ID: nht90-4.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul G. Scully -- Vice President, Peterson Manufacturing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-14-90 to Jackson Rice from Paul G. Scully (OCC 5245)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 14, 1990 (postmarked September 19), asking that we notify the police department of Tuscon, Arizona, that reflex reflectors are not required to have SAE markings "in order to be perfectly legal reflectors." You a lso state that another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Safety, "still retain(s) these marking requirements in their publication" and appeal for "a uniform set of regulations between the two government agencies involved."

Because this matter has not been brought to our attention by the police department of Tuscon, we are responding directly to you so that you may furnish copies to whomever you deem it most advisable.

We confirm your understanding that 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not require that reflex reflectors bear SAE markings. Although they must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 1977, there is no requirement that they bear SAE markings according to SAE Recommended Practice J759c, Lighting Identification Code, January 1975.

Although the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS) has amended most of its vehicle lighting regulations to conform to Standard No. 108, up until now that agency has required, under 49 CFR 393.26(c), that reflectors bear ( among other markings), the letters "SAE-A". However, OMCS has informed us that it will amend its regulation to conform to Standard No. 108 as early as convenient, and in the meantime will notify its field office that the marking requirement is no longer to be enforced. Therefore, failure to mark reflectors with the letters "SAE-A" may be inconsistent with current OMCS requirements, but it is not a failure to comply with Standard No. 108.

Further, to the extent that Arizona law itself may require marking of reflectors with the letters "SAE-A", that provision is inconsistent with Standard No. 108 and is subject to the preemption provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d). Under the preemption provis ions, no State or political subdivision thereof may enact or continue in effect a standard covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless it is identical to the Federal standard. Thus, any State or local requi rement for SAE markings on reflex reflectors is one that is not identical to Standard No. 108, and subject to the preemption provisions.

Other than the reference to OMCS regulations, we do not know under what

authority the Tuscon police are acting. Certainly, a local official cannot enforce a Federal standard per se. If Arizona law requires vehicles in interstate commerce to comply with regulations of the OMCS, and the Tuscon police are attempting to enforc e State law, we conclude that the State law is subject to the preemption provisions discussed above, and that such enforcement action has been precluded under Federal law.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

ID: nht92-2.44

DATE: 11/06/92

FROM: RICHARD HORIAN -- PRESIDENT, WOODLEAF CORP.

TO: PAUL J. RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: SUDDEN BRAKE INDICATOR HAZARD LIGHT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO RICHARD HORIAN (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: Enclosed is an official request for proposal to allow a vehicular lighting system that warns when an emergency braking situation or other hazard is occurring. Simply, when a driver engages in hard braking, a circuit activates a separate lighting system to warn other drivers to pay special attention to a potentially hazardous situation.

The Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light is different from other similar systems proposed over the years with the following unique advantages:

(A) An electronic pressure switch is used within the brake pedal assembly. No hydraulic pressure switch is mounted within the vehicle's hydraulic brake lines. If the electric pressure switch fails for any reason, all existing braking and lighting systems on the vehicle remain unaffected.

(B) Increased foot pressure being applied during hazard braking conditions is a natural ergonomic reflex. The driver does not have to divert his attention to activate a manual switch or other device.

(C) The Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light may be activated when the vehicle is not in motion. Most rear end collisions occur when the lead vehicle is stopped. If the stopped lead vehicle driver notices in his rear view mirror that another driver is approaching too fast, he simply has to depress his brake pedal with greater pressure to instantly activate the hazard light. No time is lost as the driver's foot is already on the brake.

(D) In emergency situations when a vehicle goes off the road and comes to a stop, the hazard light may be instantly activated by harder depression of the brake pedal. This is primarily important during night time freeway driving. Precious seconds are not lost while searching for the manually activated hazard light switch until it is turned on.

(E) Most importantly, there is no chance of drivers becoming desensitized to the Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light as it is rarely used. Other proposed systems were designed to be activated during all braking conditions. With these systems, either flashing or steady burning, this is tantamount to just another brake light that sooner or later would be regarded the same as existing brake light designs.

ATTACHMENT

Mr. Paul J. Rice Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration 400 7TH Street, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

REFERENCE: SUDDEN BRAKE INDICATOR HAZARD LIGHT

Dear Mr. Rice,

Please allow a written opinion for allowance of a Sudden Brake Indicator vehicular hazard lighting system described as follows.

A separate hazard brake light system that is activated only when a predetermined threshold of pressure is reached upon physical depression of a vehicle's brake pedal. The hazard brake light system primarily consists of two components: (A) A pressure sensitive electronic switch mounted within the vehicle's brake pedal assembly that is activated only when a predetermined amount of foot pressure is applied to the brake pedal that is usually greater than those pressures applied during normal driving conditions (as an example, foot pressure application greater than 25 lbs. of force). (B) A light or light assembly that is mounted to the rear of the vehicle that when illuminated, may warn other vehicles of a sudden braking or other hazard situation.

The hazard light may be red or amber in color and steady burning or flashing as required to warn other drivers that a hazard situation may be occurring so that special driving attention should be employed.

The hazard brake light system will be mounted in one of two places. (A) The high mount stop light outer housing will be slightly expanded to contain a separate inner housing or housings with separate bulb and lens coverings from that of the high mount stop light. (B) Elsewhere on the rear of the vehicle so as not to conflict with the other lighting functions mandatory on the vehicle.

The switch, hardware, wiring, lights, lenses and housings will conform to all existing Automotive Codes of Federal Regulations. The hazard light system will be design manufactured and installed for use only on original equipment manufactured vehicles.

Sincerely,

Richard Horian

President

ID: 2783y

Mr. Paul G. Scully
Vice President
Peterson Manufacturing Company
4200 East 135th Street
Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of August l4, l990 (postmarked September l9), asking that we notify the police department of Tuscon, Arizona, that reflex reflectors are not required to have SAE markings "in order to be perfectly legal reflectors." You also state that another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Safety, "still retain(s) these marking requirements in their publication" and appeal for "a uniform set of regulations between the two government agencies involved."

Because this matter has not been brought to our attention by the police department of Tuscon, we are responding directly to you so that you may furnish copies to whomever you deem it most advisable.

We confirm your understanding that 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not require that reflex reflectors bear SAE markings. Although they must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 1977, there is no requirement that they bear SAE markings according to SAE Recommended Practice J759c, Lighting Identification Code, January l975.

Although the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS) has amended most of its vehicle lighting regulations to conform to Standard No. l08, up until now that agency has required, under 49 CFR 393.26(c), that reflectors bear (among other markings), the letters "SAE-A". However, OMCS has informed us that it will amend its regulation to conform to Standard No. l08 as early as convenient, and in the meantime will notify its field office that the marking requirement is no longer to be enforced. Therefore, failure to mark reflectors with the letters "SAE-A" may be inconsistent with current OMCS requirements, but it is not a failure to comply with Standard No. l08.

Further, to the extent that Arizona law itself may require marking of reflectors with the letters "SAE-A", that provision is inconsistent with Standard No. l08 and is subject to the preemption provisions of l5 U.S.C. 1392(d). Under the preemption provisions, no State or political subdivision thereof may enact or continue in effect a standard covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless it is identical to the Federal standard. Thus, any State or local requirement for SAE markings on reflex reflectors is one that is not identical to Standard No. 108, and subject to the preemption provisions.

Other than the reference to OMCS regulations, we do not know under what authority the Tuscon police are acting. Certainly, a local official cannot enforce a Federal standard per se. If Arizona law requires vehicles in interstate commerce to comply with regulations of the OMCS, and the Tuscon police are attempting to enforce State law, we conclude that the State law is subject to the preemption provisions discussed above, and that such enforcement action has been precluded under Federal law.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:12/27/90

ID: 10316

Mr. Ken Daining
Supervisor, Vehicle Test and Development
ITT Automotive
3000 University Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Daining:

This responds to your letter about Federal requirements applicable to an "on/off switch" for antilock brake systems (ABS). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that Chrysler Jeep owners disengage their ABS in response to the "perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations." You mentioned the possibility of designing a vehicle's gear system so that the ABS function is automatically disengaged when the vehicle is shifted into the four wheel drive-LO configuration. As explained below, while both manual and automatic ABS on/off switches are permitted under the current requirements, neither is required.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, which specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems. This Standard does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting ABS. Likewise, it does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting either a manual or automatic ABS on/off switch. Accordingly, either type of switch is permitted under the standard, provided the vehicle complies with the standard both when the device is "on" and when the device is "off."

FMVSS No. 105 will continue to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), notwithstanding the agency's recent adoption of FMVSS No. 135 Hydraulic Brake Systems; Passenger Car Brake Systems, which applies only to passenger car brake systems (60 FR 6411, February 2, 1995). Even though FMVSS No. 135 does not apply to MPVs, you should be aware that FMVSS No. 135 prohibits passenger cars from being equipped with ABS disabling switches. The agency stated in a July 1991 notice that "such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial." Please note that this prohibition does not become immediately effective, even for passenger cars, since manufacturers can continue to certify compliance to FMVSS No. 105 for five years after FMVSS No. 135 takes effect.

If an automatic or manual ABS on/off switch were installed in a used vehicle, such a device must not "make inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business from installing such a device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. For instance, if a vehicle could only comply with the stopping distance or other service brake requirements in Standard No. 105 when the ABS is activated, then installation of the switch would serve to make inoperative compliance with the safety standard.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:105 d:3/8/95

ID: 1983-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J-B Purchasing Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 25 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Charles Jayne Tire Manager J-B Purchasing Corporation P.O. Box 692 Auburn, New York 13021

Dear Mr. Jayne:

This responds to your recent letter asking about the require-ments of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. You noted that your company currently retreads tires for its own use, and that you soon plan to retread tires for sale to others. You asked if the tires you retread for your own use need to be identified with a tire identification number. The answer is no.

Section 574.5 of the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation provides, in part, that, "Each tire retreader, except tire retreaders who retread tires for their own use, shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall, ...a tire identification number...." Your question concerns a situation in which a tire retreader retreads some tires for his own use and some tires for sale or lease to others. To answer your question, it is helpful to examine the purpose of the identification requirement.

The purpose of having the tire identification number labeled on the sidewall of retreaded tires is twofold. First, it enables this agency and the user of the retreaded tire to identify the retreader of the tire in the event of some safety problem with the tire. Second, it enables the tire retreader to accurately identify the retreaded tires it may have to recall. In the case of tires offered for sale or use outside your company, it is plain that both these purposes would be served by haviny the tire identification number on the sidewall. Therefore, part 574 requires that each such tire have a tire identification number on one sidewall.

However, with respect to tires retreaded for the retreaders own use, it is obvious who retreaded the tire, whether or not a tire identification number appears on the sidewall. Hence, the first purpose listed above would not be served by having the tire identification number on the sidewall of these tires. Further, the retreader can inspect all of the retreaded tires it uses to determine if any are subject to its recall, and assure adequate remedy for those which are within the recall, and without publicizing the identification numbers of those tires. Thus, the second purpose set forth above also would not be furthered by having the tire identification number on the sidewall of these tires. Please note, however, that any tire not marked with a tire identification number can never legally be sold or otherwise offered for use outside of your company.

Should you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 6, 1983

Office of Chief Council Mr. Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

J-B Purchasing Corporation is a corporation owned by the sole owner of Red Star Express of Auburn, New York.

J-B Purchasing was formed about 15 years ago for purchasing of parts and tires for the Red Star System. Because in many cases a supplier cannot sell direct to a user, internally J-B Purchasing sells the tires and parts back to Red Star.

Currently everything we are recapping is for our own use. However, in the very near future, we plan to sell on the outside.

My question is this, do the tires recapped by J-B Purchasing and used within our own system need to be identified with the DOT identification?

Very truly yours,

J-B PURCHASING CORPORATION Charles Jayne Tire Manager CJ/rb

cc: Mr. Frank Armstrong Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

ID: 11640ZTV

Mr. Robert E. Hunter
President
Automotive Repair Corporation
P.O. Box 1542
Airway Heights, WA. 99041

Dear Mr. Hunter:

We have received your FAX of March 4 , 1996, to John Womack of this Office asking for advice "as to the procedure for initiating the approval process for [ a multi-functional turn signal device] this device for the OEM and after markets."

There are no laws that require Federal approval of motor vehicle lighting equipment before it is offered to the public. A manufacturer of replacement lighting equipment must ensure that its product complies with any applicable requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment , and certify such compliance, before offering the item for sale. The manufacturer may certify, either by a DOT symbol on the item itself, or by a statement of compliance attached to the item or to the carton in which it is shipped. If the item is offered as original equipment, the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed is responsible for certification that the vehicle as equipped with all lighting devices is in conformance with Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicles to be equipped with turn signal lamps meeting the requirements of SAE Standard J588 NOV84, a turn signal operating unit in conformance with SAE Standard J589, April 1964, and a turn signal flasher complying with SAE J590b October 1965. However, if the vehicle's overall width is 80 or more inches, the turn signal lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J1385 APR85.

If you review these SAE materials and have specific questions about how they relate to your device, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/28/96

ID: 24548.ztv

Kenneth M. Bush, Regulations Manager
Government Regulations Department
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3521 East Imperial Highway
Brea, CA 92822-1100

Dear Mr. Bush:

This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 2002, asking whether a motorcycle headlamp design you are contemplating "complies with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(a)" of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The Suzuki design is a single headlamp with two light sources mounted on the vertical centerline. The upper light source incorporates both an upper and a lower beam filament. The lower light source "has only a single filament." You are considering two illumination methods.

In the first method, the lower light source is activated whenever the upper light source is activated on either the upper or lower beam filament. In the second method, the lower light source would be activated with the upper light source upper beam, but the lower beam would be provided only by the lower light source.

S7.9.6.2(a) specifies that a motorcycle headlamp system consisting of a single headlamp shall be mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamp contains more than one light source, each light source shall be mounted on the vertical centerline with the upper beam no higher than the lower beam. You believe that the first method meets S7.9.6.2(a) because"both light sources are illuminated for both high beam and low beam operation." We concur with your interpretation because the single upper light source contains both an upper and lower beam filament.

You ask whether the second illumination method also complies. In this case, only the lower light source provides the lower beam. Thus, the upper beam light source is higher than the sole light source providing the lower beam, and this design would not comply with S7.9.6.2(a).

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

ref:108

d.8/1/02

ID: nht76-3.47

DATE: 03/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Great Dane Trailers' February 23, 1976, letter asking if a trailer equipped with one or more axles that have a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Section S3. of Standard No. 121 provides in part that any vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1977, that has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the standard. The determination of GAWR is made by the vehicle manufacturer (49 CFR 571.3) and must be based on the capabilities of the axle system at 60 mph. Because the determination is made by the vehicle manufacturer, the NHTSA is unable to say that the components you mention in your letter would necessarily constitute an axle system with a GAWR of 24,000 pounds.

YOURS TRULY,

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

February 23, 1976

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration D.O.T.

Re: FMVSS-121 49 CFR 571.121

In accordance with Part 571 Docket No. 74-10; Notice 16 issued May 12, 1975, Section S3. Application, it is stated that FMVSS-121 does not apply to any vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1976, that has a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more.

If we produced a structurally sound semi-trailer with dual tires having a capacity of 6000 pounds each, mounted on an axle with 24,000 pound rating with two springs per axle having a rating of 12,000 pounds each (therefore a 24,000 pound GAWR), is this vehicle exempt from the FMVSS-12 regulations?

I will be looking forward to receiving your legal opinion on this matter.

Dudley E. DeWitt Manager/R & D

ID: nht76-4.2

DATE: 03/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Motor Coach Industries' February 20, 1976, letter asking whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires the installation of parking brakes on all non-steerable axles of a bus, including a lightly-loaded axle, in satisfaction of the emergency braking provisions of S5.7.1. Once parking brakes are applied on the non-driving, lightly-loaded axle on some Motor Coach Industries (MCI) buses in cold, wet weather, the linings can freeze to the drums and "lock" the wheels so that they will not turn even after the parking brake is released. You suggest that parking brakes are inappropriate on a lightly-loaded axle, citing an interpretation of the standard that stated parking brakes are not required on an air-lift axle which lifts off the ground when the vehicle is parked.

MCI raised the same question of parking brake requirements for lightly-loaded axles in an April 17, 1972, letter requesting interpretation of the provision of S5.7.1 that requires automatic application of parking brakes. At the time, the NHTSA had just issued S5.7.1, expanding the methods for meeting performance levels for emergency braking performance. The question of whether parking brakes should be required on all axles under S5.7.1 was left open pending formal rulemaking.

What was not raised in MCI's April 1972 letter was whether both methods for meeting S5.7.1 performance levels necessitate parking brakes on all non-steerable axles. Section S5.7.1.2 permits reliance on retardation force capabilities of each non-steerable axle or, in the alternative, reliance on vehicle stopping capability using the vehicle's available parking brakes. In the second case, the NHTSA does not interpret S5.7.1 to require installation of parking brakes on an axle if it is not necessary to meet the stopping performance of S5.7.2.3 specified under S5.7.1.2. To the degree the language of S5.7.1 does not specifically address this method of satisfying the requirement, we regret that the agency's July 1972 response was not more clear.

An interpretative amendment of S5.7.1 would be appropriate in view of the difficulties that its misinterpretation has caused. However, in view of the short time remaining before the automatic application option will no longer be available, the NHTSA does not expect to undertake rulemaking to formalize this interpretation.

YOURS TRULY,

Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

February 20, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Tag Axle Parking Brake - MVSS 121 S 5.7.1.

Since March 1, 1975 Motor Coach Industries, Inc. of Pembina, N.D. had to add a parking brake (piggy back spring brake) to the tag axle wheels on MC-8 model coaches sold with the optional "Parking brake with automatic application" in order to comply to MVSS #121, S 5.7.1. The option for automatic application is a requirement for the States of New Jersey and Massachusetts and constitues about 20% of the MC-8 yearly production. One hundred and seventy five coaches have been equipped with this braking system since March 1, 1975. The addition of the piggy back parking brake is solely to meet the requirement of S 5.7.1 "parking brake on each axle, except steerable front axles" and is not needed to meet the parking brake performance.

During winter operation a problem has developed and quick action had to be taken to provide protection to the bus passengers due to possibility of tire fire. A copy of the Defect Information Report initiated by Motor Coach is attached for your review. A copy of a letter from a bus operator is also attached together with a picture of two damaged tires. In the letter of Mr. W. Owens of Capitol Bus Company, you will notice that a State trooper stopped the driver of bus CP 861 after noticing the wheels not turning.

M.C.I. is approaching NHTSA to obtain an interpretation of S5.7.1. which would differenciate between axle loading. Already an interpretation to the Dura Corporation ref - N40-30 (TWH) by your office states "the requirement for parking brake retardation force does not apply to an axle which is not on the ground when the parking brake system is activated." The tag axle wheels give a reading of 3,000 lbs per wheel at the ground level while the drive axle will carry to 11,000 lbs per duo wheel.

The parking brake retardation force is negligeable as the deterioration of the tire shows it. MCI has built 2,550 MC-7 model coaches and 1,500 MC-8 model coaches for the last 8 years without the need for parking brakes on the tag axle. We have a clear record as to the operation of the parking brake on our vehicles and do not understand the agency arbitrary requirement for a parking brake on each non-steerable front axle without consideration of axle loading. Our certification nameplate shows a G.A.W.R. of 22,000 lbs for the drive axle and a G.A.W.R. of 6,000 lbs. for the tag axle. This difference in axle rating on a same vehicle with the same tire size explains why the parking brake (DD3) on the drive axle will free under motion while the tag axle will drag along.

Effective September 1, 1976, MVSS 121 will prohibit the automatic application vs. a modulated control of the parking brake and no requirement for parking brakes on each non steerable front axle is maintained.

It is unfortunate to penalize the small number of coaches involved, to raise the cost of the vehicle without added return and to expose the bus operators to obvious danger.

George A. Hunt Engineering Manager

ID: nht80-4.10

DATE: 10/08/80

FROM: F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul R. Hingtgen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1980, requesting information concerning all Federal Motor Vehicle Safey Standards relevant to the manufacture and sale of an auxiliary wind deflector.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Based upon the information you have provided, it is our opinion that your wind deflector is subject to Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (copy enclosed). Incorporating by reference "ANSZ26", the American National Standard's Safety Code for Glazing Materials, Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. Under the requirements of this standard, an auxiliary wind deflector to be used on a passenger vehicle at levels requisite for driving ability may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials, depending upon its proposed location on the vehicle (the various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard). Thus the material you propose to use is acceptable since it is Plexiglass or Acuylite having an Item 4 rating, which may be used as a wind deflector placed on the side window of a vehicle. Such AS-4 glazing material must of course meet Test No. 2, "Luminous Transmittance," which requires that the material "show regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent of the light, at normal incidence, both before and after irradiation."

Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraphs S6.1-S6.3. While not explicitly stated in your letter, it appears that you do not manufacture the glazing you use in your deflector, but instead purchase it from a prime glazing manufacturer and then cut it yourself. If this assumption is correct, then the certification and marking requirements applicable to you are set out in Paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5. By reference to section 6 of ANS Z26, you are required under this paragraph to mark any section of glazing that you cut with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was taken. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to those found on the acrylic sheets you purchased. Each item must also be certified pursuant to section 114 of the Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Safety Standard No. 205.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle equipment such as wind deflectors must comply with applicable safety standards prior to its first purchase by someone for purposes other than resale. The manufacture or installation of a wind deflector that does not conform to the standard, or the installation in a new vehicle in a location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, would be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109, anyone who violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) is subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation.

After the first purchase of the equipment for purposes other than resale, i.e., its purchase by a consumer, tampering with the equipment is limited by Section 108(a)(2)(A). This section prohibits certain entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting, or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards. The prohibiiton applies only to manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and to motor vehicle repair businesses. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle or equipment. Section 109 provides a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of this section.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151 et seq., such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Again, Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.