts of the vehicle. We again conclude that it is not requisite for driving visibility that the driver see the hood of the vehicle he or she is driving.

You also asked about putting shade bands on the lower edges of all side windows and over most of the surface area of the rear window in the car. These areas cover parts of the glazing through which the driver could see not just parts of the car being driven, but also the road and traffic to the side and rear of the car. In many of our previous interpretations, we have said that all windows in passenger cars are requisite for driving visibility and must, therefore, meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement in Test 2 of ANS Z26. See, for example, the enclosed letters of April 4, 1985 to Mr. Armond Carderelli and of August 4, 1983 to Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha. This position was taken after considering the number of potential driving situations in which the entire surface area of any of these windows may be needed to allow the driver to analyze the traffic situation and react to it properly and promptly.

As shown by our June 19, 1987 letter to the unnamed manufacturer, it is possible for a party to rebut this presumption. To do so, however, the party must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the area of the window surface in question is at a level that would never enhance driver visibility. We do not believe your letter shows this for the side and rear window area surfaces shown in Attachments I and II.

Your letter attempts to show that the extended shade bands on the side and rear windows are at levels of the glazing that are not requisite for driving visibility by relying primarily on a European Economic Community Directive. We note that this Directive has not been referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205. Whatever the ultimate value of this Directive may prove to be in determining what levels on windows are requisite for driving visibility, the agency has not analyzed the recommendations of the EEC directive in detail. Thus, we are not in a position to comment on whether the guidelines established in this Directive are sufficient for defining levels which are requisite for driving visibility, within the meaning of Standard No. 205.

Additionally, another source of information that is not referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205 appears to disagree with the EEC directive. This is the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100, which indicates that the only levels of windows that are known not to be requisite for driving visibility are bands along the upper edge of the windshield. SAE J100 suggests that the areas along the side and rear window you propose to tint darkly may be at levels requisite for driving visibility. As noted above, NHTSA has not yet evaluated this situation. However, the SAE recommendation suggests that it may not be as simple to determine the levels that are requisite for driving visibility as implied in your letter.

Because of these uncertainties, we cannot conclude that the areas shown in Attachments I and II are not at levels requisite for driving visibility. Accordingly, the presumption that all of the window surfaces in this car are at levels requisite for driving visibility has not been rebutted. This means that if a vehicle has side and rear window portions that do not meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirements, as shown in your Attachments I and II, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 205.

I would also like to respond to your assertion that, since your company could block the areas of the side and rear window in question with sheet metal, those areas must be interpreted as not being at "levels requisite for driving visibility," within the meaning of Standard No. 205. We have already considered and rejected this argument in a June 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Hisakazu Murakami (copy enclosed). In that letter, we said, "While there currently are no requirements for the size of window openings, the agency must interpret Standard No. 205 to require window openings that are present to have complying glazing."

Although we have concluded that the areas on the side and rear windows are at levels requisite for driving visibility, we believe that it is appropriate to again re-examine the question of whether we should more precisely specify those areas of windows that are at "levels requisite for driving visibility." As we stated in the enclosed June 19, l987 letter, we plan to initiate a rulemaking action to address this issue, instead of continuing our case-by-case consideration of whether particular areas are at levels requisite for driving visibility.

Again I apologize for the delay in this response. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:205 d:ll/3/88

ID: 3137o

Mr. A. L. Bragg
Laboratory Manager
Truck-Lite Co., Inc.
310 East Elmwood Avenue
Falconer, NY 14733

Dear Mr. Bragg:

This is in reply to your letter of June 22, l988, to Mr. Vinson of this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

It is your understanding that for purposes of measuring the effective projected illuminated area of a lens, the reflex area, if any, must be subtracted from the total lens area. Your company manufactures a combination lamp which "has four square inches of reflector area and eight square inches of stop, tail and turn area." You have asked if you may advise your customers that this lamp may be used on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more:

"A) Singularly (that is one on each side of the vehicle in the rear) as a stop, turn, tail and reflex reflector?

B) In combination of two's or three's (on each side of the rear of the vehicle), provided that the lamps are separated by at least twenty-two inches?"

Your understanding is correct, that the effective projected illuminated lens area must be determined without reference to any reflex reflector that may be combined with it. If the turn signal function in your lamp is met by one compartment, your lamp is acceptable under "A)." But if the turn signal function is met by more than one compartment, your lamp would not be acceptable as the area of each compartment is less than l2 square inches. With regard to "B)," the lamps could be used in combinations of twos and threes if they are mounted more than 22 inches apart but could not be used if mounted closer than 22 inches. You also asked about the relationship to paragraph S4.1.1.7. This paragraph covers replacement equipment only, without reference to its location on a vehicle. It applies only to turn signal lamps intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, June l966. The current original equipment requirement is SAE Standard J588e September l970.

You should be aware that the Truck Safety Equipment Institute has petitioned for rulemaking the effect of which would be to extend the l2-inch requirement to lamps used on all wide vehicles without reference to the 22-inch spacing. At present the agency is reviewing this petition.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ ref.l08 d:ll/3/88

ID: 3138o

Mr. John S. Crockenberg
156 Holland Road
Ormond Beach, FL 32074

Dear Mr. Crockenberg:

This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1988, concerning antiglare plexiglass shields. I regret the delay in our response. You asked whether Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to your product, a 4" x 6" x 1/8" parallelogram with rounded corners made of transparent bronze plexiglass with an attached 1/2" diameter suction cup. You noted that this device, which adheres to the interior of automobile windows, deflects obstructive sunglare where conventional sun visors cannot be placed. You also asked what other agency's regulations you should be aware of before you begin to manufacture and market this device, if none of our standards apply.

You are correct in assuming that Standard No. 103 and Standard No. 111 do not apply to your product. The only Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is relevant to your product is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. S2 states that one purpose of this standard is to "ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility." S1 and S3 note that Standard No. 205 applies to glazing materials in both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I am enclosing an agency "fact sheet," which concerns the tinting of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I also am enclosing two previous NHTSA interpretation letters, which concern products similar to your antiglare shield. These letters to Susan House on December 20, 1985 and to Jeffrey Richard on April 16, 1985 explain the effect of Standard No. 205 on a manufacturer of such a product.

In response to your second question, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This identifies other agencies whose regulations might be applicable to a new manufacturer's products.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:205 d:ll/l/88

ID: 3139o

William J. Henrick, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
General Tire
One General Street
Akron, Ohio 44329

Dear Mr. Henrick:

This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1988, seeking an interpretation of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you stated that your company has reached an agreement with two foreign tire manufacturers to jointly produce a radial medium truck tire in one of your domestic facilities. You anticipate that all three entities will use the same "green" or "uncured" tires. Although your letter is not clear on this point, I am assuming that the sidewall on a given tire will contain the name and the respective tire identification mark of only one company. You asked whether each of the three companies involved in this joint venture may secure its own identification mark required by Part 574 to identify its tires. The answer to your question is yes.

49 CFR /574.5 requires that "Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures . . . by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." The purpose of the tire identification number requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. To best effectuate the recall of noncomplying or defective tires, the agency recommends but cannot require each production plant to have its own tire identification number.

If the company that produced the tires in its molds (General in this case) wished to put its tire identification number on all of the tires produced for this joint venture, /574.5 would not prohibit it from doing so, since that company could certainly be considered the manufacturer of all of the tires. However, if that company were to do so, it would be responsible for any recalls of these tires, including the tires sold by the other partners in the joint venture.

On the other hand, /574.5 does not prohibit each of the three partners in the joint venture from putting its own tire identification number on those tires produced for it by the joint venture. Each partner could be considered the "manufacturer," for purposes of /574.5, of those tires that it markets under its name. Each partner would then be responsible for any recalls of those tires produced by the joint venture on which its identification number appears.

I am enclosing 49 CFR Part 551 which requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the foreign company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the foreign company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the tires which do not bear the name of the foreign company.

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or United States corporation; and

6. The full name and address of the designated agent.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:551#574 d:ll/l/88

ID: 3140o

Mr. Doug Cole
National Van Conversion Association, Inc.
2 West Main St., Suite 2
Greenfield, IN 46140

Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter asking about the test procedures of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. I regret the delay in responding.

In your letter, you explained that the National Van Conversion Association (NVCA) gathers samples of materials used for vehicle floor coverings, seat covers, etc., in van conversions to determine the compliance of the material with Standard No. 302. In your test program, you have found that many samples do not appear to comply. You said that a closer look at the conditions under which these samples were tested revealed that use of support wires affected whether many materials passed or failed the standard's test. You ask for clarification as to when support wires are used in Standard No. 302 testing.

The conditions and procedures under which Standard No. 302 compliance testing is conducted using support wires are stated in paragraphs S5.1.3 and S5.3(a) of the standard. Basically, these two paragraphs specify, respectively, that support wires are used: (1) when testing a specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning," to keep the specimen horizontal; and (2) when testing a specimen that has an available width of not more than 2 inches, to position and mount the specimen on the U-shaped frames used in the test. Standard No. 302 makes no provision for using the wires other than in these two situations.

The agency follows the test procedure specified in Standard No. 302 when testing vehicles for compliance with the requirements of the standard. The agency uses heat-resistant wires as specified in S5.1.3 when there is a reasonable expectation that a test specimen will bend or curl while burning. NHTSA bases its determination about the likelihood of bending or curling on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with materials similar to a test specimen. I would like to point out that manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in only the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its compliance testing. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to bend or curl, or that are too small to fit in the test frame without wires. However, manufacturers must exercise due care in making their certification of compliance that their product will meet the standard's requirements when tested by the agency according to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a manufacturer meets that due care standard when using heat-resistant wires in situations other than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/

ref:302 d:ll/1/88

ID: 3141o

Mr. William E. Lawler
Specifications Manager
Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.
18881 U.S. 31 North
Westfield, IN 46074

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Specifically, you noted that a final rule published July 6, 1988 (53 FR 25337) upgrades the safety belt requirements for heavy vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. One of the new requirements for those safety belts is that, if an automatic locking retractor (ALR) is used, that retractor "shall not retract webbing to the next locking position until at least 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the retractor." Standard No. 208 sets forth this requirement in section S4.3.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, and in section S4.4.2.2 for buses. You asked whether an ALR that depended on a mechanism external to the retractor itself to prevent it from retracting webbing to the next locking position would comply with S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2. The answer to your question is no.

The agency explained in detail the reasons why the final rule did not adopt the proposed requirement for all heavy vehicle safety belts to be equipped with emergency locking retractors only; see 53 FR 25338-25340. The proposed prohibition of ALR's in heavy vehicles was based on the tendency of current designs of ALR's to become progressively tighter around an occupant as the vehicle travels over potholes or other jarring surfaces of the road. However, NHTSA acknowledged in the final rule that some newer designs of ALR's do not exhibit this tendency. In response to these newer designs of ALR's, the agency said:

Therefore, this rule has been expanded from the proposal, in order to permit ALR's with anti-cinch capability to be installed in heavy vehicles. For the purposes of this rule, anti-cinch capability is determined by examining the working of the retractor after it has locked after the initial adjustment of the safety belt. 53 FR 25339. This language explicitly states that the "working of the retractor" is what determines whether an ALR on a heavy vehicle belt complies with the requirements of Standard No. 208. Since the focus is exclusively on the "working of the retractor," an ALR must comply with these requirements without depending upon any external mechanisms to assist it. Any ALR that cannot satisfy these requirements without the assistance of external mechanisms would not comply with Standard No. 208's requirements for ALR's on heavy vehicles.

This conclusion is reinforced by the agency's statement that:

"NHTSA believes it is appropriate to measure compliance with this new 3/4 inch minimum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 208 under the same conditions currently specified for determining compliance with the existing 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 209." 53 FR 25340.

The 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's is set forth in section S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 became effective in 1968, the agency has determined whether ALR's comply with this requirement by examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms. As explained in the final rule, the same procedure (examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms) will be used to measure compliance with the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you requested that we issue an interpretation that any ALR that complies with Standard No. 209 can rely on the use of an external mechanism, such as your company's "Komfort-Lok," to comply with the minimum webbing travel requirements of Standard No. 208 for ALR's on safety belts in heavy vehicles. I cannot do so, for the reasons explained above. Any ALR used on a heavy vehicle safety belt must satisfy the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208 by the working of the retractor itself, without the use of any external mechanisms.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208#209 d:ll/l/88

ID: 3142o

Robert L. Ripley, President
Knaack Manufacturing Co.
420 East Terra Cotta Avenue
Crystal Lake, IL 60014

Dear Mr. Ripley:

This is a response to your letter asking this agency to review three product catalogs you submitted with your letter, and tell you whether your company is required to furnish information pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Based on the information you supplied with your letter, your company is required to file information under Part 566 for the warning devices shown in one of the catalogs, but not for any of the other items shown in the three catalogs.

As specified in the Application section of Part 566 (/566.3), Part 566 applies to (1) all manufacturers of motor vehicles and (2) manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, other than tires, to which a safety standard applies. The only item advertised in the three catalogs that is motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies is the "Safety Reflector Kit" shown on page 6 of the catalog entitled "weather guard For Full-Size and Mini Vans." These devices are subject to Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR /571.125). Accordingly, your company, as the manufacturer of these devices, must furnish the information specified in /566.5 within the time period specified in /566.6.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#566 d:l0/3l/88

ID: 3143o

Mr. Hiroshi Kato
MMC Services Inc.
3000 Town Center
Suite 1960
Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Kato:

This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1988, concerning whether a Mitsubishi Motors Corporation SH27 lightweight industrial truck that you intend to offer for sale in the United States should be classified as a motor vehicle under Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"). You stated that this vehicle is intended for "general or carrier work for off-road applications," and that it is capable of a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. You further explained that your company planned to advertise, promote, and market this vehicle as an off-road vehicle. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the SH27 would not be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) 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.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., 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 a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks, can be registered for use on the highways of several foreign countries, and can obtain a a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. These factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you stated that this vehicle is intended to be used only for off-road applications and that this vehicle will be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only and will contain four warning labels stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only." These factors suggest that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

You noted that several foreign countries including Japan and Taiwan register for on-road use the general export configuration of this vehicle. This suggests that your vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle. You attempted to distinguish this fact by stating that the vehicle to be sold in the United States has different specifications than the general export vehicles. The differences are that the United States version has a maximum speed of 25 mph while the general export version can achieve speeds of greater than 55 mph, the engine displacement in the United States version has an engine of 548 cc rather than the 796 and 783 cc for the general export version, and the United States version has an hourmeter (similar to agricultural vehicles) rather than a speedometer. You stated that these differences mean that there is little basis for assuming that the experience in other countries would correlate to the likelihood of States permitting the vehicle to be registered for highway use in the United States. Since the vehicle closely resembles a small truck for highway use, we believe it is likely that States would permit it to be registered for highway use, just as other countries have. Therefore, this factor suggests that your vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. You stated that your advertising and promotional materials will state that your vehicle should be used only for off-road purposes and will not depict or suggest that the vehicle can be used on-road. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

You stated that your dealers will be instructed that this vehicle is to be used solely for off-road purposes and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in this country. Your company also will state on any ownership document that this vehicle is not intended for on-road use. Therefore, this factor would indicate that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

You stated that this vehicle will only be sold by dealerships that sell vehicles other than motor vehicles, such as material handling equipment like lifts and agricultural equipment. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

You stated that four warning labels will be affixed to the interior and exterior of the vehicle body. Labels stating "Off Road Use Only" will be applied to the exterior front panel of the cab, the rear gate, and the instrument panel. Additionally, a label stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only" will be affixed to the exterior rear panel of the cab. This factor would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

Based on the representations in your letter, the agency believes that the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight truck does not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ ref:VSA d:l0/3l/88