ID: 86-6.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Melvin Krewall -- Administrator, Transportation Section, Finance Division, Oklahoma State Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Melvin Krewall, Administrator Transportation Section, Finance Division Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599

This responds to your August 22, 1986, letter to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller concerning our regulations for school bus manufacturing. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has certified and approved the "Asia Smith Chassis" for school buses. You stated that you need a copy of the certification because Oklahoma requires chassis to be approved by the state Board of Education before they can be sold in Oklahoma.

I would like to begin by clarifying that NHTSA does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. This agency regulates motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computers simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. Manufacturers certify their school buses by attaching a label to their vehicles in accordance with our certification procedures. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with applicable safety standards.

A school bus manufacturer who installs a school bus body on a new chassis (such as an Asia Smith chassis) is required by our certification regulations (49 CFR 567 and 568) to certify the completed vehicle to Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those regulations require the chassis manufacturer to furnish information which assists the vehicle manufacturer in making that certification. When certifying its school buses, the manufacturer affirms that the vehicle, including the chassis, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including school bus safety standards.

You indicated that Oklahoma requires school bus chassis to be approved by the state before their sale. I am concerned with this requirement because its imposition could be preempted by operation of the Vehicle Safety Act. The first sentence of section 103(d) of the Safety Act states: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title 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 or 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.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Federal Register notice issued by the agency concerning the issue of preemption and pre-sale state enforcement of safety standards (47 Fed. Reg. 884; January 7, 1982). The notice discusses NHTSA's position that Federal law preempts state requirements which prescribe the sale of equipment certified to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless the equipment is also approved by the State. We believe that Oklahoma's requirement for approval of school bus chassis is analogous.

As I understand Oklahoma's requirement, it imposes requirements which have the effect of proscribing the sale of certified school buses unless their chassis are also approved by the State. Apparently, school buses manufactured with chassis lacking state approval may not be sold in Oklahoma. Even though the vehicle has been certified as meeting all preempted because it imposes burdens differing in a significant respect from the Federal regulatory scheme.

I hope this information is helpful. If you wish to further discuss the preemption issue or have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

AUGUST 22, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The August/September 1986 issue of School Bus Fleet magazine has an article about Asia Smith Chassis for school buses. They are marketed by Asia Smith Motor Inc. of Plaistow, New Hampshire.

My question to you is, has this chassis been certified and approved for sale in the United States? If it has been certified, where can I receive a copy of the certification showing that it meets all the federal minimum standards. It is imperative that this information be disseminated to us as our State Board of Education must approve all chassis manufacturers after they receive federal approval.

Thank you in advance for this vital information.

Sincerely,

Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division MK:bam

ID: nht89-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: BYUNG M. SOH -- TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM BYUNG M. SOH TO TAYLOR VINRON; OCC 2648

TEXT: Dear Mr. Soh:

This responds to your letter of October 5, 1988, inquiring whether your "Starrace" hub cap violated Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @ 571.211) or any other of our safety standards. You explained that your self lighting hu b cap includes a motion activated LED light whose intensity varies according to the speed of the vehicle. You further noted that the LED, which has a maximum intensity of 40mmAmp, is designed for cosmetic rather than illuminating purposes. As explained below, your device would not appear to violate Standard No. 211. However, this device may present problems of compliance with Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR @ 571.108).

Standard No. 211 prohibits winged projections on wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. This prohibition extends to these items of motor vehicle equipment both as items of original equipment on new passenger cars and multipurpose vehicles and as items s old in the aftermarket as replacement parts for use on such vehicles. Judging by the picture enclosed with your letter, it does not appear that this hub cap has any winged projections. Nothing in Standard No. 211 explicitly prohibits LEDs on hub caps, wheel nuts, or wheel discs. Accordingly, your product does not appear to violate any provision of Standard No. 211.

However, the self lighting nature of your hub cap may raise questions under Standard No. 108. If this hub cap is marketed as original equipment to be installed before the initial sale of a motor vehicle, the vehicle with these hub caps installed must be certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 provides that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." As I stated in my September 13, 1988 letter to you with respect to different equipment, we interpret this requirement as follows:

"Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or ab ove the maxima permitted by the standard." (emphasis added)

Your product might impair the effectiveness of the required lighting by causing motorists to confuse its signal with the signal emitted by headlamps, stoplights, brakelights, taillights, side marker lamps, and other lighting devices. Such confusion is p ossible since your product is located on the wheels at approximately the same level as the lights required by Standard No. 108. This impairment of effectiveness would be especially likely if the hub cap lights were the same color (red, amber or white) as the lights required by Standard No. 108.

As for the aftermarket sale of your product, under @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, an element of design, s uch as lighting equipment, installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Again, if these lighted hub caps would impair the effectiveness of the lighting required by Standard No. 108, we would consider each aftermarket installation of the hub c aps by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to be a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the "render ino perative" provision. Please note that the Safety Act does not restrict a vehicle owner from modifying his or her own vehicle, even if the modification resulted in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108. Such modifications may, however, b e prohibited by State law.

Additionally, you should be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with defe cts related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and either:

1. repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

In either case, the manufacturer must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht76-2.5

DATE: 02/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Jeep Corporation's October 16, 1975, petition to initiate rulemaking to amend the present definition of "Unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR @ 571.3) which reads:

"Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

Jeep requests that the definition be amended to "indicate that the unloaded vehicle [weight] does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories." The Jeep petition argues that the impracticality of conducting some dynamic testing with "work-performing accessories" in place may force the discontinuance of some factory-installed accessories although factory installation may be more safe than a subsequent aftermarket installation.

The Jeep Corporation petition is denied. As a general matter, the NHTSA has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed. The NHTSA has evaluated the potential problems of dynamic testing with heavy or protruding accessories in place and concludes that a decision on the practicality and wisdom of so doing should be made on a "standard-by-standard" basis. As you noted, the NHTSA has provided for removal of work-performing accessories in conducting compliance tests under Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. If Jeep considers dynamic testing in other standards to be unjustifiably burdensome because of the necessity of testing with all accessories in place, it would be appropriate to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard in question.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

October 16, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: Petition For Rulemaking 49 CFR Part 571.3 - Definitions

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" contained in Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 571.3.

Currently, unloaded vehicle weight means the weight of the vehicle to be loaded with its maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for normal operation, but without occupants or cargo. This is the base vehicle condition used throughout the safety standards when vehicle dynamic performance is being evaluated. Jeep Corporation requests that this definition be revised to clearly indicate that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories. Currently, it is unclear whether a vehicle being subjected to a dynamic test should include such items.

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as "Jeep Special Equipment", are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modification which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle. Thus, it would be in the best interests of safety to allow Jeep Corporation to continue to provide approved special equipment.

This will not be possible, however, if future dynamic testing procedures in several safety standards require vehicles tested to be equipped with all types of special equipment accessories. To assure compliance to any Federal Standards with all possible vehicle equipment combinations would create a financial and testing burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which, as noted earlier, may not be in the best interest of public safety.

The NHTSA has, in the past, recognized the influence of certain work-performing equipment on vehicle dynamic performance. In Docket No. 73-29; Notice 1, published in 38 FR 33501, the NHTSA proposed the exemption of original equipment snow plows from vehicles being tested to the braking requirements of Standard (Illegible Word)

The concept of eliminating the effects of "work-performing accessories" from the unloaded vehicle weight was further confirmed by the NHTSA in its recent promulgation of Standard 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. In this standard, it is stated that, "(F)or the purpose of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR Part 571.3) such that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories.

Jeep Corporation submits that for the reason stated above, such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.

Stuart R. Perkins Director Vehicle Safety

ID: nht88-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM K. BALDWIN,

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-7-88, "THE BALDWIN REAR-VIEW MIRROR SAFETY SYSTEM" PARTLY COVERED BY U.S. PAT #3,667,833

TEXT: This responds to your May 7, 1988 letter, concerning 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 "o ffers 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 explaine d 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 s tandards 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. 1 403) 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 equip ment 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 comp lies 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 p rohibits 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 mirro r 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) speci fies 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 y our 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 to their own vehicles, regardless o f 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.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-4.65

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cal Karl -- Minnesota State Patrol, District 4700-Commercial Vehicle Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-7-82 from F. Berndt to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 from C. Karl to M. Shaw (OCC 4403); Also attached to letter dated 1-18-90 from R.E. Meadows; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl; Also attached to letter from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter to Marvin Shaw of my staff seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S571.217). Specifically, you asked how S5.2.3.2, which applies to school buses, would affect the instal lation of certain designs of "vandal locks" on school buses. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this safety standard for you.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information. Throughout this letter, I will use the term "vandal lock" to describe locking systems installed for the doors and emergency exits of school buses intended to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the school bus through those exits when the bus is unoccupied and unattended. S5.2.3.2, the relevant provision of Standard No. 217, reads as follows:

The engine starting system of a school bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus. For purposes of this requirement, "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated by a person at the door w ithout a special device such as a key or special information such as a combination.

Your first question was whether S5.2.3.2 prohibits the use of a vandal lock system that, although it must be unlocked for the bus to start, can be relocked once the bus is started. The answer is that such locks are not prohibited by Standard No. 217. I have enclosed a copy of a December 7, 1982 letter to Mr. M. B. Mathieson in which NHTSA addressed this issue. As stated in that letter, "Nothing in Standard No. 217 prohibits the installation of locking doors (on a school bus) as long as the vehicle can not be started with the (emergency) door in the locked position." In other words, the prohibition in S5.2.3.2 focuses exclusively on whether the vehicle can be started when any emergency exit is locked. If the school bus cannot be started when an emerg ency exit is locked, the bus complies with S5.2.3.2, even if an emergency exit can be locked once the bus is started.

Your second question was whether S5.2.3.2 allows a vandal lock to be relocked after the vehicle is running without the use of a key or special information. The answer to this question is yes. As stated above, the prohibition in S5.2.3.2 focuses exclusi vely on whether the vehicle can be started when any emergency exit is locked. If the school bus cannot be

started when an emergency exit is locked, the bus complies with S5.2.3.2, even if an emergency exit can be locked once the bus is started. Nothing in S5.2.3.2 requires that any locks on emergency exits be relocked only by means of a key or some special information after the vehicle is started.

I appreciate your concern about potential problems that might arise if emergency doors are locked after a school bus is started. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make or should have made some provision to prevent em ergency exits on school buses from being relocked once the bus is started, it is not possible to interpret the language of S5.2.3.2 as including such a provision. Since an interpretation cannot add or delete requirements in the language of a safety stan dard, the only way whereby the standard could include a provision to prevent emergency exits on school buses from being relocked once the bus is started would be for this agency to undertake a rulemaking action to amend the current language of S5.2.3.2.

We are unaware of any safety need to commence such a rulemaking. We do not have any indication that there have been deaths or injuries to school bus occupants as a result of an emergency exit being relocked once the bus was started. Moreover, the poten tial hazards to school bus occupants absent any Standard No. 217 requirements on this subject seem minimal. School bus doors, including emergency doors, should not be locked when the bus is in operation, and we believe that, in practice, they remain unlo cked when the buses are in use. It is also our understanding that the vast majority of school buses with emergency doors that can be locked in this fashion are voluntarily equipped with warning buzzers that alert the driver to the fact that the doors ha ve been relocked.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information.

ID: 86-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Earl J. Ogletree; John Gaski -- Harley Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Earl J. Ogletree Mr. John Gaski Harley Products Inc. 904 S Prospect Avenue Park Ridge, IL 60068 Dear Mr. Ogletree and Mr. Gaski: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1986, asking how our regulations would affect a product you intend to manufacture both as an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment and as an item of original equipment on some vehicles imported into this country. You described the product as a sun visor that clips onto a vehicle's regular visor. You further explained that the sun visor has an extension arm that allows the visor to be moved to filter out the sun coming in through the window to the left of the driver, or moved below the original equipment visor or between the two original equipment visors. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations affect your proposed visor.

Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 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 Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of your proposed sun visor in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (708 in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the sun visors described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install devices which could impair their vision and thus adversely affect safety. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

LEGAL COUNSEL NHTSB U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR SIR/MS:

I AM REQUESTING A RULING OR INFORMATION ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENTS POSITION ON THE LEGALITY OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING A NEW TYPE OF SUN VISOR* FOR USE ON AUTOMOBILES IN THE AFTER SALE MARKET IN THE U.S. ALSO WE ARE PLANNING TO INCORPORATE THE NEW SUN VISOR AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT ON AUTOMOBILES MANUFACTURED IN KOREA WHICH WILL BE SOLD IN THE U.S. SOLD.

* THE NEW SUN VISOR CLIPS ONTO THE AUTOMOBILES' REGULAR VISOR. WHAT MAKES THE NEW SUN VISOR DIFFERENT IS THAT THE TINTED SUN VISOR CAN BE MOVED TO FILTER OUT THE SUN VIA AN EXTENSION ARM THAT HOLDS THE TINTED SUN VISOR WITHOUT MOVING THE REGULAR OR ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR. WITH THE NEW SUN VISOR ONE CAN FILTER OUT THE SUN AT THE LEFT SIDE DOOR WINDOW, BELOW THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR AND BETWEEN THE TWO ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISORS.

PLEASE ADVISE US AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A FEDERAL ISSUE OR PROBLEM.

SINCERELY, EARL J. OGLETREE AND JOHN GASKI

ID: 86-5.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T.E. McConnell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. E. McConnell Prince Lionheart 2301 Cape Cod Way Santa Ana, CA 92703

Dear Mr. McConnell:

Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1986, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to roll-up window shades designed to be attached to a vehicle's window by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.

Some background information on how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 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 Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a) (2) (n) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108(h) (2) (A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108 (6)( 2) (A) does not affect vehicle owners who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of required safety features. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States top preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

I am returning, under separate cover, the two samples of your product you provided the agency. If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 31, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the NHTSA Rule Making Office referred me to the Office of Chief Counsel in my effort to obtain a determination that PRINCE LIONHEART'S BABYBRELLAtm and sUNBRELLAtm roll-up automobile window shades are in compliance with all State and Federal laws regarding window coverings.

I am enclosing a sample BABYBRELLAtm and a packaged sUNBRELLA for your reference. The package for the BABYBRELLAtm is identical to that of the sUNBRELLAtm except for the name and logo.

Please note that the shade, itself, does not come in contact with the window's surface and it's roll-up feature allows it to be easily raised for driving at night or on cloudy days. We have found these items to be extremely useful in protecting a car's occupants from sun, heat and glare while providing a safe alternative to sheets and towels which many people use to protect themselves and their children from the sun.

I will appreciate your prompt response to this request and please feel free to call the undersigned should any questions arise.

Very truly yours,

T.E. McConnell PRINCE LIONHEART

TEM/pd encl.

ID: 19994.ztv

Mr. F. Barry Hennegan
General Counsel
Atlas and Reusable Launch Systems
Lockheed Martin
P.O. Box 179
Denver CO 80201-0179

Re: SS-99-10099

Dear Mr. Hennegan:

This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1999, to the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "regarding possible exemptions from certain of the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Sections 571.121 and 393.52" with respect to two trailers owned by Lockheed Martin.

The Office of Motor Carrier Safety, Department of Transportation, enforces 49 CFR 393.52. I am forwarding a copy of your letter to that Office for its response to you on this issue.

In brief, Lockheed Martin is the owner of two trailers manufactured for it by Martinez and Turek of Riato, California. These trailers were manufactured to your specifications, which included compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. The trailers also feature steerable rear wheels mounted on a removable bogie assembly. You inform us that "after completion of acceptance and road testing of both trailers, it appears that neither will fully meet Section 571.121, Paragraphs S5.3.3 Brake actuation Time and S5.3.4 Brake Release time."

However, you note that S3(a) of Standard No. 121 excludes trailers which exceed 102.36 inches in width and which are "equipped with two short track axles in a line across the width of the trailer." Your trailers are wider than this but don't meet the axle specification. Nevertheless, you believe that the intent of this exception is "not to have the requirements apply to oversize, slow, or specialty trailers such as ours." Accordingly, you ask that we exempt your trailers from S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121.

I am sorry to inform you that we have no authority to exempt these trailers from Standard No. 121 under the circumstances that you relate. Because they are not equipped with two short track axles across their width, the trailers do not qualify for the exclusion from Standard No. 121 provided by S3(a). The trailers, then, were required by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to be certified by their manufacturer as conforming to those standards.

We have authority to exempt trailers from Standard No. 121 at any point up to and including their first sale for purposes other than resale, upon application by their manufacturer (49 U.S.C. 30113). Given the fact that these trailers are already owned by Lockheed Martin, it is too late for their manufacturer, Martinez and Turek, to apply for an exemption.

When either we determine, or a manufacturer determines, that a motor vehicle fails to comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the manufacturer is required to notify us and its dealers and purchasers, and to remedy the noncompliance (49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, as implemented by 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577). However, if the manufacturer believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, it may petition us for a decision to that effect. If we grant the petition, the manufacturer is relieved of its statutory obligation to notify and remedy (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), as implemented by 49 CFR Part 556).

Therefore, if the manufacturer, Martinez and Turek, agrees that Lockheed Martin's trailers fail to comply with S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, the company is required, at a minimum, to notify us in the manner prescribed in 49 CFR Part 573. Within 30 days of notifying us, it may also submit an inconsequentiality petition with us under 49 CFR Part 556. In this particular instance, the manufacturer might want to discuss, as part of such a petition, whether this vehicle is operated only under special permit and with escort vehicles. If it does not file a petition (or if the petition is denied), it is required to remedy the noncompliance.

Although you did not address the issue, under our interpretations, the removable bogie assembly appears to be a trailer, and subject to compliance with Federal requirements. You state that the auxiliary axle was added after delivery of the trailers to ensure that the vehicles, when in use, would not exceed the maximum Colorado allowable rear wheel road loading for tandem axle trailers. A bogie/axle unit installed as part of a trailer's original equipment is considered to be part of the trailer itself, and covered by its manufacturer's certification and the trailer's VIN. However, a bogie/axle unit sold and installed after the trailer has been delivered to its owner is considered a trailer, and is required to comply with Federal requirements applicable to trailers, including compliance with Federal standards, the VIN regulation, and certification by the bogie/axle manufacturer. I am enclosing a copy of a letter we furnished Jay Reese on September 25, 1996, which explains this in further detail. If the bogie/axle units installed on your two trailers do not in fact comply with Federal standards applicable to trailers, the bogie manufacturer is subject to the same notification, recall, and inconsequentiality procedures discussed in the preceding paragraph.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

cc: Martinez & Turek
Riato, CA

ref:121#573#555
d.11/9/99

ID: 9775

The Honorable Chuck Chvala
Wisconsin State Senator
State Capitol
P. O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707-7882

Dear Senator Chvala:

This responds to a letter from U.S. Senator 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

ref:571 d:8/4/95

ID: 21281.ztv

C. Thomas Terry, Director
Safety Affairs & Regulation
General Motors North America
Safety Center (480-111-S56)
30200 Mound
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Terry:

On February 11, 2000, you wrote the Acting Administrator, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and petitioning for its amendment. This letter provides an interpretation of Standard No. 108. The Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards will inform you in due course whether he has granted your petition.

Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You asked "whether brake lamp illumination is required, prohibited, or allowed under other conditions." You set forth two such conditions where the brake pedal is not employed. The first condition is:

Service brakes applied with intent of decelerating the vehicle. An example in this category would be adaptive cruise control where the service brakes may be automatically applied (without driver application of the brake pedal) to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles.

We are providing an interpretation that covers only the system given as an example, an adaptive cruise control automatically applied "to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles." The SAE Standards on stop lamps that are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, J586 MAY84 and J1398 MAY85, define stop lamps as "Lamps . . . [which] indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Since you state that the intent of the brake application in this context would be "to slow the vehicle," which would "diminish speed by braking" within the meaning of the applicable SAE standards, we conclude that activation of the stop lamps would be required under these circumstances.

The second condition you set forth is:

Service brakes applied with no intent to decelerate the vehicle. The best example in this category would be traction control, where the intent is to help accelerate, rather than decelerate, the vehicle. Electronic stability control is another technology that can momentarily actuate the service brakes with minimal or no vehicle deceleration.

The intent of the brake application under the first part of the second condition is not to stop the vehicle or diminish its speed. Therefore, activation of the stop lamps, as defined in the applicable SAE Standards, would not be required. In addition, S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. In our view, activation of the stop lamps for a purpose other than to indicate stopping or slowing will create confusion for the driver following as to the meaning of the signal, with the potential of causing that driver to apply the brakes in his or her vehicle inappropriately. Thus, illumination of the stop lamp during traction control would be an impairment of the stop lamp function within the meaning of S5.1.3. We have therefore concluded that installation of traction control systems, or any other equipment, that activates the stop lamps for purposes other than to indicate that the vehicle is stopping or slowing is prohibited by S5.1.3 and would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Regarding the second part of the second condition, electronic stability control, the same interpretation would apply if the vehicle speed was not diminished by application of the service brakes (or any part). It would not apply if the application of the service brakes resulted in deceleration. In that case, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

We realize that, under some circumstances, the driver's application of the service brake system to achieve the same result, i.e. not actually achieving a reduction in speed, will cause the stop lamps to illuminate, but this is an unavoidable consequence of the technology available for driver application of the service brakes. With the advent of sophisticated electronic systems, such as those that you mention, there is no need for them to provide false signals.

Also, you have asked that we "for the near term . . . agree that FMVSS 108 allows, but does not require or prohibit, illumination of the brake lamps under the two conditions described above" because a "strict 'required' or 'prohibited' interpretation could have the effect of raising compliance issues with current production vehicles." We cannot adopt a different interpretation for the near term than for the long term. We encourage manufacturers to write us for interpretations before introducing new systems into production so that compliance issues will not arise, or to file petitions for rulemaking where appropriate. If a manufacturer constructs a noncompliant vehicle based upon a misunderstanding of what is required by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, it must accept the consequences of its actions.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/26/00