ID: nht95-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 14, 1995

FROM: Takashi Adachi -- Manager, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TO: Richard L Van Iderstin -- Visibility and Controls Group, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TAKASHI ADACHI (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Iderstein,

I am writing this letter to ask you a view with regard to conformity of the reflex reflector included in rear lamp that our company are consider to design. Structure of design are described on the attachment.

My questions are related to conformity to FMVSS 108, as follows.

1. Does this structure of the reflex reflector conform to FMVSS 108? 2. Shall the reflex reflector meet the photometric performance requirement in the whole area of the reflex reflector? 3. Or shall each area (upper and lower) of the reflex reflector meet the photometric requirement individually?

Thank you in advance, I will call you later to listen your reply.

Enclosed: figure 1 (rear of lamp) shows clear and red outer lens, reflex reflector and opaque area. (Figure omitted.)

ID: nht95-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: Takashi Tohse -- Quality Assurance Group, Fabricated Glass General Division, Asahi Glass Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/7/95 LETTER FROM TAKASHI TOHSE TO MARVIN SHOW (OCC 10800; OCC 10706)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tohse:

This responds to your inquiry about whether various ways of marking your automotive glazing comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Specifically, you ask the agency to assess the merits of what you refer to as "plural company Ids" in your logo mark. By "plural company Ids," we assume you mean more than one distinctive designation or trademark. We also assume that you are a "prime glazing material manufacturer" which the Standard defines as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material."

Under Standard No. 205, a replacement windshield is required to be marked with information that includes the prime glazing manufacturer's "distinctive designation or trademark" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. See, S6.1 and S6.2.

You first ask, "Can a manufacturer use different kinds of Ids for different grades of products?" The answer to this question is yes. We understand that what you refer to as "Ids" is the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. As long as an item of glazing has a manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark, a manufacturer would comply with this requirement. The Standard does not prohibit a manufacturer from varying this distinctive designation or trademark among its different grades . (We note that each of your products would be marked with the same manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by NHTSA. This code mark will help NHTSA identify the manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall cam paigns.)

Your second question asks "Can a manufacturer used the same distinctive designation or trademark for two different companies?" The answer is yes. The requirements do not prohibit two companies from sharing a distinctive designation or trademark. As men tioned above, the glazing must be marked with the manufacturer's code mark that identifies the glazing's actual manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: Chong D. Lee -- President, TMR International, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/28/95 LETTER FROM CHONG D. LEE TO PHILIP RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lee:

This is in reply to your FAX of February 28, 1995, asking several questions about the importation and sale of an aftermarket airbag. The airbag "comes in assembly with a steering wheel" and is intended for installation in vehicles not originally equippe d with a driver's airbag.

You have asked the following questions:

"a) Whether such a product as described is legal for U.S. sale."

There is no Federal prohibition per se against the sale of aftermarket airbags. However, pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in airbag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208, even if they are aftermarket equipment. Therefore the manufacturer of these items (or the importer, who is defined as a "manufacturer" under our statute) must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

S9 prescribes performance requirements that are found in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178, regulations of another Administration of the Department of Transportation. We suggest that you write the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Research a nd Special Programs Administration, 400 7th Street, Washington, D.C. 20590 for an opinion as to whether other of its regulations apply to your product or its movement in interstate commerce.

As to whether the laws of the individual States regulate the sale of aftermarket airbags, you should write, for an opinion, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

"b) Legal procedures, testing or submissions required to certify the product for U.S. sale."

The requirements for compliance with S9 of Standard No. 208 are set forth in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178. When the manufacturer who is responsible for certifying compliance is satisfied that the equipment, in fact, does conform, it certifies the product. At that point, pressure vessels and explosive devices that are part of an airbag assembly, if not manufactured in the United States, may be imported into this country. A state is not permitted to have performance requirements for pressure vessels and ex plosive devices that differ from those of S9, but it may have a standard requiring identical performance, and, if so, they may ask for documentary assurance of compliance.

"c) Applicable Federal law (e.g. FMVSS 208)."

See replies to your previous questions. You should also note that an aftermarket airbag is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

One Federal law does bear upon the installation of the airbag. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business replaces a piece of original equipment that was necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, if the replacement part creates a noncompliance with that standard. The design of the steering wheel may affect compliance with Federal Standards Nos. 203 Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system and 204 Steering control rearward displacement. We recommend that you satisfy yourself that installation of the airbag will not affect the previous ability to comply, of the vehicle in which it is installed, before marketing the product.

"d) Actions or registrations required to reduce legal risks."

We are not in a position to advise you on matters that do not relate to Federal laws that we administer. We recommend that you consult a private attorney on these matters.

"e) Any other information of which we should be aware."

You should encounter no difficulties in importing the airbag and steering wheel under our importation regulation, 49 CFR Part 591 as long as any components that are required to comply with S9 of Standard No. 208 are certified as meeting that standard.

I am enclosing an information sheet that outlines the various laws and regulations that we administer pertaining to motor vehicles and equipment with the thought that you might find it helpful.

ID: nht95-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: Dirk du Plooy -- Motorcycle Safety Consultant, Motorcycle Rider Advancement Centre

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/6/95 LETTER FROM DIRK DU PLOOR TO JOE PESCI (OCC 10787)

TEXT: Dear Mr. du Plooy:

We have received your letter of March 6, 1995, to Joe Pesci of this agency, asking his assistance "in acquiring information about U.S. laws on motorcycle trailers." You understand that "there could be a number of different U.S. states with different laws , but the most generally accepted standard" is what you are seeking in drafting legislation legalizing motorcycle trailers.

Any trailer that is manufactured for sale in, or imported into, the United States must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards are issued by this agency. Several of them apply to trailers. As we have no separat e category of "motorcycle trailer", these standards would apply to any trailer manufactured for the purpose of carrying one or more motorcycles.

Here are the requirements that apply to trailers. A trailer with a hydraulic brake system must be equipped with brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings that meet Standard No. 106, and with brake fluid that complies with Standard No. 116. Lighting equipment and reflectors must be installed pursuant to Standard No. 108. Each trailer must have a Vehicle Identification Number attached, in accordance with Standard No. 115 to facilitate any recall campaigns for safety purposes. Sta ndards Nos. 119 and 120 apply to tires and rims used on trailers. Finally, at the end of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer must affix a permanent label which certifies that the trailer complies with the safety standards.

Because these Federal standards apply throughout the United States, I believe that they meet your request for information on "the most generally accepted standard." Under our laws, if any State has its own standard covering any aspect of performance that is covered by one of the Federal standards listed above, that State standard must be identical to the Federal one. So, to that extent, State regulation of motorcycle trailers should be identical to the Federal requirements.

However, States may impose their own standards in areas that are not covered by the Federal standards. For example, this agency has no requirement covering strength of trailer hitches, or that trailers be equipped with mud flaps. Therefore, a State coul d adopt standards in these areas. We are not conversant with State laws for motorcycle trailers, and cannot advise you about them. If you wish further information on such laws, we recommend that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Admin istrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I am enclosing for your information a pamphlet on our regulations that we provide to prospective trailer manufacturers. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. Given the distance between us, you may wish to communicate by FAX. Our number is 202-366-3820.

ID: nht95-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: Edward Gower, Esq. -- Chief-Counsel, Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/27/95 LETTER FROM J. RANDLE SCHICK TO SUSAN KUNKEL (OCC 10696)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gower:

In response to a request by Larry Wort, Chief of the Bureau of Safety Programs, I have reviewed the provisions of Senate Bill No. 52, now awaiting action in the Illinois General Assembly, to determine whether the provisions relating to school buses would conflict with applicable Federal law. My review leads me to conclude that there is a conflict that could result in Federal preemption in some circumstances. I am specifically concerned about the bill's redefinition of "school bus."

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and equipment p rior to sale to the first retail purchaser. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state concern. The Safety Act 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)

NHTSA defines a "bus" as a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, except a bus sold for op eration as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR 571.3.

Senate Bill No. 52 proposes to amend the definition of "school bus" in section 1-182 of 625 ILCS by excluding

3. A motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons that is operated by or for a public or private primary or secondary school, including any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution, for the purpose of transporting not more than 15 students to and from interscholastic athletic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activities.

There is thus an inconsistency between the definition in 49 CFR 571.3 and the definition in Senate Bill No. 52, since a vehicle with a capacity of 11-16 persons that is sold for school transportation would be a school bus for Federal purposes but not for State purposes.

This inconsistency matters at the point of sale of a school bus. The Federal safety standards impose a number of requirements on school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection . If a dealer were to sell a 11-16 person bus to a school for use in transporting students, the Federal school bus requirements would apply, notwithstanding the State law's exclusion of such a bus from the school bus definition.

I want to stress that the Federal law applies to dealers as well as to manufacturers. The obligations of a dealer are set forth at 49 U.S.C.30112(a), which provides that no one may manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle to which a vehicle safety standa rd applies unless the vehicle complies with the standard. A dealer who sells a bus for school use that does not meet the school bus standards would thus violate the law.

The amendment in Senate Bill No. 52 which would add 105 ILCS 5/29-6.3 is not inconsistent with the Safety Act. It has been our position that vehicles that do not comply with applicable Federal school bus safety standards may be borrowed or rented on a o ne-time or very occasional basis to transport students. Operators should be cautioned, however, that transporting students in other than complying school buses could result in additional liability in the event of an accident.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: R. C. Rost -- Minnesota Body & Equipment

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/8/94 LETTER FROM R. C. ROST TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 10496)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law requires buses used for Head Start to be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. You stated that the state of Minnesota recently adopted a law that prohibits such buses from being equip ped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. I apologize for the delay in our response.

In an August 26, 1988 letter to you, NHTSA explained that "Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils suc h as those in Head Start programs." Federal law continues to require such buses to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, the Head Start buses referenced in your letter must be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. We have writte n to Major Glen Gramse of the Minnesota State Patrol to explain that the Minnesota law is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Terrence S. Lockman -- Legal Investigator; Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/2/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERRENCE LOCKMAN (REDBOOK 2 VSA 102 (3))

TEXT: Dir Sir and/or Madam:

I am currently conducting an investigation involving a 1981 Versa Sweeper, manufactured by Terrain King, Sequin, Texas.

While conducting research it has become difficult to determine exactly how this vehicle would have been classified, for the purpose of applying applicable standards. I hereby request this formal inquiry.

The "Versa Sweeper" vehicle is considered to be a road/highway sweeper and/or power broom. At the time in question, the vehicle was being used in a construction zone, to sweep debris off the roadway.

I hereby submit the following inquiries:

1. For the model year, 1981, how would NHTSA had defined the Terrain King "Versa Sweeper"?

2. Under the applied NHTSA definition, for the 1981 Terrain King "Versa Sweeper", what regulations and/or standards would had applied to the manufacturing of the sweeper?

3. Did those applied regulations require the implementation of an occupant restraint system or rollover protection? If not, what is the respective date of application for implementation of those standards?

In addition to the above, I submit the following request(s) and inquiries in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act:

4. Request production of any and all correspondence and/or documentation in which the U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, or an agent thereof possess regarding inquiries made by the designer and/or manufacturer, W. F. Larson Company, Amarillo, Te xas and Terrain King, regarding the manufacturing and production of the "Versa Sweeper" and all applicable standards?

A. What was the definition of use and/or application provided to the designer/manufacturer?

B. Based on the definition supplied to the designer/manufacturer, what were the Federal standards for which they were required to meet, as provided by the NHTSA?

C. At the time this product was manufactured, was this vehicle required to be equipped with an occupant restraint system and/or rollover protection?

5. Request production of any and all correspondence and/or documentation in which the U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, or an agent thereof possess regarding inquiries made by a designer and/or manufacturer of a street sweeper, power broom, and /or street broom regarding the required and applicable standards?

For your review, I have enclosed copies of photographs of the "Versa Sweeper" in question. This vehicle is equipped with headlights. Ironically, however, this vehicle is not equipped with tail lights or a brake warning device.

I greatly appreciate your time and efforts towards responding to my inquiries. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me by calling (904) 435-7065. I look forward to receiving your response.

Enclosure VERSA SWEEPER BROCHURE (OMITTED)

ID: nht95-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 13, 1995

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

TO: Mayo D. Tubbs -- Visionary Lighting Systems

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE AVAILABLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tubbs:

We have received your letter of March 23, 1995, asking for a waiver of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) which will enable the introduction of a new lighting system that you have developed for large trailers. You envision that this system will eventually be installed on emergency vehicles and school buses. We understand that you wish to market this system as original equipment.

You have asked that we "provide adequate safeguards to prevent unauthorized dissemination of this information." As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you before you wrote, all the agency's letters of interpretation must be made available to the ge neral public, and these letters must include enough information to make the interpretation comprehensible. Mr. Vinson telephoned you on March 30, 1995, and informed you that we proposed, in this instance, to limit the description of the system to the nu mber, location, and quantity of lamps, to withhold the incoming letter with the exception of Attachment A, and to exclude your name and address from the copy made publicly available. You concurred with this treatment of your letter, except that you pref erred not to have your name and address withheld in the event a reader might be interested in getting in touch with you.

You believe that the current lighting and conspicuity requirements for large trailers are inadequate for safety when compared with your system. This system consists of 18 "strip lights on the side and rear" of large trailers which are "Aviation Green" i n color. The side and rear lighting schemes are depicted on Attachment A to your letter. As we interpret Attachment A, two of the strip lights are mounted in the upper right and left rear corners, while eight lights are on each side of the trailer (fou r right-angle lights in each upper and lower corner, and four lights deployed at one-third body-length intervals at the top and bottom).

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is the Federal regulation that governs original lighting equipment on trailers. These requirements must be met upon the manufacture and sale of trailers. With res pect to the rear of a van trailer, your Attachment A depicts only strip lights in the upper right and left corners. This is not permissible under Standard No. 108. The Federal regulation requires the conspicuity treatment specified by S5.7 to be applie d in this area, as well as clearance lamps. With respect to the side of a van trailer, Standard No. 108 requires horizontal conspicuity treatment to be applied near the lower edge of the trailer as close to the front and rear as practicable, though it n eed not be continuous as long as it covers at least half the trailer length. Because of the gaps between the strip lights on the trailer side as depicted in Attachment A, it is possible that conspicuity treatment could be applied between the strips that would total half or more of the trailer length.

However, supplementary lighting equipment such as your system is not permissible under Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3) if it impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of exteri or lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory side lighting equipment, i.e., amber front side markers, red rear side markers, and red and white conspicuity striping or red reflectors.

A vehicle manufacturer may petition for a temporary exemption from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under the conditions specified in 49 CFR part 555, a copy of which is enclosed. Therefore, a trailer manufacturer interested in using your system could apply for a 2-year exemption on the basis that the exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the standard. The effect of an exemption is to allow the manufacture and sale of a nonconforming vehicle without violating 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). I am sorry to inform you that the exemption is not available to equipment manufacturers.

If you have data that sustains your belief that your system enhances safety, our Office of Research and Development would be interested in corresponding with you. The Associate Administrator of that Office is George Parker.

If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you.

Sincerely,

DRAWINGS OMITTED

ID: nht95-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1995

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

TO: David A. White -- Manager of Reliability, Grumman Olson

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/14/95 LETTER FROM DAVID A. WHITE TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TEXT: Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter of March 14, 1995, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on certain vehicles manufactured by Grumman Olson. Your lette r describes those vehicles as van bodies mounted on either cutaway chassis or chassis cabs that are sold as part of Grumman Olson's Freight Star line. Your letter further states that as chassis manufacturers have made changes to the doors and interiors of their vehicles, Grumman Olson has found it "increasingly difficult, if not impossible" to locate its certification label, which measures three and one half by six inches, in any of the locations specified in NHTSA certification regulations at 49 CFR 5 67.4.

Paragraph (c) of that section prescribes specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provides that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for NHTSA's approval. The location that you have recommended is on the forward half of the left side of the cargo box, which is the same location as the one specified in 49 CFR 567.4(d) for the placement of certification labels on trailers. In a photograph that you subsequently faxed to us, the proposed location was more precisely identified as the left front corner of the cargo box, immediately behind the cab.

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for vehicles in Grumman Olson's Freight Star line would meet this objecti ve. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

To ensure that vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States may be distinguished from those manufactured for sale in Canada, NHTSA strongly suggests that the letters "U.S." or "U.S.A." be inserted before the word "Federal" in the safety standard c ompliance statement that must be included in the certification label under 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5).

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1995

FROM: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LANCE TUNICK (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter requests an interpretation of a portion of SAE J586 (Feb. 84) installation requirements for rear stop lamps (section 5.4.1), as incorporated by reference in FMVSS 108, Table III.

More specifically, this request concerns the visibility requirements for rear stop lamps. The referenced SAE section states that "to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface of at least 12.5 square cent imeters measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." (Emphasis added.) "Outer lens surface", however, is not defined either in the SAE materials or in FMVSS 108.

We believe that "outer lens surface" when used in the above section of J586 means "light emitting surface" as defined in SAE J387.

Please confirm the agency's definition of "outer lens surface" as used in the visibility requirement in SAE J586 (Feb. 84).

Given testing and production deadlines, we kindly request as prompt an answer as possible.

Thank you for your kind attention.