ID: 7544

Mr. Bill Traylor
Waste Processing Equipment, Inc.
160 Dilbeck Road
P.O. Box 1047
Rainsville, AL 35986

Dear Mr. Traylor:

This responds to your letter of July 14, 1992, concerning certification of the trucks you are constructing on WCA Series Volvo GMC Class 8 truck chassis. As I understand it, you are planning to install your own coach body on the standard chassis purchased from Volvo.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq., "the Safety Act") to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we "certify" individual manufacturers. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. In addition, each manufacturer is required to notify NHTSA of the types of vehicles it is constructing.

Waste Processing Equipment, Inc. is considered a final-stage manufacturer under 49 CFR 568.3 because it "performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." In other words, when your company purchases a standard chassis from Volvo, i.e., an incomplete vehicle, it upgrades the chassis to a completed vehicle, i.e., one which requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function (other than adding readily attachable parts such as mirrors or minor operations such as painting).

As a final-stage manufacturer, under 49 CFR 568.6, Waste Processing Equipment must complete each vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all relevant federal standards, and then must affix a label to the vehicle according to the requirements of 49 CFR 567.5. Your precise certification responsibilities would be dependent on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer; or

3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

I have enclosed sections 567 and 568 for your convenience.

This means that, if your company completes these vehicles in accordance with the specifications Volvo GMC furnishes with the chassis, your certification of the completed vehicle may be based entirely upon Volvo GMC's specifications. However, if the Volvo GMC chassis does not include specifications for all safety standards or if your company chooses to complete the vehicle outside of the specifications provided by Volvo GMC, your company would be responsible for the certification of the completed vehicle. Accordingly, you should review the Volvo GMC specifications to see if you can complete the vehicle in accordance with those specifications.

As a general matter, final-stage manufacturers are also responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and items not in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420), and are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. In addition, each manufacturer is responsible for furnishing to NHTSA information regarding vehicles they manufacture under 49 CFR Part 566, a copy of which is enclosed.

I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567 d:9/4/92

ID: nht92-4.17

DATE: September 4, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bill Traylor -- Waste Processing Equipment, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/14/92 from Bill Traylor to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-7544)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 14, 1992, concerning certification of the trucks you are constructing on WCA Series Volvo GMC Class 8 truck chassis. As I understand it, you are planning to install your own coach body on the standard chassis purchased from Volvo.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq., "the Safety Act") to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we "certify" individual manufacturers. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. In addition, each manufacturer is required to notify NHTSA of the types of vehicles it is constructing.

Waste Processing Equipment, Inc. is considered a final-stage manufacturer under 49 CFR S568.3 because it "performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." In other words, when your company purchases a standard chassis from Volvo, i.e., an incomplete vehicle, it upgrades the chassis to a completed vehicle, i.e., one which requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function (other than adding readily attachable parts such as mirrors or minor operations such as painting).

As a final-stage manufacturer, under 49 CFR S568.6, Waste Processing Equipment must complete each vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all relevant federal standards, and then must affix a label to the vehicle according to the requirements of 49 CFR S567.5. Your precise certification responsibilities would be dependent on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer; or

3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

I have enclosed sections 567 and 568 for your convenience.

This means that, if your company completes these vehicles in accordance with the specifications Volvo GMC furnishes with the chassis, your certification of the completed vehicle may be based entirely upon Volvo GMC's specifications. However, if the Volvo GMC chassis does not include specifications for all safety standards or if your company chooses to complete the vehicle outside of the specifications provided by Volvo GMC, your company would be responsible for the certification of the completed vehicle. Accordingly, you should review the Volvo GMC specifications to see if you can complete the vehicle in accordance with those specifications.

As a general matter, final-stage manufacturers are also responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and items not in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1411-1420), and are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. In addition, each manufacturer is responsible for furnishing to NHTSA information regarding vehicles they manufacture under 49 CFR Part 566, a copy of which is enclosed.

I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

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

ID: nht75-4.27

DATE: 10/17/75

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

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter dated May 7, 1975, regarding an apparent conflict between the inertia load requirement of Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, (49 CFR 571.206, S4.1.1.3) and the test procedure incorporated by S5.1.1.2, Paragraph 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b. I regret the delay in responding; your letter was mistakenly routed to our Docket Section and only recently came to our attention.

The answer to your question is that the requirement of S4.1.1.3 controls. It is sufficient that the door latch system withstand a 30g load only in the transverse and longitudinal directions. The system is not required to withstand this load in "any direction."

You asked further about the acceptability of centrifuge testing to demonstrate compliance with the inertia load requirement of Standard 206. Although S5.1.1.2 mentions "approved tests," NHTSA has consistently refused to approve or supervise the methods manufacturers use to test to the standards. Any government inertia load compliance testing will be done in accordance with paragraph 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b. Mercedes-Benz, of course, may employ any method it chooses to ensure compliance with this and other safety standards, as long as the product complies. We recognize that centrifuge testing may be highly useful in a variety of applications, and I do not by any means want to discourage innovations in developmental or compliance testing.

Yours Truly,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

May 7, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Clarification; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components

Paragraph 4.1.1.3 (Inertia Loading) in the above Standard requires that the door lock may not disengage when a longitudinal or transverse load of 30g is applied to the door lock system.

SAE Standard J839b, May 1965, referenced in paragraph 5.1.1.2 requires that compliance with the previous paragraph be demonstrated by approved tests or in accordance with paragraph 5 of the SAE Standard. SAE J839b, paragraph 5.2 requires that the door lock system must withstand a 30g inertia loading in any direction.

Clarification is hereby requested on the directional loading requirements of FMVSS 206. Specifically, shall the loading be applied in any direction as specified in the SAE Standard, or in only the longitudinal and transversal directions as specified in the subject Standard.

We would also appreciate being advised as to the acceptability of loading the lock mechanism in a centrifuge for demonstration of compliance as opposed to dynamic inertial loading of the lock. Dynamic loading on a lock, as it occurs in an accident, would last only approximately one-tenth of a second, whereas centrifugal load testing subjects the test samples to the requirements for approximately one minute.

Should you require additional information concerning this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office.

Heinz W. Gerth Assistant Vice President

ID: 7745

Mr. James A. Westphal
Oshkosh Chassis Division
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
P.O. Box 2508
Oshkosh, WI 54903

Dear Mr. Westphal:

This letter responds to your inquiry about which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would be applicable to certain incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab) that you manufacture for motor homes. You anticipate that the motor homes will have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds but less than 26,000 pounds.

Your letter indicated that Oshkosh plans to install brake systems in the two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disc brakes at each wheel. You stated that this system is commonly known as "air-over-hydraulic."

The following is in response to your four specific questions:

1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121 applicable to trucks?

The answer to question number one is yes. The agency classifies air-over-hydraulic brake systems as air brake systems. Accordingly, vehicles equipped with air-over- hydraulic brake systems are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121. I am enclosing a July 20, 1984 interpretation letter to Ms. Margaret Moore Oba which discusses this issue at length.

2. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles?

The answer to question number two is no. Standard No. 105 only applies to vehicles with hydraulic brake systems. Since your system is air-over-hydraulic, it is considered to be an air brake system and not a hydraulic brake system.

3. If Standard No. 121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disc brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system--dynamometer tests?

The answer to question number three is yes. The requirements of S5.4 are among the requirements specified in Standard No. 121 for each vehicle equipped with air brakes.

4. If compliance to parts of both Standards 121 and 105 is required, must the system meet the requirements of the following sections in Standard No. 105: S5.1.2 Partial Failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp.

As indicated above, air-over hydraulic brake systems are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 105.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 121 d:11/3/92

ID: nht92-2.46

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAMES A. WESTPHAL -- OSHKOSH CHASSIS DIVISION, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-2-92 FROM JAMES A. WESTPHAL, OSHKOSH, TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR (OCC 7745)

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry about which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would be applicable to certain incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab) that you manufacture for motor homes. You anticipate that the motor homes will have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds but less than 26,000 pounds.

Your letter indicated that Oshkosh plans to install brake systems in the two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disc brakes at each wheel. You stated that this system is commonly known as "air-over-hydraulic."

The following is in response to your four specific questions:

1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121 applicable to trucks?

The answer to question number one is yes. The agency classifies air-over-hydraulic brake systems as air brake systems. Accordingly, vehicles equipped with air-over-hydraulic brake systems are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121. I am enclosing a July 20, 1984 interpretation letter to Ms. Margaret Moore Oba which discusses this issue at length.

2. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles?

The answer to question number two is no. Standard No. 105 only applies to vehicles with hydraulic brake systems. Since your system is air-over-hydraulic, it is considered to be an air brake system and not a hydraulic brake system.

3. If Standard No. 121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disc brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system -- dynamometer tests?

The answer to question number three is yes. The requirements of S5.4 are among the requirements specified in Standard No. 121 for each vehicle equipped with air brakes.

4. If compliance to parts of both Standards 121 and 105 is required, must the system meet the requirements of the following sections in Standard No. 105: S5.1.2 Partial Failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp.

As indicated above, air-over hydraulic brake systems are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 105.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht80-1.39

DATE: 03/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lombard, Bardner, Honsowetz & Brewer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 8, 1980, on behalf of your client, Ideal Welding and Machine Company. That company intends to market a one-piece unit coupling device for the connection of electrical and air-brake lines on tractor-trailers. You ask whether Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106-74), would be applicable to this device.

The device described in your letter would not be considered a brake hose assembly or a brake hose end fitting. Rather, according to the drawings enclosed in your letter, a completed brake hose assembly with its own end fitting would be attached to the coupling device, similar to the attachment of a completed assembly to a manifold. Therefore, certification of compliance with Safety Standard No. 106-74 would not be required. This answer dispenses with your remaining questions concerning certification.

Although there are no Federal safety standards applicable to a device such as you describe, it is a piece of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381), a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for any safety related defects that may exist in its products. The manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of any such safety related defects and remedy the defects at its own expense (15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq.). Therefore, your client should ascertain through testing or other means that there are no safety problems with its coupling device. Obviously, this is particularly important with any system involving vehicle braking.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

LOMBARD, GARDNER, HONSOWETZ & BREWER ATTORNEYS AT LAW

February 8, 1980

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Ideal Coupling - Ruling Request Under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 And Related Sections

Dear Sirs:

On behalf of my client Ideal Welding and Machine Co., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, having its principal office at 120 Monroe Street, Eugene, Oregon, the undersigned respectfully requests that the rulings requested herein be issued on behalf of the above-mentioned party regarding the applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 or any related standards dealing with air-brake systems. Ideal Welding and Machine Co., which commenced business in August, 1977, is currently engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing products for industrial use. The company has designed a coupling device to be attached to the electrical and air-brake hoses of a truck and trailer which would provide a simplified one-piece unit for the connection of the electrical and air-brake lines. Arrangements have been made with Clarion Shoji Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan, for the manufacture of this device. Because the device involves the connection of air-brake hoses, clarification as to the certification, labelling, and testing requirements under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 and any related sections is desired prior to the import and sale of the device in the United States.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the following ruling be issued:

1. The Ideal Coupling does not constitute an air-brake hose, end fitting, or assembly that requires labelling or certification under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 or any related standard.

If your agency should find that some form of certification, labelling, or testing is required for the coupling device, please advise as to the following:

1. What form of label, certification, or testing is required?

2. Who is required to perform the above, i.e, the Japanese manufacturer, or may our client provide the label, certification, or testing in the United States?

If any further information is necessary, please contact the undersigned. Your prompt consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Ronald A. Irvine

Under penalties of perjury, we have examined this ruling request, including the accompanying documents, and to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information presented in support of the requested ruling herein is true, correct and complete.

IDEAL WELDING AND MACHINE CO.

By: (Illegible Words) Its President

By: Sandra Dean Its Secretary

Enclosures

United States Patent [19]

Wetzig

[11] 4,183,599 [patent omitted]

ID: nht93-5.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ferguson -- Research Manager, Transportation Research Council, Department of Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/23/93 from Wayne S. Ferguson to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 8602)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1993, enclosing a copy of a joint resolution of the Virginia General Assembly, to study the use of deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth, with the goal of allowing use of these lamps. The Transportation Research Council has been asked to evaluate potential legal problems regarding state regulation of deceleration lights, especially as they may relate to Federal preemption in the area of vehicle safety equipment.

You would like to know whether "the current federal regulations and standards dealing with various vehicle safety devices pre-empt Virginia's proposal to permit deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth?" If the answer is affirmative, you request advice on "the proper course of action to obtain federal approval of the use of deceleration lights." The answer to these questions is dependent upon the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act (Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and the characteristics of any specific warning system.

The Act does not permit a State to impose a safety requirement upon a motor vehicle that differs from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in any area of performance that is covered by the Federal standard (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The applicable Federal standard in this instance is 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. We understand that a deceleration warning system is intended to inform a following driver that the vehicle ahead is slowing. Such a system can consist of one or more lamps, red or amber in color, and either flashing or steady-burning in use. Further, such a system can be original motor vehicle equipment or aftermarket equipment.

The Federal requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to original equipment in all instances. Two provisions are important with respect to supplementary lighting equipment such as a deceleration warning system. Under S5.5.10(d), unless otherwise provided by S5.5.10, all original motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether or not required by Standard No. 108, must be steady burning in use. It is for this reason that we informed The Flxible Corporation on December 8, 1986, that we had interpreted Standard No. 108 as applying to all lighting equipment on non-emergency vehicles and not just the equipment required by Standard No. 108. Thus, the amber-lamp deceleration warning system that Flxible had been asked to install on transit buses was acceptable to NHTSA in a steady-burning mode but not a flashing one.

Similarly, we advised Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990, that if a deceleration warning system is one that does not consist of additional lamps but one that operates through the tail or stop lamp system, it must also be steady burning.

The second relevant provision is that of S5.1.3; original lighting equipment of a supplementary nature must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. We also informed Flxible that simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3. On the other hand, the simultaneous use of the Flxible amber and red rear lamps in a steady burning mode would not be precluded by this section.

In summary, we conclude that Virginia could permit the use of a red or amber original equipment deceleration warning system operating in a steady burning mode through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones.

A system that is not permissible as original equipment would also not be permissible as an aftermarket system. Although the preemption provisions and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, the Act also provides, for both new and used vehicles, that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed ... in compliance" with Standard No. 108 or any other Federal safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). An action which created an adverse effect upon lamp performance would partially render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108. In our view, flashing deceleration lamps would "render inoperative" the compliant lamps installed by the vehicle manufacturer by potentially confusing following drivers. For this reason, it is our opinion that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed a deceleration warning system on a truck in Virginia would be in violation of section 1397(a)(2)(A) if that system consisted of flashing lights, or operated in a flashing mode through lamps that are normally steady burning in use. Since a State may not legitimize conduct that is illegal under Federal law, Virginia could not permit such businesses to install deceleration lamps on vehicles. However, the Act does not prohibit installation of a flashing light system by a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business.

For this reason, section 1397(a)(2)(A) does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, we believe that it would be inappropriate for Virginia to encourage such modifications, in view of the potential adverse safety consequences of unexpected flashing lamps. Moreover, because it appears that the many of the vehicles will be operated in interstate commerce, we suggest that you also obtain the views of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to determine whether that agency's regulations affect trucks with deceleration lights. You should direct your inquiry to James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3404, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

You also asked about the proper course of action to obtain Federal approval of the use of deceleration lights. The agency does not "approve" or "disapprove" safety systems but will advise, as we do here, whether such systems are permitted or prohibited under Federal law. There appear to be certain types of deceleration warning systems that would not be prohibited under existing Federal law. With respect to systems that would not be allowable under Standard No. 108, these systems could only be permitted if NHTSA were to amend Standard No. 108 through rulemaking. Any person who believes that the standard should be amended may submit a petition for rulemaking. The agency's procedures for petitions for rulemaking are set forth at 49 CFR Part 552.

If we can be of further help, our Office of Research and Development may be able to assist you, and I suggest you contact Michael Perel for copies of pertinent research contracts on deceleration warning systems. Mr. Perel may be reached at 202-366-5675.

ID: 8602

Wayne Ferguson, Research Manager
Transportation Research Council
Department of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
Box 8317 University Station
Charlottesville, VA 22903

Dear Mr. Ferguson:

Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1993, enclosing a copy of a joint resolution of the Virginia General Assembly to study the use of deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth, with the goal of allowing use of these lamps. The Transportation Research Council has been asked to evaluate potential legal problems regarding state regulation of deceleration lights, especially as they may relate to Federal preemption in the area of vehicle safety equipment.

You would like to know whether "the current federal regulations and standards dealing with various vehicle safety devices pre-empt Virginia's proposal to permit deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth?" If the answer is affirmative, you request advice on "the proper course of action to obtain federal approval of the use of deceleration lights." The answer to these questions is dependent upon the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act (Act) (l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and the characteristics of any specific warning system.

The Act does not permit a State to impose a safety requirement upon a motor vehicle that differs from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in any area of performance that is covered by the Federal standard (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The applicable Federal standard in this instance is 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. We understand that a deceleration warning system is intended to inform a following driver that the vehicle ahead is slowing. Such a system can consist of one or more lamps, red or amber in color, and either flashing or steady-burning in use. Further, such a system can be original motor vehicle equipment or aftermarket equipment.

The Federal requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to original equipment in all instances. Two provisions are important with respect to supplementary lighting equipment such as a deceleration warning system. Under S5.5.10(d), unless otherwise provided by S5.5.10, all original motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether or not required by Standard No. 108, must be steady burning in use. It is for this reason that we informed The Flxible Corporation on December 8, 1986, that we had interpreted Standard No. 108 as applying to all lighting equipment on non-emergency vehicles and not just the equipment required by Standard No. 108. Thus, the amber-lamp deceleration warning system that Flxible had been asked to install on transit buses was acceptable to NHTSA in a steady- burning mode but not a flashing one.

Similarly, we advised Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990, that if a deceleration warning system is one that does not consist of additional lamps but one that operates through the tail or stop lamp system, it must also be steady burning.

The second relevant provision is that of S5.1.3; original lighting equipment of a supplementary nature must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. We also informed Flxible that simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3. On the other hand, the simultaneous use of the Flxible amber and red rear lamps in a steady burning mode would not be precluded by this section.

In summary, we conclude that Virginia could permit the use of a red or amber original equipment deceleration warning system operating in a steady burning mode through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones.

A system that is not permissible as original equipment would also not be permissible as an aftermarket system. Although the preemption provisions and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, the Act also provides, for both new and used vehicles, that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed . . . in compliance" with Standard No. 108 or any other Federal safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). An action which created an adverse effect upon lamp performance would partially render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108. In our view, flashing deceleration lamps would "render inoperative" the compliant lamps installed by the vehicle manufacturer by potentially confusing following drivers. For this reason, it is our opinion that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed a deceleration warning system on a truck in Virginia would be in violation of section 1397(a)(2)(A) if that system consisted of flashing lights, or operated in a flashing mode through lamps that are normally steady burning in use. Since a State may not legitimize conduct that is illegal under Federal law, Virginia could not permit such businesses to install deceleration lamps on vehicles. However, the Act does not prohibit installation of a flashing light system by a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business.

For this reason, section 1397(a)(2)(A) does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, we believe that it would be inappropriate for Virginia to encourage such modifications, in view of the potential adverse safety consequences of unexpected flashing lamps. Moreover, because it appears that the many of the vehicles will be operated in interstate commerce, we suggest that you also obtain the views of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to determine whether that agency's regulations affect trucks with deceleration lights. You should direct your inquiry to James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3404, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

You also asked about the proper course of action to obtain Federal approval of the use of deceleration lights. The agency does not "approve" or "disapprove" safety systems but will advise, as we do here, whether such systems are permitted or prohibited under Federal law. There appear to be certain types of deceleration warning systems that would not be prohibited under existing Federal law. With respect to systems that would not be allowable under Standard No. l08, these systems could only be permitted if NHTSA were to amend Standard No. 108 through rulemaking. Any person who believes that the standard should be amended may submit a petition for rulemaking. The agency's procedures for petitions for rulemaking are set forth at 49 CFR Part 552.

If we can be of further help, our Office of Research and Development may be able to assist you, and I suggest you contact Michael Perel for copies of pertinent research contracts on deceleration warning systems. Mr. Perel may be reached at 202-366-5675.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:7/30/93

ID: 86-5.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald L. Anglin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 7, 1986, concerning the applicability of our regulations to the repair of fuel tanks. You specifically asked whether our regulations prohibit the repair of automotive fuel tanks made of plastic. As explained below, a dealer or motor vehicle repair shop can make repairs to plastic and other types of vehicle fuel tanks.

Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity sets performance requirements for new vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Manufacturers of these vehicles are free to use fuel tanks made of any type of material, such as metal or plastic, as long as the fuel system can meet all of the performance requirements of the standard.

Repair of a fuel tank in a new vehicle, which, for example, sustained damage in shipment, would be affected by Standard No. 301. If a fuel tank is repaired prior to a new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our regulation on certification (Part 567, a copy of which is enclosed). As an alterer, the person must certify that the fuel system, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable requirements of Standard No. 301.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, repairs to a vehicle are potentially affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. However, the agency has not applied the prohibition of that section to the repair of a fuel tank which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the fuel tank and not any subsequent action by a person repairing the damaged fuel tank in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel tank with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the repair of a fuel tank which has been damaged in use.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may repair fuel tanks regardless of whether the repairs adversely affect the fuel system. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of required safety features. Please note also that individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners. Therefore, it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from repairing the fuel systems in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

ENC.

DONALD L. ANGLIN

CONSULTING EDITOR McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY

Automotive and Technical Writing

August 7, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply of June 18 to my earlier letter requesting information on Federal regulations pertaining to motor vehicle safety equipment.

Recently, we have seen statements in the trade press and in consumer publications that Federal law prohibits the repair of automotive fuel tanks -- specifically, the repair of automotive fuel tanks made of plastic.

If this is true, would you please send me a copy of the appropriate regulations, and any available related materials.

Thank you once again for your interest and assistance.

DONALD L. ANGLIN

ID: nht95-5.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vladimir Salita

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERESA THOMPSON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/30/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO WAYNE FERGUSON (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/10/95 LETTER FROM VLADIMIR SALITA TO CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA (OCC 10907)

TEXT: 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.

Enclosures

NHTSA INFORMATION SHEET ENTITLED "INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT" (TEXT OMITTED)