ID: aiam4533

"Dear Mr. Baldwin: This responds to your May 7, 1988 letter, concernin the 'Baldwin Rear-View Mirror Safety System.' You stated that this mirror system contains both a flat mirror of unit magnification and a convex mirror, and stated your belief that this mirror system 'offers the latest in technology and safety.' You requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) evaluate and approve your mirror system. We have no authority to approve any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, as explained below. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the 'Safety Act') authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product, the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary performance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this provision in the law, NHTSA cannot approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111, copy enclosed). As you will see, Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. Standard No. 111 does not apply to rearview mirrors as items of equipment. The effect of this is to place the certification responsibility for original equipment rearview mirror systems entirely on the vehicle manufacturer. You as the manufacturer of the mirror are not required to certify that your mirrors comply with Standard No. 111 or any other standard. With respect to your new mirror system, NHTSA has said in many previous interpretations that vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle type on which the mirror system is installed. Assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on new vehicles of that type. Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on such installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with Standard No. 111. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that removed a complying system and replaced it with the noncomplying system would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the 'render inoperative' provision. Again assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on used vehicles of that type. If your mirror system does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for a vehicle type, it cannot be installed on used vehicles of that type by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business. Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, 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 Enclosures";

ID: aiam4215

Dear Senator Cranston: This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Raymond Kesler. He aske for this agency's response to a letter from Mr. Robert R. Philips concerning the bi-focal mirror developed by Mr. Kesler. In his letter, Mr. Phillips asked whether an outside rearview mirror, which has both a planar surface of unit magnification and a convex surface, complies with Standard No. 111, *Rearview MIrrors*. I regret the delay in responding to this letter.; As we understand the information supplied by Mr. Phillips, the bi-foca mirror would be installed on the driver's side of motor vehicles to give the driver a wider field of view by combining a convex mirror and a planar mirror as the outside rearview mirror on the driver's side. The convex portion would abut the planar portion and be located to the left of the planar portion. Thus, both normal and wide-angle vision would be provided at the same horizontal viewing level.; By way of background information, this agency does not give approval of vehicles or their equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as rearview mirrors, comply with any applicable requirements. A manufacturer certifies that its equipment complies with all applicable safety standards.; Mr. Phillips asked this agency to confirm his interpretation that thi bi-focal mirror meets the requirements of Standard No. 111 if its planar or unit magnification surface has an area of at least 19.5 square inches, regardless of the existence of the convex portion. The 19.5 square inch requirement is one applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses (other than schoolbuses) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Those types of vehicles are required by S6.1 of the standard either to have a set of inside and outside rearview mirrors that comply with the requirements applicable to passenger cars or to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. If Mr. Phillips' mirror meets that size requirement, is located on a vehicle so as to provide the required view and is adjustable in the required manner, it complies with S6.1.; There are no minimum size requirements for unit magnification outsid rearview mirrors on passenger cars. Mr. Phillips' mirror can be installed on the driver's side of passenger cars if the mirror's unit magnification portion, independently of the convex portion, meets the field of view and mounting requirements specified in S5.2.; In one drawing accompanying Mr. Phillips' letter, there appears to be warning on the planar portion of his bi-focal mirror stating 'Objects Appear Within Markers: Caution.' There is no requirement in Standard No. 111 for such a warning. The agency is concerned that the message conveyed by this warning is unclear and could confuse motorists. The warning ('CAUTION When Vehicle Appears Here') in Mr. Phillips' other drawing seems more easily understood. He might consider providing purchasers with written instructions explaining that the purpose of the message is to warn drivers that the appearance of a vehicle in the convex portion of the mirror means that the vehicle is so close that a lane change would be unsafe.; Unit magnification and convex mirrors on other types of vehicles mus meet the specific performance and location requirements for those types of vehicles, as set out in the standard. Again, please note that a vehicle manufacturer installing a bi-focal mirror on different types of vehicles must ensure that the unit magnification portion of the mirror meets any applicable requirements of the standard independently of the convex portion.; If Mr. Phillips' mirror meets the requirements of Standard No. 111 fo a particular vehicle type, then it may be installed on new vehicles of that type. It may also be installed on used vehicles of that type.; Conversely, if the mirror does not meet those requirements, then it ma not be installed on new vehicles. Further, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses would be prohibited from installing it on used vehicles. However, the Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own used vehicle.; Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install an product they want on their used vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's rearview mirrors with the performance or location requirements of Standard No. 111.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4192

Dear Mr. O'Neill: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1986, asking how ou regulations affect a product you manufacture. Your letter and the literature you enclosed describe your product as a modified acrylic tinted shield which fits over the front end of a passenger car. According to the pictures you enclosed with your letter, your shield fits over the headlights of some vehicles, in others it apparently only covers the front turn signals. I regret the delay in our response. As discussed below, your product could be affected by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has th authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; The agency has issued Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which set performance and marking requirements for glazing materials used in a vehicle. Auxillary wind deflectors are among the items of glazing materials covered by the standard. The agency has applied the standard to the type of wind deflector that is used at the location necessary for driving visibility. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that wind deflectors do not obstruct or distort the vision of a driver. Thus, for example, the agency has said in a letter of October 2, 1985, to Mr. Rosario Costanzo that the standard would apply to a wind deflector designed to be mounted in the side window of a vehicle. The literature you enclosed shows that your product, which is a type of plastic shield, is not mounted in a location necessary for driving visibility and thus would not be covered by Standard No. 205.; Installation of your product in a new vehicle prior to its first sal would be affected by Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, which sets, among other things, minimum candle power requirements for headlamps and turn signals. In addition, paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Furthermore Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J580, *Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly*, which is incorporated by reference in paragraph S4.1.1.36 and Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, prohibits styling features in front of headlamps when the lamps have been activated. Thus, S4.1.3, S4.1.1.35, and Tables I and II prohibit the use of fixed transparent headlamp covers as original equipment on motor vehicles. Part 567, *Certification*, of our regulations provides that a person that alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards. Thus, an alterer could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If a version of your product covers the turn signal or any other lighting device, the alterer must certify that the vehicle lights will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Persons violating the certification requirements are subject to a civil fine of up to $1,000 per violation.; Installation of your product in a used vehicle would be affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a commercial business could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If the version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the business must assure that the vehicle lamps will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Commercial businesses that violate section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individua vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law.; In addition, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment ar subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which outlines those requirements.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4859

"Dear Mr. Weisbrod: This responds to your letter of March 5, 199 concerning the requirements of Standard No. 301. According to your letter and information provided in a telephone conversation with John Rigby of this office on March 7, 1991, your company uses the Chrysler mini-van as a base vehicle for modification for use by drivers or passengers in wheelchairs. This modification is normally performed before the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer. However, the modification is sometimes performed after sale of the vehicle to a consumer. During the modification, the position of the fuel tank is altered by moving it behind the rear axle, the fuel filler tube is modified to reach the new location, and new structure is added to the rear of the vehicle. To ensure compliance with Standard No. 301, your company had front, rear, and side impact tests performed on a modified vehicle. You believe that this crash testing is appropriate, but have been told by 'various entities' that no such testing is required. Below I will explain the requirements applicable (1) when your company modifies a vehicle before the first sale to a consumer and (2) when your company modifies a vehicle after its sale to a consumer. As you know, a manufacturer of new motor vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Under the NHTSA regulation on certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered an 'alterer,' if the modifications involve more than the addition, substitution, or removal of 'readily attachable' components. An alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). When your company modifies a vehicle by relocating the fuel tank and making the other changes listed above before first sale to a consumer, it would be considered an alterer. Your company, therefore, would have to certify that every vehicle it alters complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, including Standard No. 301. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not expressly require alterers and manufacturers to conduct testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in the safety standards. Instead, the Safety Act requires alterers and manufacturers to exercise 'due care' in certifying that a vehicle complies with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the alterer or manufacturer, in the first instance, to determine how he or she will establish that due care was exercised in making the certification. NHTSA itself must precisely follow the crash test procedures in Standard No. 301 when the agency conducts its compliance testing. Manufacturers or alterers may establish due care by conducting crash testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Standard No. 301. Alternatively, manufacturers or alterers may use other procedures for assuring themselves that their vehicle complies with Standard No. 301, such as computer simulations or engineering analyses. Of course, the agency recognizes that conducting crash tests in accordance with the procedures in Standard No. 301 may be the simplest and most reliable way for an alterer to assure itself that the altered vehicles comply with the standard. When your company modifies a vehicle after that vehicle has been sold to a consumer, it would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides, in part, that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . . Thus, your company (or any other manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) making the modifications you described in your letter must ensure that those modifications do not 'render inoperative' the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. Again, the crash testing described in your letter would be a very effective way of ensuring that the modifications do not 'render inoperative' compliance with Standard No. 301. While your letter only concerned compliance with Standard No. 301, I would note that the modifications you discussed may affect compliance with other safety standards. Other safety standards that could be affected by the modifications include (1) Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, (2) Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (3) Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and (4) Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. I hope this information is useful to you. I also would like to express my appreciation for your company's interest in and commitment to motor vehicle safety. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ";

ID: aiam5347

"This responds to your letter about the brake reservoir requirements o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are developing a new reservoir design to improve reservoir volume without increasing the need for space. You asked how to test your reservoirs since you believe that '(t)he safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The standard's reservoir requirements for trucks and buses are set forth in section S5.1.2. That section requires these vehicles to be equipped with one or more service reservoir systems that meet specified performance requirements. Section S5.1.2.2 specifies the following: Each reservoir shall be capable of withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500 psi, whichever is greater, for 10 minutes. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an air brake system reservoir has a minimum level of structural integrity. NHTSA has long interpreted the term 'withstand' to require that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceeding one percent. At one point, the agency issued an interpretation concluding that the term 'withstand' meant that a reservoir can deform only slightly and must contain the applied pressure with only a limited pressure drop at any time during the test. However, NHTSA later withdrew that interpretation because it inadvertently increased the severity of the requirement. See 42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977, and 43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978. You asked about this requirement in connection with a reservoir design that includes a bushing on the inside of an endcap. A weld is placed around the bushing. You describe two different procedures you have used to seal the reservoir. In what you describe as 'Test Criteria 1,' a socket head plug is put into the bushing with 3 full wraps of tape. With this first method, you state that as the pressure is applied to the reservoir, the endcap starts to expand out. The bushing stretches with the endcap, and as the bushing stretches the threads are pulled away from the plug. The plug must therefore be retightened several times before the required pressure is reached. In your 'Test Criteria 2,' you state that a rubber grommet or washer is placed on the inside of the bushing and forced to expand to seal the bushings from the inside. You stated that this method checks the weld but removes the threads from the test. With the second method, you state that there was no failure at over five times the working pressure. While Standard No. 121 does not specify a particular test procedure for this requirement, the language of S5.1.2.2 makes it clear that a reservoir must 'withstand' for 10 minutes a condition where the reservoir is pressurized at the specified level. Therefore, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would pressurize a reservoir to the specified level. This would necessitate sealing the reservoir. In considering how a particular reservoir would be sealed, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to evaluate the reservoir's structural integrity and ability to withstand pressurization. I can offer you the following comments on the two alternative test methods you described. The first method (Test Criteria 1) would appear to evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization. The threaded plug would appear to reasonably approximate how the reservoir would be sealed in an actual use situation. I note that the mere fact that the plug needs to be tightened during the test to achieve the specified level of pressure would not indicate a failure but would simply reflect minor air leakage around the plug. The second method (Test Criteria 2) would not fully evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization, since it would, as you recognized, remove the threads from the test, thereby creating an artificial seal. It is our opinion that a reservoir would not be capable of 'withstanding' the specified hydrostatic internal pressure if the threads failed under such pressurization. This would represent a structural failure equivalent to a rupture. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ";

ID: aiam5072

Dear Chairman Dingell: Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1992 enclosing correspondence from Mr. Aaron Gordon concerning seat belts on school buses. You requested comments on Mr. Gordon's letter and on H.R. 896, a bill referred to in Mr. Gordon's letter. The issue of safety belts on school buses is an important topic which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has thoroughly studied for many years. School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Every year, approximately 370,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.5 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since NHTSA began tracking traffic fatalities in 1975, an average of 16 school bus occupants per year have sustained fatal injuries. While each of these fatalities is tragic, the number of school bus occupant fatalities is small compared to the number of occupant fatalities to children in other types of vehicles. For example, in 1989 there were 5,287 deaths among children aged five to 18 in vehicles other than school buses. In 1977, NHTSA issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum crash protection levels for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization' -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. The effectiveness of 'compartmentalization' has been confirmed by independent studies by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under the current requirements of Standard No. 222, small school buses, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must provide 'compartmentalization' and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to 'compartmentalization' in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks. In 1987, the NTSB completed a study of the crashworthiness of large school buses, and concluded that most school bus occupant fatalities and serious injuries were 'attributable to the occupants' seating position being in direct line with the crash forces. It is unlikely that the availability of any type of restraint would have improved their injury outcome.' In 1989, NAS completed a study of means to improve school bus safety and concluded that 'the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. The funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries.' The NAS pointed out that since children are at greater risk of being killed in school bus loading zones (i.e., boarding and leaving the bus) than on board school buses, 'a larger share of the school bus safety effort should be directed to improving the safety of bus loading zones.' A summary of the NAS report is enclosed. In response to the recommendations from the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several rulemaking actions, such as improvements to school bus visibility by the driver and requiring stop signal arms on school buses, designed to improve the safety of students in school bus loading zones. Besides the actions taken in response to the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several other rulemaking activities to improve further the safety of school buses, e.g., increasing the number of emergency exits, establishing wheelchair securement/occupant restraint requirements, and improving the body joint strength requirements. While there are no Federal requirements for safety belts on large school buses, states are free to install them if they feel it is in the best interest in their state. However, as noted in the NAS report, if the safety belts are to be beneficial, 'states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly.' In summary, the safety record of school buses is outstanding. As such, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that safety belts would provide even higher levels of occupant crash protection. Also, the agency agrees with the conclusion from the NAS report, that there is insufficient reason for a Federal mandate for safety belts on large school buses. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Marion C. Blakey Enclosure cc: Mr. Aaron Gordon;

ID: aiam5588

Dear Senator Chvala: This responds to a letter from U.S. Senato Russell D. Feingold on your behalf, asking whether a pending redefinition of Wisconsin's 'school bus' definition would violate Federal law. Senator Feingold contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because our agency administers the Federal requirements for school buses. I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns. As explained below, my review leads me to conclude that Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus would not conflict with Federal law, insofar as the redefinition relates to the operation of school buses. However, an area of possible conflict relates to the requirements for mirrors on school buses. By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSS's on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The legislation requires each person selling a new 'school bus' to ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting the school bus FMVSS's. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state regulation. NHTSA defines a 'school bus' as a 'bus' that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, and defines a 'bus' as a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons. 49 CFR 571.3. We understand that the new definition contemplated by Wisconsin would exclude some vehicles that are school buses under our definition. Information from Mr. Doug Burnett of your staff indicates that the new definition would define a school bus as 'a motor vehicle which carries 16 or more passengers (in addition to the operator).' Thus, a motor vehicle that can carry 11-16 persons (including the driver) would be a 'school bus' for Federal purposes, but apparently not for Wisconsin's purposes. Since the States, and not NHTSA, regulate the use of vehicles, the inconsistency would be immaterial with regard to requirements adopted by Wisconsin pertaining to the use of school buses. Wisconsin may set the operational requirements for those vehicles the State defines as 'school buses' without regard to our school bus definition. However, the inconsistency would matter at the point of sale of a new school bus. The FMVSS's specify requirements for school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR part 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. A decision by Wisconsin to adopt a definition other than the Federal definition of a school bus has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to a vehicle. Any person selling a new 'bus' (a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school must sell a certified 'school bus,' regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under Wisconsin law. The vehicle would have to be equipped with the safety features NHTSA requires for school buses. The information provided by Mr. Burnett indicates that Wisconsin would redefine 'school bus' for two purposes. First, Wisconsin would prohibit the operation of a 'school bus'--a vehicle with a capacity of 17 persons (including the driver)--unless the bus has a specific type of mirror. (Section 347.40) As explained above, this requirement would not affect NHTSA's requirement that vehicles considered to be 'school buses' under our definition must be equipped with the mirrors and other safety features we require for school buses, even if the vehicles are not 'school buses' under Wisconsin law. Chapter 301 further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). A State standard for mirrors that is not identical to the Federal standard is preempted unless it imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use (e.g., public school buses). Wisconsin's requirements for school bus mirrors could be preempted, depending on the type of mirror required and whether the vehicles equipped with it are public buses. We understand that the second purpose of Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus is to require privately-owned vehicles carrying 15 or fewer students to be insured by a policy providing specified minimum coverage. (Section 121.555). This provision concerns matters wholly within State law and would not conflict with Federal law. I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact me or Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: The Honorable Russell D. Feingold United States Senate 502 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510;

ID: 06-007782jeg

ID: 14516.ztv

Mr. Larry C. Lavender
Fleetline Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 298
Springfield, TN 37172

Dear Mr. Lavender:

This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You state that you have received "verbal" answers to certain questions from the Office of Safety Performance Standards and need a written confirmation of these answers from the Office of Chief Counsel. You wish to supply parts to "heavy duty truck manufacturers" that meet Standard No. 108, and are concerned with sheeting to be applied to the rear fenders, mud flaps or mud flap support brackets.

My initial comment is that we encourage manufacturers to seek written interpretations directly from the Office of Chief Counsel. Only the written interpretations of the Office of Chief Counsel are binding.

My second comment is to note that the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 apply only to heavy trailers and to truck tractors that are 80 or more inches in overall width. Thus, a manufacturer wishing to add conspicuity sheeting to rear fenders, mud flaps or mud flap brackets of a straight truck need not follow Standard No. 108. Nevertheless, in the belief that standardization enhances safety, we encourage voluntary compliance with the conspicuity requirements for straight trucks as well.

The interpretations for which you seek confirmation are:

"The sheeting must be in a pattern of alternating red and white segments. The individual segments must be 300mm long plus or minus 150mm, i.e. from 150mm to 450mm long."

Yes. The specifications stated in paragraph S5.7.1.3(a) and (b) for the side and rear of trailers and truck tractors apply also to rear fenders, and mud flaps and their support brackets.

"There is no requirement for the color pattern to begin or end in either color. The inboard and outboard segments may be either red or white."

You are correct. The text of Standard No. 108 speaks of "alternating white and red color segments" (S5.7.1.3(a)) while Figure 30-1 through Figure 30-4 show red and white segments installed. However, there is no requirement that the color pattern begin or end with either color, or that inboard and outboard segments be red or white.

"There is no requirement for the tape to be completely free of discontinuities. On the brackets which have a 45 degree angle, the tape does not have to be cut in a miter joint."

Paragraph S5.7.1.4(a) specifies that sheeting "need not be applied to discontinuous surfaces" and provides several examples of these. We assume that this is what you mean by your statement. There is no requirement that tape be cut in a miter joint.

"Minor trimming of the tape to conform to the shape of a bracket is acceptable, provided the length measured on the center line of the tape is a minimum of 600mm. On the drawing included with this memorandum one corner of the tape is trimmed. This is acceptable."

Minor trimming of the tape is acceptable, as shown on your drawing. The length measured on the center line of the sheeting may be any length from 600mm to 900mm. (300mm +/- 150mm x 2).

"The drawing included with this memorandum illustrates a proposed bracket satisfying FMVSS 571.108."

The drawing shows an acceptable solution to mounting conspicuity material on a mud flap bracket.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:5/28/97
d:5/28/97

ID: 18121.ztv

Herr P. Binder
ITT Automotive Europe
Stuttgarter Strasse 119
74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

Dear Herr Binder:

This is in reply to your fax of June 4, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to the use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in a rear lamp that ITT Automotive Europe is developing.

You have asked the factors that must be taken into consideration, the photometric requirements that must be met, "which requirements exist if one LED" fails, and which regulation will be used.

The rear lamp specifications of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment are based upon incandescent bulb technology where requirements are generally met by using one bulb for each lighted section of the lamp. The specification of 32 candela per lighted section that appear in certain SAE materials incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 is based upon the highest output of incandescent signal lamp bulbs at the time that the SAE standards were written. When requirements are intended to be met by limited flux light sources such as LEDs, the light output specification cannot be provided by a single light source but must be provided by multiple light sources. However, current interpretations of what is necessary to comply with Standard No. 108 do not contain any differentiation based on type of light source. Thus, if 20 LEDs provide the same illumination as a single filament bulb, a lamp equipped with the former is considered a lamp with three lighted sections for purposes of compliance, not a single-section lamp. To meet the photometric requirements for three-section lamps, manufacturers must use an overly bright and costly array of LEDs.

You have asked what are the requirements if one LED fails. Failure of one light source in a taillamp or a stop lamp with more than one light source is not addressed by Standard No. 108. If a light source fails in a turn signal lamp on a vehicle that is not equipped to tow a trailer, Standard No. 108 requires that the failure be indicated to the driver. We are not aware of any LED turn signals in use, or how manufacturers would design such a unit to comply with this requirement. However, we believe that a failure should be indicated to the driver at the point where an LED turn signal ceases to furnish the minimum photometric performance required by Standard No. 108. In general, the laws of the individual states require all lamps to be fully functional on vehicles in operation but the failure of a single LED is likely to pass unnoticed.

On June 24, 1998, the agency proposed to amend Standard No. 108 to accommodate LED technology (63 FR 34350). Instead of being designed to conform to the photometric requirements based on the number of lighted sections specified in relevant SAE materials, NHTSA has proposed that a lamp equipped with LEDs that needs more than one light source to achieve compliance with the photometric performance required of a single lighted section, shall be designed to conform to photometric requirements based on the dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area for the function being tested. A lamp would be regarded as having one lighted section if the maximum horizontal or vertical linear dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area of the lamp is less than 150 mm, two lighted sections if the dimension is 150-300 mm, and three lighted sections if the dimension is greater than 300 mm.

Comments are due on the proposal not later than August 10, 1998. The proposed effective date is one year after publication of the final rule. I enclose a copy of the proposed rule for your information. We are sending this response by mail, rather than by fax, to ensure that you receive a clear copy.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/10/98
ref:108