ID: nht88-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: THOMAS H. JAHNKE -- OASIS INDUSTRIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/10/87 TO CHIEF COUNCIL--NHTSA FROM THOMAS H. JAHNKE, OCC-1387

TEXT: Dear Mr. Jahnke:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of our regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards to your company's planned manufacture of "hardtops" for convertible passenger cars. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. Y ou asked whether any Federal safety standards apply to convertible hardtops; from telephone conversations between your associate Mr. Scaravilli and Ms. Fujita of my staff, we understand that these hardtops are manufactured for sale as aftermarket items o f equipment and that they are designed to be readily removable by the user of the hardtop. Importantly, we assume that the addition of the hardtop to a new vehicle does not change the vehicle from a convertible to a different vehicle type. (The agency has defined a convertible as "a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member." Please note that the following i nformation is premised on our assumption that the addition of your hardtop to a convertible does not provide the fixed, rigid structural member in the described location--i.e., we assume that if your hardtop were installed on a new convertible, the vehic le's classification would not be changed to a non-convertible. Indeed, our response would be different if installation of your hardtops on a new convertible changed the classification of the vehicle.)

The answer to your question is yes, there are Federal requirements that apply to your manufacture and sale of the hardtops.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehic les and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that it s products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of

due care that its products meet all applicable Federal requirements. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. If you or the agency dete rmines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, you are obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be s ubject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.)

The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as follows: "Motor vehicle equipment" means any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or im provement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory or addition to the motor vehicle ..." (@102(4)) This definition includes the product your company wishes to manufacture since the hardtops are components manufactured and sold either as a r eplacement or improvement of the convertible top or as an addition to vehicles that have no hardtops. Since your product is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, Oasis as the manufacturer of the equipment must ensure that the hardtops comply wi th all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and contain no safety-related defects.

There are two Federal safety standards that have a direct bearing on the manufacture of your company's hardtops. Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, sets performance requirements for glazing materials for use in new or used motor vehicles. Glaz ing incorporated in any Oasis hardtop must therefore conform to the applicable specifications set forth in Standard No. 205. The standard establishes both performance requirements, including those regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistan ce of glazing, and labeling requirements applicable to the glazing used in your product.

The second safety standard having a bearing on your product is No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which establishes flammability requirements for new motor vehicles. The standard specifies that certain components, including convertible tops, of a vehicle which must meet the flammability requirements in order for that vehicle to comply with the standard. However, the effect of Standard No. 302 on your product depends on the circumstances surrounding the installation of the hardtop.

The requirements of Standard No. 302 apply to a vehicle only until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket convertible tops added to a vehicle after the vehicle's first purchase. (This discussion treats th e aforementioned glazing issue as a separate matter and hereinafter assumes that any glazing used in the hardtop conforms to applicable requirements of Standard No. 205.) You are permitted to sell aftermarket convertible tops that do not meet the flammab ility requirements, even if the addition of the hardtop to a vehicle caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 302.

However, @108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design

installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not install a convertible hardtop that does not meet the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 in a new or used motor vehicle since to do so would render inoperative that element of design, and thus violate @108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of @108.

To summarize the above discussion, Oasis hardtops using glazing must meet applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Standard No. 302's application to the hardtops depends on the circumstances surrounding installation of the product in new and used mo tor vehicles. If the hardtop meets applicable Federal standards except for Standard No. 302, the hardtop cannot be installed in vehicles by any commercial business listed in @108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. However, those convertible hardtops may legall y be installed in vehicles by the owners of the vehicles. Oasis would still have the responsibility under the Vehicle Safety Act to recall and remedy its products which are determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, even if the har dtops were installed by vehicle owners themselves. I note also that NHTSA discourages owners from installing any item of equipment that would degrade the safety performance of their vehicles.

I have enclosed copies of Standard No. 205 and No. 302 for your convenience. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, which applies to all manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (except tir es) to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. This rule requires your company to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to this agency within 30 days after it begins manufacture.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH P. FAIA --

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM JOSEPH P FAIA, OCC - 2177

TEXT: This is in reply to your recent undated letter regarding a vehicle lighting accessory for trucks and trailers. It appears from your letter and enclosed diagram that the purpose of the device is to illuminate "two dimensional displays" on the side or rea r of vehicles. A number of such devices would be required, depending on the size of the display to be illuminated. You have not stated the candlepower of the device. Reference is made to a transparent section through which the light is emitted, and to a "semi-translucent" section which is "tinted and arranged to function as the running lights commonly seen on trailers." The color of the light is not specified, but we shall assume that it is amber or red when emitted through the "semi-translucent" sec tions, and white when emitted through the transparent sections to illustrate the display.

You have asked four questions with regard to this device. The first question is whether it can be used as a "combination side illumination and marker light." As a general rule, supplementary lighting devices such as yours are permissible as original equ ipment if they do not impair the effectiveness of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. They are permissible as aftermarket equipment under Federal law if their installation by a p erson other than the vehicle owner does not "render inoperative in whole or in part" lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, but their legality is otherwise determined by the laws of the States in which the vehicle is registered and operated. As for whether your device may be used as a combination side illumination and marker light, if you mean as the only side marker lamp, the combination per se is not prohibited by Standard No. 108. However, the side marker lamp in such a c ombination must comply with photometric, location, color, and other requirements for such lamps, and its effectiveness must not be impaired. One example of impairment would be if the glare from the device's white light masked the conspicuity of the side marker. As a combined device supplementing the required side marker lamp, it is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of

the required side marker. For purposes of this letter and with respect to Standard No. 108 we equate "impairment of effectiveness" with "partial inoperative."

Your second question is whether it can be used "as a backup light and parking light, to be used only in these situations." It is unclear whether you intend the device to be the backup lamp required by the standard, or one that supplements it. If the for mer, its use is permissible provided that the backup function meets all requirements of Standard No. 108 that are specified for backup lamps, such as color and photometrics, and provided that the display function does not impair the effectiveness of the backup function. Because the color of light in both functions would be identical, care must be taken to ensure that the backup signal is clearly perceived. If you intend it as a supplementary backup lamp, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the primary backup lamp. Your term "parking light" is unclear; because front parking lamps are not required on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more, I assume you mean a lamp on the rear of a vehicle that is not a backu p lamp but which can be used to indicate that the vehicle is moving slowly while being parked. The device appears permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the other lighting equipment on the rear.

Your third question is whether the device may be used as a stop lamp, activated only when the brake is applied. Two devices may be used as the original equipment stop lamps, provided all requirements of Standard No. 108 are met and that the display func tion does not impair the effectiveness of any other lighting equipment. One or more devices could be used as supplementary stop lamps under the same restriction.

Your final question is whether it may be used alone as a display light. The answer is yes, subject to the impairment prohibition. The only specifically prohibited use of the lamp is its combination with a clearance lamp, a configuration which appears d epicted by the uppermost lights, front and rear, of your Figures 2 and 3.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: RANDY BLACKMAN -- PER LUX INC

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RANDY BLACKMAN; REDBOOK A34 [4]; STANDARD 202; STANDARD 302

TEXT: Dear Sir or Madam:

Per-Lux is a manufacture of automotive driving and safety lights and other automotive products. An inventor has proposed to us the possibility of manufacturing and distributing a head restraint device for pick-up trucks.

Will you please advise me which, if any, Federal Safety standards would directly or indirectly apply to this product.

I have enclosed a sketch of the proposed product for your information.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/24/88

FROM: JOSEPH L. CIAMPA

TO: BEVERLY B. BYRON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/27/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BEVERLY B BYRON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205; MEMORANDUM DATED 08/14/85 FROM C. RICHARD FRAVEL TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE JOSEPH CIAMPA JR.; MEMORANDUM DATED 08/04.88 FROM ARTHUR J LOMART TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; LETTER DATED 08/01/88 FROM C. E. SHUE TO JOSEPH CIAMPH JR RE 0590630; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM NANCY F MILLER TO BEVERLY B BYRON; LETTER DATED 08/25/88 FROM BEVERLY B BYRON T. NANCY MILLER

TEXT: Dear Congress Woman Byron:

The purpose of this letter is to ask your help with a problem I am having with the State of Maryland dealing with a federal regulation.

This has to do with tinted windows I have on my car (side windows only), since 1985 due to an exemption that I was granted by the State of Maryland for medical reasons. I have Diabetes and eyes sensiative to sunlight.

I am now being told by the State of Maryland that the Federal Government will not allow them to grant any more medical exemptions and that there is no recourse for appeal in this matter. I find this very difficult to understand when we are all talking a bout the plight of the handicapped. In my own way, this is causing me to have a problem by having severe headaches on a daily basis caused by bright sunlight. I consider this very much of a handicap over other people who do not suffer from this problem or with the disease of Diabetes.

Your help in getting medical exemptions restored to Maryland for myself and others with the same problems is greatly needed and will be appreciated. I feel to date that I have been talking to to uncaring ears regarding this matter.

Even though I am not a crusader, if I must I will start a campaine of letter writing and petitions because I feel this is being handled so unjustly.

Again, thank you for your immediate help in this matter because I have already had my automobile tags on one car suspended while pursuing this matter.

ID: nht88-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/25/88

FROM: BEVERLY B. BYRON -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: NANCY MILLER, -- OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/27/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BEVERLY B BYRON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205 MEMORANDUM DATED 08/14/85 FROM C. RICHARD FRAVEL TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE JOSEPH CIAMPA JR.; MEMORANDUM DATED 08/04/88 FROM ARTHUR J LOMART TO W HOM IT MAY CONCERN; LETTER DATED 08/01/88 FROM C. E. SHUE TO JOSEPH CIAMPA JR RE 0590630; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM NANCY F MILLER TO BEVERLY B BYRON; LETTER DATED 08/24/88 FROM JOSEPH L. CIAMPA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON

TEXT: Dear Ms. Miller:

I have enclosed correspondence received from Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr. of 4855 Cherry Tree Lane, Sykesville, Maryland 21784 concerning a number of questions he has with regard to tinted automobile windows.

I would very much appreciate your assistance in reviewing those concerns which Mr. Ciampa has raised and providing me with appropriate information in order that I may properly respond.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88 EST

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

TO: J. MARK SMITH -- LYNCO PRODUCTS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-87, TO NHTSA, FROM J. MARK SMITH -- LYNCO PRODUCTS, OCC-1246

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of a "storage console-armrest." I regret the delay in responding. The illustration you included in your letter shows that the console apparatus is de signed to be placed on a bench seat and is not attached in any manner to the seat structure. The console-armrest has a wood frame, is entirely covered with fabric, and has a hinged, padded top which can be flipped open for access to the storage area.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new moto r vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl e Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information pro vided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a removable console-armrest sold directly to a consumer as an item of "aftermarket" equipment. However, under Federal law you are considered a manufacturer of mot or vehicle equipment, and are therefore subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly descr ibes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your products contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, apply to new completed motor

vehicles and set performance requirements for consoles and armrests installed on new motor vehicles prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. While these standards do not apply directly to a console-armrest sold only as aftermarket equipment, ins tallation of your product on both new and used vehicles may give rise to certain responsibilities on the part of any commercial business making the installation.

A manufacturer of a new vehicle installing your product on the vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard N o. 201. Paragraph S3.3 of the standard requires interior compartment door assemblies located in a console assembly to remain closed under certain test conditions. The purpose of the requirement is to prevent a door from flying open and striking an occu pant in a crash. The door in your console would have to meet this requirement if your product is installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale. Your product would also have to comply with Standard No. 201's requirements for armrests spec ified in paragraph S3.5 of the standard if your console-armrest is installed in a new motor vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer.

Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including arm rests and compartment shelves. A vehicle manufacturer installing your product on a new vehicle would also have to ensure that the fabric on your consol e-armrest burns at a rate within the limits specified in the standard. I have enclosed copies of both Standards No. 302 and No. 201 for your information.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an appli cable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that none of the persons mentioned could install your product in a new or used vehicle if the installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with applicable Federal safety standards. For exam ple, the flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not install a console-arm rest that does not comply with Standard No. 302 in a new or used motor vehicle since to do so would render inoperative that element of design, and thus violate $ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of $ 108.

In summary, your console-armrests that are sold to motor vehicle owners as items of aftermarket equipment are not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The console-armrest could be subject to Federal standards for occupant interior and f lammability protection if it is installed on new vehicles prior to the vehicle's first sale. Commercial businesses are prohibited from installing the console-armrest on new or used vehicles if the result renders inoperative the compliance of requisite s afety components or designs with Federal safety standards. Individual owners, however, are not covered by @ 108(a)(2)(A) and may

themselves install your product in their vehicles without regard to the rendering inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act. To repeat, you as the equipment manufacturer would be obligated to recall and remedy your products that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, even if the console-armrest were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

I hope this information has been helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

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: nht88-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MAMORU ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/07/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM MAMORU ARISAKA, OCC - 2268

TEXT: Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1988, with respect to a motorcycle lighting device called the "rolling headlamp." The headlamp is designed to have its vertical plane always perpendicular to the ground regardless of the inclination of the motor cycle. You have asked whether such a device is legally permissible.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not prohibit alteration of the mounting angle of a headlamp. Although paragraph S4.3.1 requires each lamp to "be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle," your lamp appears to be "securely mounted" even if it is able to rotate.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: FRANK REYNOLDS -- F.E. REYNOLDS ASSOCIATES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/20/80 TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM FRANK BERNDT; NOA - 30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This is in response to your telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, seeking a clarification of my June 16, 1988 letter concerning school bus mirrors under Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17. Specifically, you asked about the meaning of the phrase, "area in front of the bus," as used in section S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111). In your telephone conversation, you stated that a NHTSA staff person told you in a previous telephone conversation that NHTSA h ad defined this phrase to mean "the area three feet in front of the bus." NHTSA has never so interpreted this phrase in Standard No. 111.

For your information, I am enclosing a June 20, 1980 letter to James Tydings that sets forth the agency's interpretation of S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111. This letter notes that the area of concern in S9.2(b) is the region in front of the bus where a dr iver is not able to see directly a school age child. As explained in the letter and an earlier notice (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975), the purpose of a crossview mirror is to "address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transporta tion," and this type of mirror "allows the bus driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there before moving the bus." This letter then explains: "The agency used the word 'view' in its ordinary, dictio nary sense to mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus." This is still an a ccurate expression of the agency's interpretation of the purpose of a crossview mirror and this phrase.

In your telephone conversation, you also expressed concern about the "legal effect" of Standard No. 111. You should be aware of @ 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which states that

No person shall manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any additional questions, or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: L. T. MITCHELL -- SPECIFICATION ENGINEER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/04/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM L.T. MITCHELL, OCC - 1831

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1988, bringing our attention to a conflict between a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to school bus lighting, and State requirements applicable to these vehicles.

You have informed us that a State prohibits any bus which it does not define as a school bus, from being identified as a school bus, either by words or by color, and from having the warning lamp system required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.1.4 of Fe deral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires each school bus to be equipped with a four or eight lamp signal system, in addition to other required lighting equipment. You have asked whether th e warning lights must be installed on school activity buses.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require the issuance of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The amendments defined "school bus" 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 stud ents to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)) (Emphasis added.)

On December 29, 1977, the then Chief Counsel of this agency issued an opinion under 15 U.S.C. 1391(14) that Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools and that buses transporting children to and from those schools are defined as school buses under Federal law and accordingly are subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Specifically, the letter stated:

The NHTSA interprets the term "school" broadly, because the agency believes that this is the intent of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) which directed the creation of the school bus safety standards. Since t his head start

program is basically an educational program for preprimary students, the agency had determined that those facilities are schools and bus transporting children to and from them must comply with the Federal school bus safety requirements if they transp ort 10 or more passengers.

The 1977 opinion of this agency regarding Congress' 1974 mandate remains operative. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprim ary school pupils such as those in the Head Start program. Any manufacturer who omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, or who delivers a school bus with the warning lamp system inoperative, is in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject to civil penalties. The manufacturer is also subject to the provisions of the Act for notification and remedy of the noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

The effect of the preemption provision in section 103(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that St ate standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a state to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light requirement as a "higher standard of performance." Thus, regardless of how a State defines "school bus," a State cannot prohibit a school bus, as defined under Federal law, from being equipped with a school bus warning system that is designed and wired as required by p aragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads, those State laws may not override Federal laws. The effect of Federal preemption is that the school bus warning system mu st continue to operate as required by paragraph S4.1.4(b)(ii), and a State may not directly or indirectly require tampering with that equipment in order to comply with State usage laws.

Sincerely,