ID: aiam2094

Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to Volkswagen of America's August 27, 1975, request fo confirmation that a seat belt warning system that activates a 4- to 8-second warning light when the vehicle ignitions turned complies with the requirements of S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, although the warning system also activates the same warning light continuously when a separate circuit senses that the front seat belts are not fastened.; Volkswagen's understanding of S4.5.3.3 is correct. As we understan your description, the Volkswagen warning system does provide the automatic 4- to 8-second activation of a warning light called for in S4.5.3.3. This provision prohibits the use of an activation longer than the limits set forth in the standard.; The Volkswagen system provides a different and additional activation o the warning light when the seat belts are not fastened, using a separate circuit to monitor a set of conditions separate from those specified in the requirements of S4.5.3.3. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not consider this activation (which can be longer than 8 seconds) to violate the limit on activation of the automatic reminder specified by the standard.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam3825

Dear Mr. Henneberger: This is in reply to your letter of September 26, 1983, asking for a interpretation on behalf of your client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company.; You referenced an interpretation of August 31, 1978, which we gave you also on behalf of Jacobs. Your client manufactures a diesel engine retarder system which would be provided a means to warn following drivers when the system was in use. The specific means of warning discussed in the 1978 letter was to connect the retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system, either as original or aftermarket equipment. We concluded that his installation augmented the hazard warning system, and thus did not impair the hazard warning system within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108. We also concluded that it would not render inoperative the hazard warning system, and thus was not a violation of the 'anti-tampering' provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Traffic Safety Act.; Apparently, a customer of Jacobs has asked it to wire its warnin system through the stop lamps. A separate manually-operated switch will be provided. We understand that when the warning system is operational there is no difference of light intensities when the brakes are applied. You have asked us for a re-interpretation, on the basis of these new facts, that the changes retarder warning will not violate either paragraph S4.1.3 or section 108(a)(2)(A). You believe that the warning system is still permissible, because the stop lamps when so used will nevertheless indicate that the vehicle is diminishing its speed by braking, and because of interpretations by this office that retarder controls can be incorporated with the foundation brake controls and activated with the foundation brakes.; We have reviewed the 1978 interpretation allowing use of the retarde system through the hazard warning system, and the two 1974 interpretations with reference to incorporation of supplementary braking devices with foundation controls. We agree with your interpretation that the latter interpretations impliedly require activation of the stop lamps when the supplementary braking devices are used. The agency is not prepared at this time to modify either interpretation, and you may inform your client that there is no Federal legal prohibition against its wiring the retarder to activate the stop lamps when it is in use.; However, we wish to point out an area of potential risk which you client should weigh before proceeding to offer this option and which, if it occurred, could be viewed as an impairment of the stop signal within the prohibition of S4.1.3. Under the Jacobs plan, activation of the stop lamp when the retarder is engaged would indicate only a lessened rate of speed. Because there is no difference in intensity, a following driver would have no indication when the brake was applied to signal a normal or sudden stop, such as might be required when a child or animal runs into the roadway.; If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2807

Dear Ms. Soodek: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Federal Safet Standard No. 205 specifies requirements limiting the reflectivity of glazing materials. You are concerned with the lack of uniformity in state laws that prohibit nontransparent or reflective windows in motor vehicles.; The stated purpose of Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, i to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. The standard does not prohibit reflective glazing, nor does it specify requirements that would limit the degree of reflectivity of glazing materials.; Since reflectivity is not an aspect of performance governed by Federa safety standards, state laws concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted by Standard No. 205. Safety Standard No. 205 does, however, specify requirements for the luminous transmittance of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Therefore, state laws prohibiting nontransparent windows would be preempted if they attempted to regulate the glazing manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). State regulations applicable to the vehicle owner or user would not be preempted, on the other hand, since the Federal regulation is only applicable to the manufacturer. Therefore, a state law could prohibit the application of a nontransparent decal on a window by a vehicle owner, for example.; I am enclosing a copy of the California Highway Patrol petition fo rulemaking regarding glazing abrasion requirements and glazing reflectivity. A notice concerning this petition will be issued at some time in the near future.; I must point out that our statutory authority requires all safet standards to be reasonable, objective and to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. The agency cannot, therefore, regulate an aspect of motor vehicle performance or design if there is no data or evidence indicating that a safety problem exists.; I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hug Oates of my office if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1697

Dear Mr. Heath: Your letters of November 6, 1974 and November 19, 1974 to Jim Brelan of Denver, Colorado (copies enclosed) have come to our attention and we have some comments to make on them.; The two letters in question concern the use of multiple front, middle and rear side marker lamps. Your letter of November 6 states that 'your intermediate side marker lamps at non-specified locations are not permitted and must be removed.' With respect to your letter of November 19, it is your view that an array of five side marker lamps 'installed at the top and bottom of each side' of a trailer over 30 feet in length is improper and that 'two of the top and two of the bottom ones on each side must be removed.' The single lamp remaining at the mid point and at each end of the vehicle 'shall be located at or near the front, center and rear on each side at the top and bottom or top or bottom.' You conclude that 'This requirement is not only a California regulation but is also in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.'; The letters are incorrect in several respects. First of all, Standar No. 108 does not prohibit the use of more than one side marker lamp, front, rear, or center, provided the additional lamps do not impair the effectiveness of any required lighting equipment. Secondly, such lamps may be mounted at any height on the trailer body 15 inches or more above the road surface. They need not be 'at the top and bottom or top or bottom.' To the extent that California laws prohibit multiple marker lamps or prescribe mounting of marker lamps other than as permitted by Standard No. 108, those laws are preempted by Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3973

Dear Mr. Comeau: This responds to your April 12, 1985 letter concerning the January 198 school bus safety study prepared for the Canadian government (Transport Canada). You were particularly interested in the results of the study relating to safety belts in school buses.; The Transport Canada study found that 'The use of a type I seat bel system in any current design of school bus may result in more severe head and neck injuries for a belted occupant than an unbelted one, in a severe frontal collision.' You asked for our opinion as to the reliability of the findings, and whether they would be admissible in a court of law. You also asked whether a school district or bus manufacturer can be liable for negligency if a seat belt causes injury to a belted occupant.; I must explain that we are unable to issue an opinion regarding eithe the admissibility or effect of the Canadian study's findings in a court of law. This agency is responsible for establishing Federal motor vehicle safety standards and investigating alleged safety-related defects. We are not authorized to participate in or render advisory opinions on private litigation. The issues you raised would depend on the type of legal proceeding and the evidentiary rules of the particular court system, as well as other evidence that might be introduced in a lawsuit. Questions concerning negligence and private liability would also have to be answered according to the law of the particular jurisdiction. Since these matters are usually governed by state law, I suggest that you consult with your attorney to discuss how New York law would apply.; As to whether the Canadian study is reliable, this agency is in th process of reviewing the study's findings. Thus far, we have no reason to dispute its conclusions, given the nature of the test conducted. The results of the study appear to be in agreement with some laboratory tests conducted within the United States, including sled tests conducted by the agency in 1978. Although the Canadian test results appear to be accurate, we would like to emphasize that the study involved only a severe (48 km/h) frontal barrier crash test. Questions concerning how safety belts would provide benefits in other types of crashes, such as side impacts or rollovers, were not addressed. In addition, it must be noted that the study was based on a test, not on real-world statistics. We believe that these factors should be taken into consideration when evaluating the results of the Canadian study and its implications for safety belts on school buses.; As you may know, our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's do not require the installation of safety belts on new large school buses, but any school district that wishes to have such belts installed is free to do so. We do require safety belts on smaller school buses, because we believe belts are particularly effective in protecting occupants in such vehicles. For larger school buses (those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds), we require 'compartmentalization'--i.e., high seat backs with extra padding--to provide occupant protection, and we believe the concept works well.; In that regard, I note the Canadian study found that the requirement for compartmentalization required by Canadian safety Standard 222 (CMVSS No. 222) 'functions as intended during frontal impacts and provides excellent protection for occupants.' FMVSS No. 222, our safety standard mandating compartmentalization in school buses, has requirements similar to CMVSS 222. We believe that the Canadian study further supports the effectiveness of the compartmentalization concept required by FMVSS No. 222.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4669

Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, l990, t Erika Z. Jones, formerly the Chief Counsel, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 108. You state that section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) of Standard No. 108 requires that the horizontal indicator of a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees, and you would like us to confirm our interpretation of the method and procedures of recalibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage. You say that NHTSA 'interprets as follows: If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop manual, re-calibration could be addressed.' (55 FR pages 4425 and 4426, February 8, l990). You stated that Koito did not believe that this method is practicable. We believe that you have misunderstood the Federal Register notice. The notice was the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv). Subsection (iv) states that the horizontal aim indicator of a VHAD 'shall be capable of recalibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees . . . to accommodate any adjustment necessary for recalibrating the indicator after vehicle repair from accident damage.' Ford Motor Company had commented that this requirement was unduly restrictive. It asked NHTSA to allow the option of a VHAD with only a vertical aim indicator if the headlamps as installed met a suggested horizontal aim specification of 0.0 +0.8/-0.4 degree. NHTSA, believing in the importance of horizontal aim capablility, found that a principal area of concern was that circumstances could occur during the life of the vehicle that could adversely affect maintenance of correct horizontal aim, and that without horizontal aim capability, it was unclear that the accuracy of horizontal aim could be assured after repair of accident damage. It was at that point that NHTSA observed: 'Manufacturers could address this concern by providing dimensional data for precise structural alignment of the vehicle in shop manuals and appropriate instructions for performing the necessary and potentially extensive parts replacement and vehicle reconstruction requisite for correct horizontal aim.' However, NHTSA went on to say that this concern was already met by subsection (iv) which requires the horizontal aim indicator to be capable of recalibration after crash damage or vehicle repair. NHTSA denied Ford's petition. Thus, it did not propose or adopt a requirement, as Ford wanted, that a manufacturer could provide instructions in place of a VHAD with a horizontal aim indicator. The existing requirement of subsection (iv) remained unchanged. Thus, it is the manufacturer's decision on how to provide for recalibration after crash damage and vehicle repair. Therefore, as long as a VHAD complies with subsection (iv), a manufacturer may provide whatever re-calibration instructions it deems appropriate. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0075

Dear Mr. Smith: In response to your trailer lighting questions during your visit wit Mr. W. R. Eason and the questions in your letter of March 26, 1968, the following information is provided.; >>>1. Your letter of March 26, 1968, indicates provision of two re tail lamps, two red or amber stop lamps, one white license plate lamp and two red or amber turn signal lamps for compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 after January 1, 1968. In addition to the afore specified lamps the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 requires side reflex reflectors and side marker lamps as specified in the standard. Location of all lamps and reflectors shall be in accordance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 requirements. Additional requirements are specified for trailers that are 80 inches or more overall width.; 2. Your statement (March 26 letter) that, 'The above may be combine and may be Class A in photometric value but Class B in size,' is essentially correct except that turn signal lamps 'shall' be of Class A photometric value rather than 'may.'; 3. The provision of two Class A red reflectors and two Class A ambe reflectors does not completely conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 requirements, because four Class A red reflectors and two Class A amber reflectors are required. Two of the red reflectors are for rear mounting and two are for aft side mounting, while the two amber reflectors are forward side mounting. Your interpretation that either reflective material conforming to specification L-S-300 or reflectors conforming to SAE Standard J594C may be utilized for the side reflex reflector requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 is correct; 4. With regard to the question of applicability of Motor Vehicle Safet Standard 108 to chassis trailers, enclosed is a copy of Federal Register Volume 33, Number 1, dated January 3, 1968. If the chassis trailer meets the requirements of this document, primarily that it is an incomplete vehicle and is properly labeled in accordance with paragraph 255.13, then the original manufacturer need not install all of the required lighting of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.<<<; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.; The nomenclature as used on your proposed label drawing would b considered acceptable for certification requirements and we would appreciate your sending of an actual label sample when they are available,(sic) In addition, we would like to have for our records, the actual starting serial number that will identify your vehicles as being built on or after January 1, 1969.; Thank you for your interest in the safety program and we trust thi information will be of assistance to you in regard to your inquiries.; Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam0735

Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in response to your letter of May 9, 1972, in which you aske several questions concerning certification of multistage vehicles.; Your first set of questions concerned the 'altering distributor' labe of S 567.6. In the course of administering this regulation, we have come to regard this as an 'optional' label--one that is not absolutely required in any situation. If a person altering a completed vehicle does not make changes significant enough to make him a remanufacturer who recertifies the vehicle as a manufacturer, he may satisfy the requirements by allowing the existing label to remain in place. In the four examples that you provided in paragraph 2 of your letter, we would consider the first two examples (bumper and tail gate loader) to be marginal ones in which we would probably accept a good-faith determination either way by the person making the alterations, while the last two (brake fluid and fenders) appear to be minor enough that no recertification would be necessary. This also answers your last question.; (Paragraph 4) You are right in suggesting that once a vehicle purchase takes possession of the vehicle, the standards and regulations no longer apply.; (Paragraph 5) It is true that if a person manufactures a vehicle an uses it himself, it must still conform when he sells it at a later time. To hold otherwise could create a loophole, whereby a manufacturer could make nominal use of his vehicles before selling them.; (Paragraph 6) The passage of the article on my discussion mentionin 'liability' dealt with a question on remanufactured vehicles. I don't have a transcript, but it looks as though he was quoting a couple of sentences out of context (although the article was generally good reporting). I was making the point that there could be a level of 'rebuilding' a vehicle where the work done, the parts replaced, are so extensive that we would consider it to be manufacturing. It would be an unusual situation. I was indeed referring to compliance with the standards and regulations, not product liability.; Your discussion of installation of third axles seems to reflect proper understanding of our rules.; With reference to your question in paragraph 8 about the period of tim a vehicle must be held by a customer before he can have non-standard alterations made in it, there is no set period of time. After he has 'purchased' it, he can have done with it what he wants. However, the Vehicle Safety Act S 108(b)(1), does have one important phrase on that subject: 'in good faith.' If we found that a dealer or distributor were using the first-purchase clause as a ruse to do things that the standards and regulations would not otherwise allow, we would probably do everything we could to stop it--to show that it was not in good faith.; I am glad to be of help to you and your members. I hope, however, tha you will limit your questions to situations that have actually arisen, since we do not have the resources to grapple with hypothetical questions.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Glen Gramse -- Minnesota State Police

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Major Gramse:

It has been brought to our attention by Mr. R. C. Rost of Minnesota Body and Equipment that there is a question regarding Minnesota's law concerning buses used for Head Start programs. According to Mr. Rost, Minnesota prohibits these buses from being eq uipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. He requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify any inconsistencies between the Federal and State law.

As explained below, to the extent there is a conflict between Federal and State law, Federal law would prevail in this matter. All manufacturers and sellers of new school buses must comply with the Federal law by manufacturing and selling vehicles that are equipped with school bus lights and stop signal arms.

By way of background, Congress has directed this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSSs for school buses, including ones requiring these buses to have warning lights and stop arms. The Federal law requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary, or secondary school must sell a bus that is certi fied to the FMVSSs for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement.

NHTSA's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore "schools" under NHTSA's statute. Accordingly, buses transporting students to and from Head Start facilities are defined as school buses under Federal law and are therefore subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Any manufacturer that omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 or the stop signal arm required by paragraph S5 of Standard No. 131 (or that delivers a bus with these devices inoperative), is in violation of Federal law, and subject to recall provisions and civil penalties.

The effect of the statute's preemption provision is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that State standard or requirement is identica l to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light or stop arm requirements as a higher standard of perf ormance. Thus, regardless of how a State defines "School bus," a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with warning lights or stop arms. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads (including the equipment on the vehicles), those State laws may not override Federal laws for what type of safety equipment must be installed on new vehicles.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10496a

Major Glen Gramse
Minnesota State Police
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101

Dear Major Gramse:

It has been brought to our attention by Mr. R.C. Rost of Minnesota Body and Equipment that there is a question regarding Minnesota's law concerning buses used for Head Start programs. According to Mr. Rost, Minnesota prohibits these buses from being equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. He requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify any inconsistencies between the Federal and State law.

As explained below, to the extent there is a conflict between Federal and State law, Federal law would prevail in this matter. All manufacturers and sellers of new school buses must comply with the Federal law by manufacturing and selling vehicles that are equipped with school bus lights and stop signal arms.

By way of background, Congress has directed this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSSs for school buses, including ones requiring these buses to have warning lights and stop arms. The Federal law requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary, or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSSs for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement.

NHTSA's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore "schools" under NHTSA's statute. Accordingly, buses transporting students to and from Head Start facilities are defined as school buses under Federal law and are therefore subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Any manufacturer that omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 or the stop signal arm required by paragraph S5 of Standard No. 131 (or that delivers a bus with these devices inoperative), is in violation of Federal law, and subject to recall provisions and civil penalties.

The effect of the statute's preemption provision is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the

Federal standards unless that State standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light or stop arm requirements as a higher standard of performance. Thus, regardless of how a State defines "School bus," a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with warning lights or stop arms. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads (including the equipment on the vehicles), those State laws may not override Federal laws for what type of safety equipment must be installed on new vehicles.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:4/10/95