ID: nht91-7.49

DATE: December 18, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Masashi Maekawa -- Director, Technical Division, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-27-91 from Masashi Maekawa to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6714)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 27, 1991, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to a specific vehicle design.

Your letter depicts a combination tail/stop lamp that would be mounted on the deck lid ("Lamp B"), immediately adjacent to a combination tail/stop lamp that is mounted on the vehicle body ("Lamp A"). Each lamp complies with the requirement for effective projected luminous lens area, but neither complies with photometric requirements. You have asked whether, under S5.1.1.6 it is possible to consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring the photometrics for tail and stop lamps, and, if so, whether the requirements for one or two lighted sections will apply.

S5.1.1.6 covers requirements for replacement stop lamps, and does not appear relevant to our question. We have, however, addressed before the question that you raise. It is not possible to consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring the minimum photometrics required under Standard No. 108. We regard the lamp that is located on the body, Lamp A, as the lamp that must be designed to conform to all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, including photometrics. In that location, Lamp A meets the requirement that stop/taillamps be located as far apart as practicable, whereas Lamp B would not. The requirements that would apply to Lamp A are those for lamps with a single lighted section. Since your letter indicates that Lamp A does not meet photometric requirements, Lamp A would be a nonconforming lamp. Lamp B is permissible as supplementary lighting equipment and need not meet the photometric or location requirements in order for the vehicle to comply with the standard. Thus, Lamp B would be permissible in its present state. (The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon supplementary lighting equipment is that it must not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment; that possibility does not appear to exist in this design, where the two lamps are intended as complementary).

ID: 1985-04.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Finbarr J. O'Neill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 18, 1985 Finbarr J. O'Neill General Counsel Hyundai Motor America P.O. Box 2669 Garden Grove, California 92642-2669 Dear Mr. O'Neill: September 18, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to application of the "DOT" symbol to lighting equipment. You first ask for confirmation of your interpretation that Standard No. 108 does not require the DOT symbol on original equipment lenses of lamps other than headlamps. That is correct; the general certification of the vehicle manufacturer that its product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is inclusive of all original equipment and of all requirements of the specific standards such as the color requirements for lenses imposed by Standard No. 108. You have also asked for confirmation that under Standard No. 108 the marking of replacement lenses with the DOT symbol is optional. That is correct; the other permissible certification options for replacement lenses are those imposed by 15 U.S.C. 1403, certification in the form of a label or tag on the lens itself or the container in which it is shipped. Finally, you have asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can comment on whether it intends to propose mandatory marking of lenses in the near future. We have received a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to require items of replacement lighting equipment to be marked with the DOT symbol. However, the agency has not announced a decision on the petition at this time. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/13/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company -- Roger E. Maugh, Director, Automotive Safety Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roger E. Maugh Director, Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This responds to your letter of June 2, 1983, regarding Ford's desire to equip 2,500 of its vehicles with Securiflex windshields to obtain field data regarding glass-plastic glazing. You state that such a test fleet would provide Ford with information regarding concerns it has about in-plant handling, vehicle assembly, mirror attachment, haze, scratching, delamination, durability, and performance in accidents.

As you are probably aware, General Motors made a similar request regarding a test fleet of Securiflex windshields last fall. We can give Ford the same assurances that were given to General Motors in response to their request. Under the limited and special circumstances of the field test described in your letter, the agency can firmly state that it would not enforce the abrasion requirement of Safety Standard No. 205 as it now stands since it does not appear to be appropriate for technology like the Securiflex windshield (Securiflex apparently cannot pass the existing abrasion requirements). That technology was developed after the standard was originally issued, and the standard did not contemplate asymmetrical glazing of this type. Equally important, the agency notes that all current information indicates that glass-plastic glazing does have a great potential for reducing lacerative injuries in accidents. The experimental use which you propose should provide valuable information regarding injury reduction and some of the remaining problems which do appear to exist with regards to this type windshield. We also note your statement that the Securiflex windshield you plan to install on the test fleet would comply with the proposed requirements for glass-plastic glazing issued by the agency March 10, 1983 (48 FR 10097).

In light of the agency's policy decision to foster the use of new safety technology by permitting the field test you propose, the agency expects your company to monitor closely the test fleet and to rectify any problems that may develop. Ford would, of course, remain responsible for meeting its obligation under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding any safety related defects. The agency also expects to be apprised of all information that Ford obtains from this field test.

Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Acting Administrator

ID: 2777y

Mr. Fred Ciampi
Fred's Welding Service
Route 86, Box 85
Jumping Branch, WV 25969-0085

Dear Mr. Ciampi:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning Federal requirements governing the manufacture of utility trailers. Your letter indicated that you plan to manufacture trailers.

First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. For purposes of this authority, trailers are considered motor vehicles. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

The following Federal safety standards apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification Number--Basic Requirements, and Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, depending on the type of braking system used, trailers must meet Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. All of these standards are found in 49 CFR Part 571.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567. You may find a copy of 49 CFR at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of Title 49 from the United States Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 783-3238. With respect to laws governing trailer manufacture, the principal statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. You may obtain a copy of this Act from GPO. You may wish to note especially 151 of the Act, which requires a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to conduct notice and recall campaigns if you or this agency find that your product has a safety-related defect.

There may be State regulations that apply to trailer manufacture and use. In many states, a person cannot register a new vehicle unless he or she has a statement or certificate of origin. I understand that the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association will supply a small quantity of form statements or certificates upon request. You may contact that organization by writing them at 1896 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 22090; or calling (800) 336-0154. You may wish to contact the local Department of Transportation or Motor Vehicle Administration in the states for which you have an interest for further information on state requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have specific questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:57l d:l2/24/90

ID: nht93-4.28

DATE: June 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Shawn Shieh -- Ventures International USA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-13-93 EST from Shawn Shieh to NHTSA (OCC 8640); Also attached to letter dated 8-17-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Alan S. Eldahr (Std. 108)

TEXT: This replies to your undated letter to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, asking questions about an emergency communication product intended to be permanently mounted in the back window of an automobile. The product uses light emitting diodes to form messages for the drivers of following cars to read.

I enclose a copy of a letter dated August 17, 1989, that the agency sent to Alan S. Eldahr who asked for our comments on a similar device. The same advice applies to your product. As you will see, our opinion is that the product is of doubtful legality under Federal law when used on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, which are equipped with center highmounted stoplamps.

In addition, the product must not create a noncompliance with the Federal field of view requirements for interior rear view mirrors. Thus, we cannot answer your question about the maximum size of a permanent structure to be installed in an automobile because that will vary from car to car. With respect to your other questions, there are no Federal specifications for the material of the base support. The "restriction" on the product's wiring is that it must not interfere with the functioning of any Federally required lamp on the vehicle. This agency is the only government agency you have to consult on the product.

ID: nht76-2.22

DATE: 04/30/76

FROM: JOHN WOMACK FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Allegrette; Newitt; Witcoff & McAndrews

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 12, 1976. Currently, 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, does not require, or provide for, a manufacturer code number. The use of a code number has been proposed, but not adopted. If the use of a code number becomes mandatory, notice will appear in the Federal Register and a sufficient amount of time allowed for your client to comply.

The information you submitted in your letter is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Part 566. Inasmuch as Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd., is a foreign corporation, it will be necessary for them to designate an agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45.

Your understanding with respect to certification of lenses is correct. Section S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), permits replacement equipment to be marked with the symbol DOT as a certification that it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and there is no need to submit lenses to us for approval.

ALLEGRETTI, NEWITT, WITCOFF & MCANDREWS

February 12, 1976

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I am writing in behalf of Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd. of Osaka, Japan re Title 49 CRF, Part 566 and 567. Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd, is a Japanese corporation and has its principal place of business at 53, 3-Chome, Kuwazu-cho, Higashi Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka, Japan. Our client manufacturers reflectors, lenses and lamps for motor vehicles. The foregoing should enable you to provide a code number for our client under 49 CRF @ 566.5. If anything more is required, please advise.

Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd. intends to sell a replacement lens for a combination rear lamp that meets all applicable SAE standards. I understand it would be proper for my client to emboss, mark or label its lenses with the symbol DOT after the lenses have been tested for compliance with the applicable standards and that there is no need to submit specimens of the lenses or other products to the Administrator for prior approval. Please confirm that my understanding is correct.

Seymour Rothstein

ID: 18142.drn

Mr. Terry E. Quinn
Corporate Director of Marketing
Hehr International Inc.
3333 Casitas Avenue
Post Office Box 39160
Los Angeles, CA 90039-0160

Dear Mr. Quinn:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the release mechanism on your emergency exit windows for non-school buses meets S5.3.2 of Standard No. 217 Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. I regret the delay in this response. Because each window would have two release mechanisms that would each require more than the one "force application" per mechanism specified in S5.3.2, the answer is no.

S5.3.2 states in part:

When tested under the conditions of S6 both before and after the window retention test required by S5.1, each emergency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall allow manual release of the exit by a single occupant using force applications each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer, either to S5.3.2(a) or (b) of this section. Each exit shall have not more than two release mechanisms. . . . In the case of exits with two release mechanisms, each mechanism shall require one force application to release the exit.

Your letter describes a new feature that you have added to an existing window design. The feature is a retaining pin with a pull ring, on the release mechanism. The retaining pin fits through holes in the release mechanism's handle and its housing. With the new feature, the emergency exit window would now open as follows: "Pull the retaining pin upward or inward toward the center of the window; rotate emergency handles as before; push window outward." You informed Mr. James Jones of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Safety Assurance that each emergency exit window would have two release mechanisms.

We would consider each release mechanism to be opened by more than one "force application" because pulling the release pin alone would not open the window. Your window is designed such that for each release mechanism, at least one other force would have to be applied before the window is opened. Because at least two forces must be involved (per mechanism) before the emergency exit window can be opened, the mechanism does not meet S5.3.2's requirement that: "In the case of exits with two release mechanisms, each mechanism shall require one force application to release the exit."

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.217
d.8/11/99

ID: nht75-5.46

DATE: 09/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Jack Johnson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Motac's August 7, 1975, request for a determination that two platform trailers which are designed with a primary cargo-carrying surface which is less than 40 inches above the ground would qualify for exclusion from the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if manufactured before September 1, 1976.

I have enclosed a copy of the amendment to Standard No. 121 which excludes heavy hauler trailers from the requirements of the standard until September 1, 1976. You should note that the "40-inch cargo-carrying surface" criterion is measured in the unloaded condition, and that the body must not be equipped with sidewalls unless they are easily removable.

There is no requirement that the vehicle be designed for a certain type of cargo such as heavy machinery. Therefore your semi-trailers may qualify for the exclusion if they meet the criteria listed in the definition of heavy hauler trailer.

SINCERELY,

August 7, 1975

Department of Transportation

Attention: James B. Gregory Administrator

Regarding: FMVSS 121 Air Brake System- Trucks, Buses & Trailers. Clarification of docket no. 74-10; notice 5 and docket no's. 70-16, 70-17; notice no. 2.

We would appreciate your clarification of the above referenced documents regarding "Heavy Hauler Trailer", item 2, which states that "whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, etc.", is exempt from the antilock brake until Sept. 1, 1976.

We manufacture commercial platform trailers of various types at our West Coast factory. One type of trailer is a drop frame low platform semi-trailer, both single and tandem axle in lengths from 26 ft. long to 45 ft. long. They are equipped with 8:25 x 15 tires, therefore the "primary cargo-carrying surface", aft of the gooseneck drop, is 36 inches for the single axle semi-trailers and 39" for the tandem axle trailers from the ground.

These trailers are used for transporting furniture containers (4' long, x 8' wide x 8' plus or minus high), full grown nursury trees in large root containing boxes, or many types of general freight that is compatible to a drop frame low platform semi-trailer.

Since these trailers comply with the deck height of 40 inches or less for their primary "cargo-carrying surface", please advise if they are exempt from the antilock brake equipment. These trailers are not designed to transport such items as "crawler tractors, boom cranes, heavy machinery, etc."

MOTAC, INC.

Jack Johnson

Chief Engineer

ID: 2811yy

Aggie Szilagyi, Esquire
Senior Counsel
New Jersey State Legislature
Office of Legislative Services
State House Annex
CN-068
Trenton, NJ 08625

Dear Ms. Szilagyi:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of Senator Ronald L. Rice requesting the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on whether the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (Theft Act)(15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.) would preempt provisions of New Jersey Senate Bill (SB) 3434. I apologize for the delay in this response. It is my understanding that SB 3434 has been reintroduced in this session of the legislature as SB 876. For the reasons described below, it is our opinion that the provisions in the bill for the mandatory antitheft devices on certain car lines would be preempted by the Theft Act.

We understand that SB 876 would prohibit the sale or lease of a passenger automobile that is at or over the "estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price for all passenger automobiles" unless it is equipped with a "passive anti-theft device" that "automatically activates upon turning off the motor of a vehicle and causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage." Violation of this provision would be punishable by a fine.

Although the Theft Act contains an explicit preemption provision (15 U.S.C. 2031) for parts marking systems which would not be triggered by SB 876, the bill would nonetheless create an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the overall Congressional objectives embodied in the Theft Act and would therefore be preempted.

The objective of the Theft Act was to establish a least-cost antitheft system, with a parts-marking system being the system of choice. The Congress specified a $15-per-car limit for the cost of the system (15 U.S.C. 2024(a)), and made it clear that the alternative of installing antitheft devices was to be at the petition of the manufacturer, under procedures designed to ensure the effectiveness of such devices (15 U.S.C. 2025).

SB 876 would not only have the effect of requiring the installation of antitheft devices in vehicles that are marked under the Theft Act, thereby imposing a greater cost on the owners, but could require a vehicle with an antitheft device approved under the Theft Act to be equipped with a second antitheft device if the first device did not operate in the manner prescribed by SB 876. These effects would prevent the accomplishment of the Theft Act's objectives, and would thus satisfy the conditions for general preemption found by the Supreme Court in Hines v.Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) and followed in subsequent cases (Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988); Northwest Central Pipeline Corporation v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas, (109 S. Ct. 1262 (1989)).

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref: Part 541 d:l/l4/9l

ID: nht91-1.18

DATE: January 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Aggie Szilagyi -- Esquire, Senior Counsel, New Jersey State Legislature, Office of Legislative Services

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-18-89 from Aggie Szilagyi to Stephen P. Wood (OCC 3949)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of Senator Ronald L. Rice requesting the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on whether the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (Theft Act)(15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.) would preempt provisions of New Jersey Senate Bill (SB) 3434. I apologize for the delay in this response. It is my understanding that SB 3434 has been reintroduced in this session of the legislature as SB 876. For the reasons described below, it is our opinion that the provisions in the bill for the mandatory antitheft devices on certain car lines would be preempted by the Theft Act.

We understand that SB 876 would prohibit the sale or lease of a passenger automobile that is at or over the "estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price for all passenger automobiles" unless it is equipped with a "passive anti-theft device" that "automatically activates upon turning off the motor of a vehicle and causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage." Violation of this provision would be punishable by a fine.

Although the Theft Act contains an explicit preemption provision (15 U.S.C. 2031) for parts marking systems which would not be triggered by SB 876, the bill would nonetheless create an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the overall Congressional objectives embodied in the Theft Act and would therefore be preempted.

The objective of the Theft Act was to establish a least-cost antitheft system, with a parts-marking system being the system of choice. The congress specified a $15-per-car limit for the cost of the system (15 U.S.C. 2024(a)), and made it clear that the alternative of installing antitheft devices was to be at the petition of the manufacturer, under procedures designed to ensure the effectiveness of such devices (15 U.S.C. 2025).

SB 876 would not only have the effect of requiring the installation of antitheft devices in vehicles that are marked under the Theft Act, thereby imposing a greater cost on the owners, but could require a vehicle with an antitheft device approved under the Theft Act to be equipped with a second antitheft device if the first device did not operate in the manner prescribed by SB 876. These effects would prevent the accomplishment of the Theft Act's objectives, and would thus satisfy the conditions for general preemption found by the supreme court in Hines V. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) and followed in subsequent cases (Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988); Northwest Central Pipeline Corporation v. State Corporation commission of Kansas, (109 S. Ct. 1262 (1989)).

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