ID: alliance(9-2-03).ajd

Mr. Robert S. Strassburger
Vice President
Vehicle Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 2003, regarding my July 21, 2003 letter to Mr. Cavallo of Halcore Group, Inc., which discussed the early warning reporting (EWR) responsibilities of small volume manufacturers.

I had advised Mr. Cavallo that "[f]or the purposes of determining whether the production of vehicles meets or exceeds the 500 vehicles per year threshold in Section 579.21 et seq., the production of the divisions, parent, subsidiaries and affiliates must be aggregated." This interpretation is consistent with other letters interpreting the EWR regulation.See Letter from Jacqueline Glassman to John D. Evans of April 11, 2003, at p. 3; Letter from Jacqueline Glassman to Rod Nash of August 20, 2003, at p. 2; and Letter from Jacqueline Glassman to Rod Nash of October 10, 2003.

You assert that the interpretation that I provided to Mr. Cavallo was inconsistent with statements made by a person other than the Chief Counsel at a public meeting. The September 24, 2002 public meeting you reference concerned technical issues, such as security and acknowledgement of submissions, regarding electronic EWR submissions to the agency. The Federal Register Notice announcing this meeting was clear that this was to be only a technical meeting. See 67 FR 55448. Moreover, at the time of the meeting, we expressly stated that the information presented was not binding upon the agency, and that nothing stated at the meeting should be construed as a final NHTSA interpretation. Transcript p. 8. [1] In addition, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and its members are familiar with NHTSAs interpretive processes. As such, the Alliance is fully aware that the Chief Counsel is the only NHTSA official with authority to issue interpretations of agency regulations. See 49 CFR 501.8(d)(4).

Second, you state that the interpretation in the Cavallo letter is inconsistent with how the agency intends to use the information collected from EWR, as stated in the final rule. You also said that the value in the information provided by low volume manufacturers is very limited when conducting trend analysis because a single incident can look like a high "incident rate" relative to the performance of other vehicles manufactured in larger quantities. In addition, you concluded that "the agencys guidance from September 2002 public meeting regarding the limited reporting requirements for low volume subsidiaries makes sense in the overall context of the EWR rule and the uses to which NHTSA plans to put the EWR information."

We disagree with your conclusion. The statement was not "the agencys guidance." We determined that the 500 unit production threshold is the appropriate demarcation point in part based on small business concerns. We also determined that aggregate reporting is appropriate in order to capture all vehicles manufactured by an entity with affiliates or subsidiaries. Moreover, while a single incident may skew the "incident rate" relative to other vehicles, it is not the only factor that controls NHTSAs initiation of a defect investigation or the determining factor in deciding to issue an initial determination. Also, EWR information will not be the sole basis for opening a defect investigation. As we stated in the preamble to the final rule, "if we identify matters that might possibly suggest the existence of a defect, we plan to seek additional clarifying information from the manufacturer in question, and from other sources, to help us to decide whether to open a formal defect investigation." 45822 FR at 45865. We see no reason to vary from our current position.

Lastly, you stated that, in the context of FMVSS No. 208 phase-in requirements, the agency in an interpretation letter previously determined that low volume subsidiaries of larger parent companies retain their low volume status. As you recognize in your letter, a letter interpreting FMVSS No. 208 does not control the interpretation of the EWR regulation. We also noted in that letter that the interpretation provided therein only reflected consideration of factors underlying FMVSS No. 208, and did not provide guidance for interpreting any other regulatory provisions. See Letter from John Womack to Grant Nakayama of August 22, 2001. We do not believe that the concerns underlying that interpretation letter are the same as those underlying the EWR regulation. First, the exclusion of low volume subsidiaries from the phase-in requirements of FMVSS No. 208 reflected the technical challenges faced by smaller manufacturers given the complexity of the advanced air bag requirements. Second, that exclusion simply deferred compliance with the advanced air bag rule by low volume subsidiaries to the end of the phase-in period. In contrast, your suggestion would, in effect, totally exclude low volume subsidiaries from the comprehensive reporting requirements of the EWR regulation.

If you have any questions, you may call Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.11/4/03





---

[1] Docket NHTSA 2001-8677-530. Available at http://dms.dot.gov.

ID: nht80-3.25

DATE: 07/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

COPYEE: R. McCUTCHEON -- ASST. POSTMASTER GEN., U.S. POSTAL SERV.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your June 5, 1980, letter to this office, you indicated that Michelin would like to equip mail vans with passenger car tires. Since the mail vans will be restricted to speeds of 50 miles per hour and less, you believe that it would be permissible to load the tires above the maximum load indicated on the tires, pursuant to the provisions of Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). This assumption is accurate.

Section S5 of Standard No. 120 sets forth two basic safety requirements which new motor vehicles other than passenger cars must meet, including a mail van. Paragraph S5.1.1 requires these vehicles to be equipped with tires which meet the requirements of Standard 109 or Standard 119. From your characterization of the tires as passenger car tires, I assume that you will be providing tires which meet the requirements of Standard 109.

The second general requirement, contained in paragraph S5.1.2, is that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system, as specified on the vehicle's certification required by 49 CFR Part 567. As you implied in your letter, this requirement of S5.1.2 does not apply to vehicles which have a speed attainable in 2 miles of 50 miles per hour or less. This exception was intended to apply only to vehicles such as mobile cranes, which do not have the capability to reach speeds greater than 50 miles per hour. However, the language inadvertently is so broad that it encompasses vehicles which have their speed capabilities restrained by devices like governors and, thus, would apply to the mail vans you describe.

There are two comments I would like to make on this unintended loophole. One is that we will strictly enforce the 50 mile per hour limitation. If any of the mail vans can attain speeds over 50 miles per hour, that van will be in violation of Standard 120 if the tires you describe are used. Additionally, we are going to examine whether it is necessary to amend Standard 120 to close this loophole.

The second comment is a recommendation that you fit the mail vans with tires whose labeled maximum loads are at least equal to the GAWR of the axle on which they are mounted. The Tire & Rim Association allows a 9 percent increase in the load over the maximum load labeled on the tires when the speed range is restricted to 50 miles per hour (1979 Yearbook of the Tire & Rim Association, at 2-03). This 9 percent increase in load carrying capacity is calculated for truck tires. When using passenger car tires on the mail vans you have described, safety concerns mandate that the load carrying capacity of the tires be reduced by 10 percent, to ensure that the lighter duty passenger car tires can safely perform the heavier duty work that is routine for vehicles like mail vans. Indeed, if the vehicles were not speed restricted, S5.1.2 of Standard 120 would require this 10 percent reduction to be made for the passenger car tires.

If Michelin follows the course of prudence, it should calculate the maximum load carrying capacity of the tires with a 9 percent increase allowed for the speed restriction. Then this maximum load must be reduced by 10 percent to allow for the use of passenger car tires. The net result of this increase and decrease would be that the maximum load which the passenger car tires you describe could safely carry is approximately the maximum load labeled on the tires, because the increase and decrease will cancel each other out.

I trust that Michelin Tire Corporation, which has a very good record of concern for tire safety, will not equip a motor vehicle with potentially unsafe tires, even if a loophole in Federal regulations might inadvertently permit it to do so.

SINCERELY,

REF: D.O.T. MISC.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION - Technical Group

JUNE 5, 1980

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

Gentlemen:

We are proposing the use of a passenger tire on an electric mail van being produced for the U.S. postal service.

The van is speed restricted to 50 mph, therefore, we can allow an increase in load carrying capacity over and above that indicated on the tire sidewall.

If the van is considered "a vehicle other than a passenger car" it would fall under the requirements of FMVSS 119 and 120 rather than FMVSS 109 and 110 and the increase in load carrying capacity would be in accordance with FMVSS 119 and 120.

Please advise if our proposed solution is in conformance with NHTSA requirements.

The scheduling of this program is extremely tight and your prompt reply would be appreciated.

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht72-2.21

DATE: 01/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1971, to Lawrence R. Schneider requesting an interpretation on the mounting of front identification lamps.

Standard No. 108 requires that identification lamps be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" (Table II). The "vehicle" is the vehicle as completed, and not the incomplete vehicle. Therefore, if the "top" of the vehicle, i.e., the highest point, is a location other than the cab, the identification lamps must be mounted at the "top", and not on the cab, if it is practicable to do so. Generally, manufacturers of van-body vehicles have found it practicable to mount identification lamps on the van body. Modified lighting diagram 0-1 which you enclosed originally depicted the correct location of identification lamps for a truck with a van body.

If the manufacturer of the cab portion of a truck has placed identification lamps on the cab, the lamps need not be removed when the lamps necessary for conformance are added at the "top."

Sincerely,

December 21, 1971 Mr.

Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U. S. Department of Transportation

Subject: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON MOUNTING HEIGHT OF FRONT IDENTIFICATION LAMPS.

Re: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

The above referenced FMVSS No. 108, becoming effective January 1, 1972, establishes the location and mounting heights of the front identification lamps by stating-----

" . . . as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle . . ."

"On the front only-- and No part of the lamps or mountings shall extend below the top of the vehicle's windshield."

Insofar as trailers are concerned, identification lamps are not required on the front of the trailer. The reasoning for this is that the identification lamps stop the truck tractor will serve the requirement.

We shall use a typical van body truck as an example. (See attached Lighting Diagram O-1.) It is our contention that if identification lamps are mounted on top of chassis-cab vehicles--i.e. incomplete vehicles--as supplied by the chassis manufacturers, it is permissible to leave these lamps in place. We contend that it is not necessary to remove these chassis supplied lamps, nor is it necessary to add an additional set of identification lamps at the top of the body. Of course we realize that if there are not any identification lamps on top of the cab (vehicles 80 or more inches overall width), we would be held responsible to equip the truck with front identification lamps (as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle) as required by FMVSS No. 108.

Please advise us in writing if our interpretations are correct and in full compliance with FMVSS No. 108.

Your earliest response will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION --

Paul A. Tatarski

Manager Engineering Services

Enclosure:

(Graphics omitted)

FOR VEHICLES OF 80 OR MORE INCHES OVERALL WIDTH

RECOMMENDED LAMP AND REFLECTOR LOCATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108

(DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE)

The general areas indicated for lamps and reflectors are acceptable to the U.S. Department of Transportations National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. Consult Federal MVSS No. 108 and the applicable tables therein for exact requirements such as: mounting height limitations lamp combinations and alternative locations.

LEGEND

1. Headlamps (2)-white (4 optional)

2. Front side-marker lamps (2)-amber

3. Front side reflectors (2)-amber

4. Front turn-signal lamps (2)-amber

4a. Front turn-signal lamps (2)-amber (optional location)

5. Front identification lamps (3)-amber 5a. Front identification lamps (3)-amber (optional location)

6. Front clearance lamps (2)-amber

7. Rear side-marker lamps (2)-amber

8. Rear side reflectors (2)-red

9. Rear identification lamps (3)-red

10. Rear clearance lamps (2)-red

11. Rear reflectors (2)-red

12. Rear stop-tail & turn-signal lamps (2)-red

13. Rear licence plate lamp (1)-white

14. Rear backup lamp (1)-white (location optional provided optical requirements are met)

15. Intermediate side-marker lamps (2)-amber (if vehicle is 30' or more overall length)

16. Intermediate side reflectors (2)-amber (if vehicle is 30' or more overall length)

NOTE

LAMPS AND REFLECTORS MAY BE MOUNTED AT OTHER PRACTICABLE LOCATIONS PROVIDED LOCATION AND VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 ARE MET.

Lighting Diagram

Supplement 1/1/71

ID: nht90-4.66

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1990

FROM: William A. Batten -- Eaton Corp., Truck Components Operations- North America

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 124 Accelerator Control Systems

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-4-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to William A. Batten (A37; VSA 108(b)(1); VSA 108 (a)(2)(A); Std. 124)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain an interpretation from your office relative to FMVSS No. 124. The question is:

What is the applicable mileage requirement or time domain that a Class 8 Truck (over 10,000 pounds GVWR) must comply with FMVSS No. 124?

I would like to thank you in advance for your consideration in this manner.

ID: nht90-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CADWALLADER JONES PRESIDENT JONES FORD INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-31-89 TO NHTSA FROM CADWALLADER JONES, JONES FORD INC., ATTACHED; [OCC 3936]

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to NHTSA in which you asked questions concerning the circumstances in which Ford vans with more than ten designated seating positions would be considered school buses for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Sta ndards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in this response.

Your letter asked whether the vans that you describe would be considered school buses if used to transport adult education students, college students, high school students (including athletic teams), playground teams with no connection to schools, day ca re center clients, or children transported by churches that do not have day schools, but occasionally transport children.

The starting point for the agency's analysis of when vehicles used in these circumstances would be required to comply with FMVSS requirements applicable to school buses is Section 102(14) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 13 91(14)). That provision defines "Schoolbus" as a "passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools."

When interpreting this provision, the agency has always looked to the nature of the particular institution purchasing the buses. If its central purpose is the education of primary, preprimary or secondary students, the agency has determined that the bus es purchased must comply with the FMVSS requirements for school buses. If the institution is concerned primarily with the education of post-secondary students, or serves a function that is custodial rather than educational, NHTSA has said that the buses need not comply with the school bus requirements.

The agency has already explained the application of this provision to several of the circumstances raised in your letter. On July 12, 1977, in

a letter to Mr. Jim Thomason, the agency said that buses used to transport adults and other post-high school students to vocational training need not comply with the FMVSS school bus requirements because these passengers do not fall in the categories of "primary, preprimary or secondary students." However, that interpretation also noted that a bus used by a vocational school connected with a secondary school would fall within the scope of the school bus requirements.

The agency has also determined, in a March 17, 1976 letter to Mr. W.G. Milby (and reaffirmed several times since then), that buses used to transport college students need not comply with the standards for school buses. The same letter also includes our opinion that a bus used to transport school athletic teams to activities falls within the scope of the definition of school bus, and must comply with the applicable FMVSS.

A May 10, 1982 interpretation letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin determined that Vehicles used to transport children to day care centers need not comply with the school bus standards. The rationale for this decision is based on the fact that these facilities serve an essentially custodial function, although they may have some educational components, and are not considered to be schools.

Your letter also asks about transportation of children by churches which do not operate day schools. In a November 20, 1978 letter to Mr. J. Perry Robinson, this office determined that the term "school" does not include church schools such as Sunday sch ools, or those providing other religious training. As noted in that letter, however, a normal preprimary, primary or secondary school operated under the auspices of a church would be required to comply with the the school bus requirements.

Finally, your letter asks whether vehicles used to transport "playground teams" with no connection to a school would be required to comply with the school bus requirements. The agency has not addressed this question in any past interpretations. However , it is my opinion that a bus used to transport "playground teams" that are organized independently of any school of educational organization would not be required to comply with the school bus standards. The term "school" cannot be construed to include athletic teams not connected with any school or educational organization.

I hope you have found this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992.

ID: shokspotr

Mr. Gregory S. Beck
Engineering
Yorba Safety Concepts, LLC
15581 Product Lane, Unit C5
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Dear Mr. Beck:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the relevant safety standards for the "Shok-SpotR^TM," a product designed to detect impacts that may have resulted in damage to a motorcycle helmet. The information you provided states that the Shok-SpotR is a "helmet impact sensor intended to raise the publics level of awareness to helmet impact damage and to visually warn helmet users of potential damage. "The instructions for the product indicate that the sensor is attached to the helmet on the "helmets centerline on the rear half of the helmet, behind the apex or highest point on the helmet. "Your website states that the sensor "mounts on your helmet shell permanently and easily, in a small, attractive, ultra-lightweight housing."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets," to reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users resulting from head impacts. Each new motorcycle helmet must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 218. If the Shok-SpotR were sold as part of a motorcycle helmet, the helmet would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard with the Shok-SpotR attached.

We believe that a new helmet with the Shok-SpotR is unlikely to meet FMVSS No. 218. The standard at S5.5 prohibits rigid projections on the outside of a helmet shell except those "required for operation of essential accessories." In past interpretations, we stated that snaps for visors or face shields were considered required for operation of essential accessories while helmet lights were not. We cannot conclude that the Shok-SpotR is required for operation of essential accessories. Furthermore, S5.5 provides that the projection, if permitted, "shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm [millimeters])."By our measurements, at the thickest point, the Shok-SpotR protrudes approximately 6 mm from the helmet shell. If a new motorcycle helmet to which Shok-SpotR is attached could not comply with FMVSS No. 218, a manufacturer of a new motorcycle helmet could not certify or sell the helmet.

FMVSS No. 218 applies to new motorcycle helmets and would not apply to the Shok-SpotR if it were sold in the "aftermarket" to helmet owners. However, while no FMVSS would apply in this situation, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C.  30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Whether it is legal for a person to operate a motorcycle while wearing a helmet with the Shok-SpotR attached is not a Federal question, but a question to be answered under the laws of each jurisdiction in which Shok-SpotR is used.

There is another provision in our statute of which you should be aware. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C.  30122, which states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative . . . any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . . " It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be attached by commercial businesses instead of helmet owners. However, if your product were installed on helmets by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, that could constitute a potential violation of the "make inoperative" provision of  30122.

Section 30122 does not apply to individual owners. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, it is NHTSAs policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets.

We are returning to you the sample of the Shok-SpotR you enclosed with your letter. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:218
d.11/16/04

ID: 08-000218 covering the air bag label

ID: 05-006303drn

Mr. Jim Pike
Business Development Manager
DSM Engineering Plastics
645 Waverly Circle
Copley, OH 44321




Dear Mr. Pike:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). You asked whether your brake hose products may be certified as meeting the December 20, 2004 final rule on brake hoses. The answer is yes.

In responding to your letter, I note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

You inform us that your company "has developed thermoplastic copolyester materials" that have resulted in products that meet all requirements applicable to plastic airbrake tubes as specified at S11. and S12. in the December 20, 2004, (69 FR 76298) final rule updating FMVSS No. 106. The final rule takes effect on December 20, 2006, but manufacturers were provided the option of early compliance with the new rule beginning on February 18, 2005. Thus, until December 20, 2006, your company has the option of manufacturing products to meet either the requirements in the December 20, 2004 final rule or the present FMVSS No. 106.

When certified as meeting FMVSS No. 106, the products can be sold in the U.S. , and placed on vehicles to be sold in the U.S. and used on U.S. roads. No changes were made in the way the products must be labeled. However, if there was a change in how the manufacturer of the tubing is designated (i.e. , change in company name or change of company logo), the December 20, 2004, final rule specifies the information is to be provided to a different NHTSA office than that presently specified. The December 20, 2004 final rule does not have the effect of requiring any manufacturer to re-register. If a brake hose or tubing manufacturer has already registered with NHTSA, there is no need to re-register.

In the December 20, 2004, final rule (at page 76,298), we noted that the rulemaking began from a joint petition that was submitted in light of a 1997 proposal to revise Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) provisions for brake tubing and hose adequacy (at 49 CFR 393.45) and for brake tubing and hose connections (at 49 CFR 393.46). You ask about the status of this rulemaking to remove the FMCSR provisions. Sections 393.45 and 393.46 are administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). FMCSA published the Final Rule on August 15, 2005 (70 FR 48008).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:106
d.9/19/05

ID: GF006472

Mr. Jim Haigh
Vice President
Transpec Worldwide
7205 Sterling Ponds Ct.
Sterling Heights, MI 48312




Dear Mr. Haigh:

This responds to your e-mail regarding installation of certain auxiliary lighting on school buses. Specifically, you ask whether installing a "Driver Alert Device" on school buses, which you state has been mandated by the State of Alabama, conflicts with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment.

Your e-mail and your web site (www.transpecworldwide.com/products/driver_alert.htm) explain that the "Driver Alert Device" is an LED message board mounted on the school bus emergency door that is wired to flash the word "Caution" when the school bus is backing up. The device is also wired into the eight-lamp school bus warning lamp system. When the amber lamps of the system are activated, the LED sign alternately flashes "Caution-Stopping". When the red lamps of the system are activated, the sign flashes "Stop" or "Do not Pass".

First, S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 generally requires that all lamps, including auxiliary lighting, must be steady burning, unless otherwise specifically permitted. Your message board does not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10.

Second, S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 prohibits additional lighting devices that impair the effectiveness of lamps required by FMVSS No. 108. The agency interprets the standard as generally prohibiting electronic message boards because they have the potential of impairing the effectiveness of required lighting (see August 4, 1997 letter to Mr. Alan Robinson).

However, with respect to school buses equipped with flashing electronic message boards, we do not prohibit them because we believe that under certain local conditions, an electronic message board could enhance the safety of school bus passengers. That is, we defer to the States with respect to the narrow issue of prescribing or prohibiting electronic message boards on school buses.

We caution that this interpretation is limited to electronic message boards on school buses. For example, the agency recently explained that our standards would prohibit a flashing red lamp located on the roof of a school bus, because it had the potential of impairing the effectiveness of the required lighting (see 5/22/03 letter to J. Adam Krugh IV). Further, electronic message boards must be located far enough away from the required lighting so as to minimize any potential impairment.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

NCC-112:Gfeygin:mar:11/2/05:62992:OCC 006472
Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 108
S:\INTERP\108\GF006472.doc

ID: 1984-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Comfort-Tour Cycle Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel J. Roberson Comfort-Tour Cycle Products 8724 116th Avenue, N. E. Kirkland, WA 98033

Dear Mr. Roberson:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1983, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, which was forwarded to this office for reply, concerning the legal requirements regulating the manufacture of motorcycle windshields. You requested information on how you as a manufacturer may obtain certification of your product under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (FMVSS No. 205), Glazing Materials. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles operating on Land Highways," Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). These requirements include specifications for performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles and motorcycles, such as minimum levels of light transmittance and abrasion resistance. Copies of FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26 have been enclosed in the letter sent to you by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance dated January l0, 1984.

You should be aware that the NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your windshields comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination.

There are other regulations and standards affecting manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment of which you should be aware. For instance, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have specific responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety-related defects in their products. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act a copy of which is enclosed, requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. In addition, Part 556 requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of the agency's regulations. You should refer to the Act and its implementing regulations in order to understand the extent of your responsibilities as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure