ID: 10906

Mr. Ron Hooker
Missouri Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 630
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630

Dear Mr. Hooker:

This responds to your question about whether the State of Missouri has authority to promulgate regulations relating to the safety of motor vehicles powered by alternative fuels, particularly compressed natural gas (CNG). The short answer is that while Missouri is generally preempted in this area, it could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles.

Federal law will preempt a State law if (1) there is a Federal safety standard in effect, (2) the State law covers the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard, and (3) the State law is not identical to the Federal standard. Specifically, section 30103(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code states that

(b) Preemption. - (1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.

State safety standards applicable to CNG fuel system integrity are generally preempted by Federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles. (59 FR 19659, April 25, 1994, copy enclosed). The Standard specifies frontal barrier and rear barrier crash tests conducted at 30 mph and a lateral moving barrier crash test conducted at 20 mph. The Standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less and use CNG as a motor fuel. It also applies to school buses regardless of weight that use CNG as a motor fuel. The Standard takes effect September 1, 1995. Accordingly, after September 1, 1995, Missouri could only issue its own safety standard applicable to CNG vehicle fuel system integrity if the State safety standard is identical to FMVSS No. 303. The one exception to

requiring such identical standards is that Missouri could prescribe a standard for motor vehicles obtained for its own use, provided the State law imposed a higher performance requirement than the level of performance prescribed by FMVSS No. 303. Thus, Missouri could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles.

NHTSA further notes that Missouri is free to issue safety standards applicable to the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by other alternative fuels (e.g., liquid propane, hydrogen), since the agency has not issued any FMVSS applicable to other alternative fuels.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:6/8/95

ID: 10907-2

Mr. Vladimir Salita
4269 Cloudberry Ct.
Burtonsville, MD 20866

Dear Mr. Salita:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to three inventions you are developing: a warning and teaching device for improving driving habits and fuel economy, a deceleration warning light, and a self-adjustable windshield wiper. The first item would "warn drivers by indicating the excessive deceleration, acceleration and dangerous speed at turns by emitting sound signals," and would be mounted on the dashboard. The second item would measure "actual vehicle deceleration" and control "the frequency of light flashing (preferable high-mounted brake light)," to alert the drivers of following vehicles. The third item would control "the rate of windshield wiper sweeps according to the intensity of rain." I am pleased to provide the information you requested.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your devices would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the devices installed. While we do not have sufficient information to identify all the standards that might be relevant to your devices, I would like to bring three standards to your attention.

Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, would be relevant to your dashboard-mounted warning and

teaching device. That standard specifies requirements to protect occupants from impact with interior components and could affect where or how the device could be installed in a vehicle.

Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, would be relevant to the deceleration warning light. That standard requires, among other things, that all original motor vehicle lighting equipment be steady burning in use, unless the standard provides otherwise. Since the standard does not specify deceleration warning lights as an exception to this requirement, they must be steady burning. Therefore, your added flashing deceleration light could not be installed on new vehicles. Because center high mounted stop lamps (CHMSLs) are not permitted to flash and must be activated only by the service brake, your use of the CHMSL as a deceleration light also is not allowed on new vehicles.

I am enclosing copies of two recent letters (addressed to Mr. Wayne Ferguson, July 30, 1993, and Ms. Teresa Thompson, May 11, 1995), which provide a more detailed discussion of requirements relevant to deceleration lights.

Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, would be relevant to your self-adjustable windshield wiper. That standard specifies a number of requirements for windshield wiping systems. The standard would not preclude the inclusion of a self- adjustable windshield wiping feature. However, a vehicle manufacturer would need to ensure that the windshield wiping system with such a device met all of the requirements of that standard.

No standards would apply to your devices to the extent that they were sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Therefore, your flashing deceleration light could not be installed by such businesses on used vehicles. If your device affects a CHMSL installed in compliance with Standard No. 108, it could not be installed by the above named businesses. Similarly, your other devices could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual States have authority to regulate modifications that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on State laws. You may wish to seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22303.

Finally, all three of your devices are considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that the manufacturer would be subject to Title 49 of the U.S. Code, sections 30118-30122, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You have obviously spent a great of time and effort thinking about how to improve driving safety. We appreciate your efforts in this area and the contributions that inventors such as you make to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. If you have any further questions about lighting requirements, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-2992. For further information about other safety standards, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at the same telephone number.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:104#108#VSA d:7/3/95

ID: 10908

Robert Charles Maltzahn, Esq. 418 Northwest Midland Building 401 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401

Dear Mr. Maltzahn:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your client's high pressure "waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment" manufactured as a mobile trailer. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter describe your client's product as "manufactured for use in the construction industry for hydrodemolition and cleaning and for industrial use." The letter states the equipment is mobile to facilitate towing from site to site, but is "not used primarily on the roadways and highways of the United States."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time the equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a ship cleaning site for over a year, or at a hydrodemolition site for five days. You stated that the equipment very rarely stays at a job site for less than a week.

The FMVSS's apply only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(6). That section defines "motor vehicle" as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental

and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on your description, it appears that your client's equipment is not a motor vehicle. This is because the equipment appears to stay on job sites for extended periods of time (ranging from a week to over a year). Therefore, your client's equipment need not meet Standard No. 115, or any other FMVSS. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:6/27/95

ID: 10913

Ms. Bonnie Ward
Eagle County School District RE 50J
P.O. Box 740
Eagle, CO 81631

Dear Ms. Ward:

This responds to your May 2, 1995, letter following up on information provided you by Charles Hott and Leon DeLarm of this agency, concerning the safety of school buses and "over-the-road type coaches" (e.g., Greyhound-type buses). You ask for confirmation that our safety standards for school buses "are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches."

That statement is correct. Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to vehicles according to vehicle type. We have FMVSSs that apply to "buses," and those that apply to "school buses." Since a "school bus" is a type of "bus" under our regulations, a new school bus must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to "school buses" in addition to those that apply to "buses." A new over-the-road coach would have to meet our "bus" standards, but not our "school bus" standards.

We would like to emphasize the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. A school bus meeting the school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of some over-the-road coaches, but it has safety features that the coaches lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. We urge schools and school districts to consider these features when making school transportation decisions.

For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet that gives a brief description of the FMVSSs, and an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of our standards.

If you other questions on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:8/2/95

ID: 10914-2

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
Post Office Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office regarding the May 9, 1995, amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. For your future reference, Mr. Myers is no longer assigned to our school bus standards. You may address requests for interpretation directly to me.

The May 9 amendment (60 FR 24562) to FMVSS No. 217 permitted, among other things, bus manufacturers to meet the additional emergency exit area (AEEA) requirements of S5.2 by permitting manufacturers to install two emergency exit windows as an alternative to an emergency exit door. You asked what the location requirements (fore and aft) are for the emergency windows that are used as the first additional emergency exit.

FMVSS No. 217 contains no explicit fore and aft location requirements for the two additional emergency exit windows. However, the intent of the final rule was to substitute the location requirements of the side exit door when the windows are used to satisfy the requirement for the first additional emergency exit. This intention is reflected in the use of the conjunctive word "or" in Tables 1 and 2 of the May 9, 1995, amendment. If a left side exit door would have been installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i), then S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires that it be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. The same fore-aft location should be used for the windows. In cases where the fore-aft location is not specified, such as a right side exit door installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b)(2)(i), then the windows should be placed so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable.

Also note the explicit location requirement in S5.2.3.2(c) that exit windows be evenly divided between the left and right sides of the bus. For example, if two exit windows are used instead of a left side exit door, they should be placed on opposite sides at the midpoint of the bus.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek at this address or by calling (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:8/4/95

ID: 10923

Mr. Douglas Helbig
Vice President
Spencer Testing Services
P.O. Box 429
Spencer, WV 25276

Dear Mr. Helbig:

This responds to your letter asking me to confirm your belief that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lacks the authority to require the periodic reinspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on alternative fuel motor vehicles. You are correct. NHTSA has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment.

I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:303 d:6/7/95

ID: 10925

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
Post Office Box 1015
Golden, CO 80402-1015

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the requirements of 49 CFR 575.101, which until recently required manufacturers to disclose information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles. In particular, you asked how the requirement would apply to vehicles certified to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems.

I am enclosing a copy of a June 26, 1995, final rule in which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded section 575.101 (60 FR 32918). As a result of this decision, a vehicle manufacturer is no longer required to furnish information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:575#105#135 d:7/26/95

ID: 10927pil

Ms. Denise Jones
NiMi Manufacturing, Inc.
1044 Main St.
Mosheim, TN 37818

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter to Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff asking about safety regulations, particularly for flammability resistance, for a device you call a "Toddler Traveler pillow." According to promotional literature you sent with your letter, the Toddler Traveler pillow is used with a child booster seat to provide "padded comfort and support" to a child sleeping in the booster. The pillow provides a surface the child could lean on while sleeping.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, 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. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter and promotional literature.

Currently there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Toddler Traveler pillow. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pillow that is used with a child booster seat. Our standard for flammability resistance, FMVSS 302, applies to new motor vehicles and to new child restraint systems. It does not apply to child restraint accessory items.

While no FMVSS applies to the Toddler Traveler pillow, 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. I have enclosed a copy of those defect provisions, as well as an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the Toddler Traveler pillow would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. '30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. No commercial business listed in '30122 can install a Toddler Traveler pillow if the product undermines the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard, including Standard 302 for flammability resistance.

The prohibition of '30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Before closing, we would like to comment on a further issue, one that you and Ms. Fujita discussed on the telephone. The advertising literature you enclosed with your letter described the Toddler Traveler pillow as being suitable for use with children ages "18 months to 4 years." We believe this description is potentially confusing concerning the use of booster seats by young children. Booster seats are intended to be used as a transition to safety belts by older children who have outgrown convertible seats (ideally, over 40 pounds and 4 years). A booster seat is not designed to restrain young children, and under a requirement we recently adopted, cannot now be recommended for children under 30 pounds. Stating "18 months to 4 years" may be mistaken to imply that, with your pillow, a booster seat could be used to restrain a child as young as 18 months. To avoid any possible misunderstanding, we suggest that the phrase on recommended use of the pillow should refer to older children, such as those "over 4 years."

One further note in closing. You said that a year ago, Ms. Fujita told you "there are no codes to govern" your product. Ms. Fujita is concerned that you might believe you were given an oral interpretation of how our requirements apply to your product. Please note that we cannot give oral interpretations. Ms. Fujita provided you a copy of an interpretation we'd issued in the past on a child seat pillow accessory, while indicating that an interpretation of which requirements apply to your product must be from us in writing. (This letter comprises that interpretation.) We regret any confusion on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:213 d:6/30/95

ID: 10931

Mr. Jim Burgess
Engineering Manager
Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.
4100 West Piedras St.
Farmington, NM 87401

Dear Mr. Burgess:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system.

You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no.

FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states:

[S]ide doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard.

FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion.

While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude wheelchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriate.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures (2) 1985 final rule Part 552

ref:206 d:8/4/95

ID: 10932-2

Milford R. Bennett, Director
Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and the raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 percent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:9/1995