ID: aiam4537

"Dear Mr. Schuld: This responds to your letter asking for informatio concerning the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of a jump seat that you said would be 'removable and able to be transferred from one truck to another.' I apologize for the delay in responding. Generally, Federal motor vehicle seating standards apply to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase by a consumer, and not to 'aftermarket' seating components added to a vehicle after such purchase. However, several of our safety standards could apply to your product if the seat is installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. Federal law would also affect your installation of the jump seat in new or used vehicles. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a removable jump seat sold directly to a consumer. Federal seating standards generally apply only to completed new motor vehicles and not to items of equipment such as a removable jump seat. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your jump seats contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If your product will be installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, then the manufacturer of the vehicle will have certain responsibilities relating to its obligation under the Safety Act to certify the new vehicle as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Federal standards for seating systems (Standard No. 207) and crash protection (Standard No. 208) apply to designated seating positions in new vehicles. While these standards do not apply to auxiliary seating accommodations (e.g., temporary or folding jump seats), the determination must be made whether your apparatus falls into this latter category and is thus excluded from coverage. Unfortunately, information provided in your letter did not describe your jump seat in sufficient detail for us to offer an opinion as to whether your particular seat is an auxiliary seating accommodation. Photographs or engineering diagrams of your product would assist us in determining whether the seat would be considered an auxiliary seating accommodation, and thus excluded from coverage under Standard Nos. 207 and 208 if installed on new vehicles. Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard establishes flammability requirements that must be met by certain vehicle components including seat cushions and seat backs on any occupant seat installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. A manufacturer installing your jump seat on a new vehicle would thus be required to ensure that any seat cushion or seat back on your product conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. You should also be aware that there are statutory considerations that affect the installation of your jump seats in new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act 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 ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing the jump seat to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the jump seat does not degrade from the safety of existing seating or occupant protection systems on the vehicle. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108. In summary, removable jump seats sold to motor vehicle owners as items of aftermarket equipment are not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The seat could be subject to Federal standards for seating performance and occupant crash and flammability protection if it is installed on new vehicles prior to the vehicle's first sale. Commercial businesses are prohibited from installing the jump seat if the result renders inoperative the compliance of requisite safety components or designs with Federal safety standards. Individual owners, however, are not covered by 108(a)(2)(A) and may themselves install the jump seat in their vehicles without regard to the rendering inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act. To repeat, you as the equipment manufacturer would be obligated to recall and remedy seats that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, even if the seats were installed by vehicle owners themselves. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht76-5.44

DATE: 01/13/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: GENERAL Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 2, 1975, asking this agency's opinion as to whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number, would preempt any differing State law or regulation specifying the content of a vehicle identification number. You asked the question in the context of a Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission action recommending such a regulation to the States.

Standard No. 115 requires a vehicle identification that is unique to a manufacturer during any ten-year period. It does not specify the length or the content of the number. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standard on vehicle identification numbers was intended generally to cover all aspects to those numbers, and preempt any differing State rules, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV S74-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U. S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U. S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that the safety standard on vehicle identification numbers, No. 115, is intended to cover all aspects of vehicle identification numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applies, and that any aspects for which there are no specific requirements were intended by this agency to be left to the discretion of the manufacturers. State regulations differing from the Federal standard on this subject are found to "impair the federal superintendence of the field," within the meaning of the Florida Lime doctrine, and any such State regulation would be preempted under section 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

November 14, 1975

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DEAR DR. GREGORY:

Re: Preemption and FMVSS 115

The Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) will hold a hearing on December 11, 1975 in Kissimmee, Florida preliminary to adoption of a regulation entitled "Minimum requirements for the design of a vehicle identification number system for passenger cars". The regulation, if adopted at the VESC meeting, would apply to passenger cars registered in States that in turn adopt the VESC regulation.

Due to the relationship between the VESC and its member States [discussed in detail below], the December 11 hearing raises the real concern that one or more States will adopt the proposed VESC regulation as a part of their vehicle code within a few months thereafter. Thus, the VESC regulation can be expected to very quickly become part of the vehicle law in several states.

The proposed VESC regulation is not identical to the performance requirements of FMVSS 115, "Vehicle Identification Number". The difference will be discussed in detail below.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 states in part:

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

General Motors is of the opinion that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intended FMVSS 115, "Vehicle Identification Number", to be a comprehensive, uniform and exclusive safety standard applicable" to all aspects of vehicle identification numbering; that generally those State vehicle identification numbering requirements which apply to passenger cars and which are not identical to FMVSS 115 are preempted by FMVSS 115 under

authority of Section 103(d) as quoted above; and that specifically those provisions dealing with the content of the digits and letters used in the vehicle identification number are preempted by FMVSS 115 under authority of Section 103(d). GM anticipates that NHTSA holds the same opinion in the matter as GM does and requests that NHTSA express its opinion on this important subject in response to this letter and to the VESC prior to the December 11 meeting.

VESC AND ITS MEMBER STATES

The Beamer Resolution, Public Law 85-684, August 20, 1958, gave Congressional assent to agreements or compacts among States for "cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the establishment and carrying out of traffic safety programs, including but not limited to, the enactment of uniform traffic laws . . . and . . . for the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they deem desirable for the establishment and carrying out of such traffic safety programs". Attached is a copy of the Beamer Resolution.

The Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact was subsequently developed as the mechanism by which States could compact with one another for the purposes stated in Public Law 85-684. Attached is a copy of the Compact.

Article III of the Compact creates the VESC as the agency of the member States.

As stated in Article I, subsection (b)(1), of the Compact, one purpose of the Compact is to "promote uniformity in regulation of and standards for equipment". Article V of the Compact authorizes the VESC after hearings to adopt "rules, regulations or codes embodying performance requirements or restrictions for any item or items of equipment covered in the report [indicating the need for regulation]". (This provision appears in the Compact notwithstanding the fact that the Beamer Resolution relegates compact activities in the field of "safe automobile . . . design" to research only.) Under Article V of the Compact, once a regulation has been adopted by the VESC, each party State must duly consider it for adoption.

Sections (e), (f), and (g) of Article V of the Compact provide that member States may adopt or reject VESC regulations by administrative or legislative action as appropriate under individual State constitutions and statutes.

Forty-two States and the District of Columbia are now members of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact. The eight states that are not members are Alabama, Alaska, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

In thirty of the member States, a VESC regulation becomes a mandatory State equipment requirement only after the individual State's Legislature enacts it into law.

A VESC regulation, however, can be adopted by administrative action alone in the following twelve States: Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland (deemed approved in absence of legislative disapproval), New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia.

Under the procedure followed by VESC, the December 11 hearing may be the final administrative step before adoption by VESC of this regulation. Indeed, the first line of the attached Notice of Public Hearing states that the hearing is preliminary "to final adoption" of the regulation. Following VESC adoption, as many as twelve States can adopt the VESC regulation administratively without legislative action, whereupon the regulation acquires the force of law immediately in those States. In those twelve States, six months is the maximum time within which to act but no minimum time is specified.

The twelve States not only may adopt the VESC regulation but are required by statute to do so unless "the public safety" requires otherwise. Article V, section (g) of the Compact, which has been incorporated in the statutes of the member States, so provides. If only "public safety" is relevant in the State hearing prior to adoption of the regulation by an individual State, an objection that the regulation is preempted by FMVSS 115 under authority of Section 103(d) might not be heeded.

Since its establishment, the VESC had adopted a number of regulations. Among them are Regulation V-1, New Tires; Regulation (Illegible Word) Minimum Requirements For Motor Vehicle Connecting Devices and Towing Methods; Regulation VESC-6, Minimum Requirements For School Bus Construction and Equipment; and VESC-9, Safe Operating Condition of Truck and Bus Type Tires.

VESC can adopt the regulation soon after the December 11 hearing and thereby trigger simultaneous action in forty-two States and the District of Columbia to adopt the regulation as law. If the NHTSA does not express its opinion on preemption at the VESC hearing or prior to adoption by VESC of the regulation, it will be necessary for each of the forty-three member jurisidictions to consider the merits of the preemption argument individually with possibly differing results.

Thus, urgent need exists for the NHTSA to express its position on preemption at or soon after the December 11 VESC hearing.

DIFFERENCES IN CONTENT BETWEEN PROPOSED VESC REGULATION AND FMVSS 115

FMVSS 115 and the proposed VESC regulation apply to the same class of vehicles, namely, passenger cars. See paragraph 2, Scope, of proposed VESC regulation.

The attached yellow pages from the VESC proposal deal with the passenger car regulations. The pink pages deal with a proposal for non-motive power recreational vehicles which is included for information only.

Paragraph 6 of the proposed VESC regulation sets forth the basic requirements. These require the VIN to contain in sequence exactly two digits called the Make Code Field, five or fewer digits called the Identifier Field, and exactly eight digits called the Indicator Section.

FMVSS 115 does not expressly address the make-up of the vehicle identification number. However, it is GM's understanding that FMVSS 115 is intended by the NHTSA to be a comprehensive, uniform, and exclusive standard covering all aspects of vehicle identification numbering. As such, the absence of an express requirement concerning the make-up of the vehicle identification number does not permit a State to impose such a requirement. This understanding is supported by your letter of November 8, 1973 to Mr. W. Pudinski of the Department of California Highway Patrol concerning FMVSS 108. See Attachment. In that letter you stated:

The implication of the California opinion is that any mode of design or performance that is not expressly dealt with in the Federal standard is open to regulation by

the States. Such a position is impractical, where the agency's intent is to have a comprehensive, uniform regulation in a given area . . . Congress clearly intended the NHTSA to establish a single set of uniform standards to which manufacturers must comply, and that intent would tend to be defeated by the position taken in the California opinion. Federal regulation has a negative as well as a positive aspect: in determining that there should be certain requirements in an area, we also are deciding against imposing others. The only way to effectuate such a decision is to declare, as we have done here, that our regulation is intended to be exclusive, and to describe as necessary its outer limits. [Emphasis added]

POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH FUTURE NHTSA PLANS

If it is assumed for sake of argument only that preemption is not present, adoption of the VESC regulation in any of the VESC member jurisdictions could result in serious practical complications of future NHTSA plans.

In September 1975, the International Standards Organization (ISO) adopted two vehicle identification number standards: Vehicle Identification Numbering System 3779

and World Manufacturer Identifier Coding System 3780, which apply to all "road vehicles" including passenger cars. The text of the officially adopted standards will issue in January 1976. The European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market Council, at its November 7, 1975 meeting, began considering these ISO standards for incorporation in the proposed EEC Council directive for statutory places and inscriptions for motor vehicles and trailers. Once the Common Market Council has incorporated the ISO standard, all Common Market countries must within 18 months "accept" the standard, i.e., recognize the standard as the exclusive or an alternative method of compliance with vehicle identification numbering requirements.

The ISO standard sets a maximum of 17 digits in the VIN. Although the standard can be met by fewer than 17 digits, one or more of the Common Market countries may adopt the standard in a way that requires no more and no less than 17 digits. Regardless of whether this happens, there is a direct conflict between the ISO standard which sets a maximum of 17 digits and the proposed VESC regulation which sets a maximum of 15 digits.

The ISO standard includes a World Manufacturer Identifier in the vehicle identification number which makes it possible to identify the country of origin as well as the manufacturer. This feature of the standard presumably will facilitate efforts to curtail international taffic in stolen cars. For that reason, it may be favored by the Interagency (DOT-Justice) Committee on Auto Theft Prevention. If curtailing international traffic in stolen cars prevents some car thefts from occurring in the United States, it may be that the NHTSA would also favor incorporating the ISO standard in FMVSS 115. If so, there will be a

head-on conflict with any VESC member jurisdiction that has adopted the VESC regulation because the VESC regulation requires two and only two digits in the Make Code Field, whereas the ISO standard requires three.

In the absence of Federal preemption in this matter, if any of the Common Market countries adopt the ISO standard in such a way that the 17 digits permitted by that standard are mandatory, adoption of the VESC standard in any of the VESC member-state jurisdications would require domestic manufacturers to have two separate VIN systems, one for vehicles sold in the United States and another for vehicles sold for export. This would be a confusing, wasteful and untenable situation.

GM respectfully requests NHTSA's opinion regarding FMVSS 115 in relation to the VESC regulation and the adoption thereof by any State or the District of Columbia. Your opinion should also be conveyed directly to the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission either at the December 11 meeting or at the VESC headquarters in Washington.

Frank W. Allen -- Assistant General Counsel, GENERAL MOTORS

ENCS.

ID: nht90-4.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 20, 1990

FROM: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Interpretation and/or Petition for Combination of Headlighting Systems

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-13-90 to M. Iwase from Paul Jackson Rice (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your kind advice to the subject matter.

There are three (3) different kinds of headlighting system as specified in the current FMVSS No. 108 --- Sealed Beam Headlighting System of S7.3, Integral Beam Headlighting System of S7.4 and Bulb Replaceable Headlighting System of S7.5.

We are thinking of taking a new headlamp configuration into our design of headlamps which seems not to come under any of lighting systems abovementioned, as shown in the attached sheet-1.

It is a combination of the current systems, consisting of the integral beam headlighting and the bulb replaceable headlighting, and is a possible and reasonable construction for hybrid headlighting systems combining a new technology of HID headlighting a nd the conventional tungusten filament headlightings, we think. We would hereby ask for your kind advice as to whether the said combination of lighting systems could be accepted in use for the automobile headlamps under the current FMVSS No. 108.

Our intended configuration is just a conbination of lighting systems currently permitted in use, never raising argument on the safety and performance aspect, we believe.

If the configuration is not accepted just because it has not been provided in the wording of the lighting systems of FMVSS No. 108, we would like to petition an amendment of FMVSS No. 108 so that such a configuration as we intend might be accepted to use , by submitting the attached sheet-2 enclosed herewith.

Your kind and favourable attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Attached Sheet 1

Combination of Headlighting Systems

4 Lamp System (Drawing omitted.)

Note:(1) Lower Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirement of S7.5. (2) Upper Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirements of S7.4. (3) Photometric design is in conformity with Fig. 15 of FMVSS No. 108.

2 Lamp System

(Drawing omitted.)

(1) Lower Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirement of S7.5. (2) Upper Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirement of S7.4. (3) Photometric design is in conformity with Fig. 17 of FMVSS No. 108.

Attached Sheet 2

Atten: Mr. Paul Jackson Rice Date: November 20, 1990

Petition for Amendment of FMVSS No. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Combination of Integral Beam and Bulb Replaceable Headlighting System We would hereby petition to amend FMVSS No. 108, as belowmentioned, so that a combination of Integral Beam Headlamp and Bulb Replaceable Headlamp can be use for automobile headlamps;

S7 should be changed as follows;

S7. Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus shall be equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the requierments of S7.3, S7.4 or S7.5. Headlighting systems may be a combination of integral beam headlighting system and bulb replaceable headlighting system provided that each headlamp or part of headlamp meets the applicable requirements. In this case, photometric requirements of Fig. 15 or Fig. 17 shall be met according to the lamp system.

ID: 86-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: NIROSHI NORIYOSHI -- EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER MAZDA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 101; CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS AND FMVSS 102; TRANSMISSION SHIFT LEVER SEQUENCE, STARTER INTERLOCK, AND TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/24/86 TO HIROSHI MORI YOSHI FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A29 (4), STD 101 AND 102

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Mazda (North America), Inc., on behalf of Mazda Motor Corporation, requests interpretation of certain provisions of FMVSS 10:, Controls and Displays and FMVSS 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. The specific provisions relate to the conditions of visibility for the gear position indicator of an automatic transmission.

Mazda is considering the application of LED's located within the instrument panel for use in automatic transmission gear position identification. The envisioned system would conform with all applicable requirements when the ignition switch is in the on and start position, but would not otherwise be visible when deactivation of the vehicle's main electrical system occurred by placing the ignition switch in the accessory or off position. The gear shift selector, mounted on the steering column, would be provided with embossed position indicators conforming to FMVSS 102, except that the identifiers would only be visible from the side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position.

FMVSS 101.5(a) requires, by way conference to Table 2, the automatic gear position indicator of a vehicle meet the requirements of the standard for location, identification, and

illumination. Specifically, the automatic gear position indicator must be visible to a driver restrained by the crash protection equipment provided and adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. FMVSS 102.3.2 additionally requires the shift lever position indicator of automatic transmissions be displayed in view of the driver.

In past interpretations requested by Ford and Porache, the Agency has concluded that FMVSS 102.3.2 requires the gear position indicator to be visible regardless of the operating mode of the engine. However, the Agency has not had an opportunity to consider the case of multiple and complementary indicators that individually may not be in conference with the Standards, but collectively would in fact provide indication of gear selection "permanently in view of the driver". The systems would complement each other by providing a clear and unmistakable indication directly before the driver when the engine is activated and by providing a permanent visual cue that can be accessed with little inconvenience by the driver in all other circumstances. Therefore, Mazda believes this system would conform with the applicable provisions of FMVSS 101 and 102.

Accordingly, Mazda requests that the Agency consider our conclusion and comment on the determination that this combination of indicators can be considered "permanently displayed in view of the driver". Also, please clarify the meaning of "view of the driver". It is now possible, with the use of emergency locking retractors, that the driver may lean forward and later return to the normal driving posture with no "misadjustment" of the vehicle's restraint system. Under such conditions, would the embossed automatic gear selection identifiers be considered within the driver's field of view while the vehicle is not activated? Please discuss your conclusion.

Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Mazda is aware that the Agency is not able to approve actions taken by manufacturers. However, we do desire to obtain the opinion of the Agency in this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Ken Tashima at the address or telephone number above.

Sincerly,

ID: 77-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1977, asking two questions about the use of strobe lamps on school buses.

Your first question is whether it is "legal to install strobe type warning lamps on school buses?" The answer is yes provided such lamps meet the specific performance requirements in S4.1.4 which incorporates SAE Standard J887 "School Bus Red Signal Lamps."

You also reference "certification from our vendor . . . that his system meets FMVSS if installed according to his instructions." You have asked if this letter from your vendor is "adequate documentation upon which we could certify that a bus with such a system meets FMVSS 108?" In an earlier opinion letter on this subject (to Yankee Metal Products Corporation of April 12, 1976) we opined that an ETL test report submitted by the company plus an opinion by a professional engineer indicating compliance of a strobe lamp design with SAE J887 provided a basis upon which Yankee could certify that its system meets Standard No. 108. Since you did not enclose the letter from your vendor we cannot comment upon it. However the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that a manufacturer exercise due care in insuring that its certification is not false and misleading in a material respect, and you should exercise the same care in this instance that you do with respect to insuring compliance of other items of lighting devices with which your buses are equipped.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 29, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 108

REFERENCE: 1. New Jersey Register, January 6, 1977

2. Letter, Donald J. Sumple to Mr. Donald Peck dated 3-25-77

"On December 1, 1976, Fred G. Burke, Commissioner of Education and Secretary to the Board of Education, pursuant to authority of N.J.S.A. 18A:39-21 and in accordance with applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, adopted a new rule, to be cited as N.J.A.C. 6:21-19.1, concerning school bus warning lamps (strobe), substantially as proposed in the Notice published October 7, 1976, at 8 N.J.R. 454(a), but with subsequent, substantive changes not detrimental to the public, in the opinion of the Department of Education.

This rule is mandated for school buses manufactured May 1, 1977, and thereafter. This rule is permissive for school buses manufactured prior to May 1, 1977."

The above quote from reference 1 indicates that strobe type warning lamps are required on New Jersey school buses manufactured after May 1, 1977.

We have worked with several vendors to get a system to meet both the New Jersey requirements and FMVSS 108. We have no test facility of our own to determine compliance of such a system with FMVSS 108 and, furthermore, understand that there is some ambiguity of FMVSS 108 with regard to strobe lamps.

We have received certification from our vendor, reference 2, that his system meets FMVSS 108 if installed according to his instructions.

We have these questions:

1. Is it legal to install strobe type warning lamps on school buses?

2. If so, is reference 2 adequate documentation upon which we could certify that a bus with such a system meets FMVSS 108?

Your early response is needed so that we can adequately meet May 1 production requirements for New Jersey.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

C: DON PECK; JIM MOORMAN; JIM SWIFT

ID: 11-005316A Buley drn (Std. 111)

ID: 17300.drn

Mr. Bobby Kim
Vice President
American Automotive Research Center, Inc.
1450 S. Havana Street, Suite 312
Aurora, CO 80012

Dear Mr. Kim:

This responds to your letter to U. S. Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton regarding your product, the KimVue 2000, an inside rearview mirror system. Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, Representative Norton forwarded your letter to this agency. Your literature describes the KimVue 2000 as "a dual-safety rearview mirror" that is "designed to eliminate the blind spot on the right side of a vehicle, often needed when changing lanes." I note that your device consists of two mirrors. One mirror is long and flat. The second is a convex mirror about one third the size of the long and flat mirror. The KimVue 2000 can be adjusted for either left-hand or right-hand driving.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

As you are aware, NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). FMVSS No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself meets FMVSS No. 111 requirements applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed. Vehicle manufacturers must also meet other requirements in FMVSS No. 111, such as mounting requirements for the mirrors.

Please note that since FMVSS No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under NHTSA's enabling statute, the agency considers the mirror to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers

of motor vehicle equipment are subject to our statute's requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a provision in the law, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make 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 ...." If the installation of your mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced the complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have made inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 111. The law permits NHTSA to impose a civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation of the make inoperative provision.

This provision in the law does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they desire on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror makes inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors. In addition, individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of mirrors vehicles must have to be registered in that State.

I note that your product literature states: "The KimVue 2000 passed the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) test No. 111 in March 1997." As earlier stated, Standard No. 111 applies to motor vehicles, not to the mirror system itself. Therefore, it is misleading to state that the KimVue 2000 (by itself) "passed" Standard No. 111. Please do not continue to advertise that the KimVue 2000 "passed" Standard No. 111. A more accurate statement may be that in March 1997, when the KimVue 2000 was placed in a specific motor vehicle (with information specifying the vehicle manufacturer, vehicle type, vehicle model, and model year), the vehicle in which the KimVue 2000 was placed continued to pass Standard No. 111. (This is not to say we agree with the validity of such a statement. Determining whether a vehicle meets Standard No. 111 (in the case of a new vehicle) or continues to meet Standard No. 111 (in the case of a modified vehicle) is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer or modifier. NHTSA can assess the validity of the determinations, but does so only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.)

I hope this information is helpful. As earlier noted, I have enclosed an information sheet providing general information about NHTSA's regulations for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
cc: The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton
Attn: Mr. Bing Yee
U. S. House of Representatives
1424 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-5101
ref:111
d. 6/22/98

ID: 1984-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter inquiring about the test specifications of Safety Standards 203 and 204 and the New Car Assessment Program. You specifically asked about the positioning of a tilting steering wheel for each of those tests. The answers to your questions are as follows.

Standard No. 203 incorporates by reference Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J944, December 1965. SAE J944 provides that a steering wheel is to be mounted at the angle specified by the manufacturer's "package drawing." Therefore, a tilting steering wheel would be placed at the nominal design position set by the manufacturer.

Standard No. 204 does not specify the positioning of a tilt wheel. In Standard No. 204 compliance testing, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance positions adjustable steering columns and wheels at the midpoint of the tilt and telescope adjustments. In the case of your particular tilting steering wheel, there is no midpoint. Thus, we would test the vehicle with the steering wheel in the position which is closest to the geometric center of the steering column. Based on the sketch enclosed in your letter, it appears that tilt positions 2 and 3 of your wheel are at an equal distance from the geometric center of the steering column. Therefore, your tilt tilt steering wheel should be capable of complying when tested in either of those positions.

The New Car Assessment Program does not use the Standard No. 208 test procedures, but instead uses its own set of test procedures. Those procedures specify that an adjustable steering wheel is to be positioned at the midpoint of its tilt adjustment. Since there is no midpoint for your wheel, the wheel would be set at the position closest to the gometric center of the steering column. As discussed above, the agency would use either position 2 or 3 for your tilt wheel.

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

SINCERELY,

MMC SERVICES INC.

February 10, 1984

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: Test Conditions of FMVSS 203, 204 and NCAP Dear Sir:

This is to inquire about the test specifications of FMVSS 203, 204 and NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) regarding tilt steering.

1. Our interpretations are as follows:

(1) FMVSS 203 (SAE J944)

The height of the steering wheel shall be adjusted to the manufacturer's design reference point.

(2) FMVSS 204

No description of the adjusting method for the tilt steering.

(3) NCAP

The NCAP's test is conducted according to FMVSS 208; S8.1.4 which states "Adjustable steering controls are adjusted so that the steering wheel hub is at the geometric center of the locus it describes when it is moved through its full range of driving positions.

2. Tilt Steering Mechanism

Our tilt steering for the future model is only adjusted at four (4) positions by the gear, and therefore, the steering wheel hub is not set at the geometric center of the locus as required in FMVSS 208. (See the figure on the following page)

(Graphics omitted)

3. Questions

(1) Are our interpretations as mentioned above correct? If not, please let us know of your interpretations.

(2) When performing the 35 mph frontal collision test, at which gear position do we set the steering wheel hub?

(3) At which gear position shall we set the steering wheel hub for the following respective tests?

(a) FMVSS 203

(b) FMVSS 204

Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President

MMC SERVICES, INC.

ID: 07-001340

ID: nht92-9.9

DATE: February 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Martin -- Program Manager, Bureau of Highway Safety, Augusta, Maine

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/9/91 from Michael A. Martin to Mary Versailles (OCC 6747); Also attached to letter from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

This is in regard to your letter of December 9, 1991, regarding school buses. Your three questions are addressed below.

1. (W) hat is the general rule to which states need to comply with regarding Federal school bus safety standards? What bus safety modifications would not be restricted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)?

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103 (d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that are different from the applicable FMVSS except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law imposing higher requirement would be preempted under S103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. The agency has previously interpreted the phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" to include public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school. See, for example, February 20, 1987 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin (copy enclosed).

2. Would Federal safety standards restrict a state

from requiring safety belts on school buses?

A state requirement that all school buses be equipped with safety belts regulates the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard for school bus occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection) and would not be identical to that standard for large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds). FMVSS No. 222 requires school buses to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Providing compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interiors are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and protect them during a crash. FMVSS No. 222 requires the additional protection of safety belts at each passenger position in small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) because these buses experience greater force levels in a crash.

A state requirement for safety belts on school buses would be identical to the level of performance required for small school buses, but would specify a different level of performance for large school buses. However, because the state requirement specifies a higher level of performance for large school buses than that required by FMVSS No. 222, Maine may require the installation of safety belts in school buses procured by the State or its political subdivisions, as long as the Federal requirements for compartmentalization are not compromised.

3. Could a school bus fleet modify the rear lighting configuration of their buses (8 light system) to reduce the potential for other vehicles rear-ending buses during poor visibility conditions, e.g., fog? ... The proposed change is to replace the white 8 inch back-up lights with 8 inch red sealed beam warning lights similar to the two at the upper level of the rear end of the bus. These would flash in an alternating criss-cross fashion when the bus is stopped loading or discharging students. The small white lights at the lowest level of the rear end of the bus would each be replaced with white, universal backup lights angled to also direct their beams at 45 degree angles out from the rear of the bus.

The answer to your question is yes if the school district or its fleet contractor performs the modification itself. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes Cthis agency to issue FMVSS applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale for purposes other than resale of any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with all applicable FMVSSs. After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision does not regulate in any manner how a vehicle owner can modify his or her vehicle. I note, however, that this agency encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with their vehicle's safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

In addition, it is possible that the modifications you describe could be made by one of the named commercial entities without violating the "render inoperative" provision. The modification you describe affects two requirements of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. FMVSS No. 108 requires buses, including school buses, to have at least one backup light meeting the photometric and height requirements of SAE Standard J593c, February 1968. If the small white lights at the lowest level of the rear end of the bus comply with these requirements, the vehicle would continue to conform with this requirement.

Section S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires school buses to have a system of either four red or four red and four amber signal lamps which conform to SAE Standard J887, July, 1964. The modification you describe would add an additional two red signal lamps to the existing eight light system. Section S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 states that "(n)o additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." It is our opinion that the addition of two red signal lamps would not violate this provision.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.