ID: nht95-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

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

TO: Lois Castillo -- Travel Tray, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/27/94 from Lois Castillo to Joan (John) Womack (OCC 10464)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Castillo:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Womack of my staff, asking about safety regulations for the "Travel Tray," a product you wish to manufacture. The brochure you enclosed with your letter states that the Travel Tray is a plastic tray that is desig ned to lay across the top of a child's car seat. The tray attaches to the car seat by the use of straps with "velcro" ends. Children would use the tray to "play on with their toys or to eat on."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used its authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) N o. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. (This standard is found in volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.213.) Each new child restraint system, which includes "car seat s," must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213. This means that, if the Travel Tray were marketed as part of a car seat, the car seat would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard, with the tray a ttached.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 213 prohibits any fixed or moveable surface in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain a test dummy in a 20 mile per hour test. This requirement is to prevent items that could injure a child in a crash from being installed where they could be impacted by a child. Your tray is incapable of restraining a test dummy in a crash. Since the tray is unable to restrain the dummy, a car seat with the tray would not comply with Standard No. 213. In other words, a manufacturer of a car seat could not sell such a tray as a part of its child seating system.

If your tray is manufactured and marketed separately to consumers who own child seats, the tray would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. The standard applies to new child restraint systems, or car seats, that are design ed to restrain, seat or position children. Your tray sold by itself would not be designed to restrain, seat or position children and thus would not be subject to this standard.

While no FMVSS applies to the Travel Tray, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remed y of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative . . . a ny part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in v ehicles by commercial businesses instead of car seat owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in the categories listed in section 30122, that would constitute a potential violation of the "make inoperative" provision of section 3 0122.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 13, 1995

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

TO: Scott E. Peters -- Director, Regulations & Compliance, U.S. Electricar

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/21/94 LETTER FROM SCOTT E. PETERS TO PHIL RECHT

TEXT: This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan.

You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of inte rnal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that "the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to pro longed operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher." Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars "in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration." You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, ma nufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limi ts:

S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire.

S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire.

The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall.

With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars.

Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation.

As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Stand ard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiti ng the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-6.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 6, 1995

FROM: Earl Eisnhart -- Vice President, National Private Truck Council; Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President - Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LARRY W. STRAWHORN (A43; STD. 121)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of Section 5.2.3.3, Antilock Malfunction Indicator, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, Air Brake Systems, which requires an antilock malfunction indicator lamp to be mounted on trailers during an eight year transition period. This section reads (second sentence emphasized):

"S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2006 shall be equipped with a lamp indicating a malfunction of a trailer's antilock brake system. Such a lamp shall remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever power is supplied to the antilock brake system. The display shall be visible within the driver's forward field of view through the rearview mirror(s), and shall be visible once the malfunction is present and power is provided to the system."

Since this requirement does not specify a specific "activation pattern", we interpret that the agency expects the industry itself to standardize on an activation pattern. This is consistent with the agency's position in Section 5.1.6.3, Antilock Power Circuit for Towed Vehicles, where NHTSA is relying on the industry to determine the most effective way to provide separate power to trailer antilock systems.

Section 5.1.6.2, Antilock Malfunction Circuit and Signal, which requires in-cab mounted malfunction lamps for towing and towed vehicle(s) antilock systems does not specify an actuation pattern for malfunction lamps on powered vehicles either. However, the section in the rule preamble which discusses the in-cab malfunction lamp on powered vehicles, Activation Protocol for Malfunction Indicators (page 13246 Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 47), makes it clear that NHTSA wants the activation pattern for truck/tractor in-cab lamps to be such that "upon a failure, the lamp would activate and provide a continuous yellow signal" and would "have a continuously burning lamp in response to a malfunction." This preamble section does not discuss trailer mounted malfunction lamps.

The special SAE ABS task force, which was established last April to develop, or modify, standards and recommended practices in areas of vehicle design and performance affected by the new antilock requirements of FMVSS 121, has developed a recommendation for trailer mounted malfunction lamps which most effectively meets the needs for the lamp.

Among the task force's recommendations is one that the lamp activation pattern should be such that the lamp bulb be ON when the antilock system is working properly and OFF when a malfunction exists, the antilock system is not getting electrical power, or the lamp bulb is burnt out.

Adoption of this trailer malfunction lamp activation pattern for trailers during the eight year transition period provides significant safety advantages including:

(1) The lamp activation pattern becomes a fail safe pattern, i.e., it will signal an inoperative antilock system even when the system is not receiving electrical power or the lamp bulb is burnt out. A lamp system which activates by turning the lamp ON when there is a malfunction will not warn of antilock failures under these conditions.

(2) The recommended activation pattern fits in with pre-trip walk-around and other trailer inspections. In walk-around inspections, where drivers turn ON all the lamps including the stop lamps (brakes applied through use of the trailer hand valve, trailer air supply valve, stick prop, etc.) and then walk around the vehicle to detect if any lamps (this would include the antilock lamp) are not burning. This inspection is simpler and more reliable if the driver doesn't have to go through a lamp check procedure first. The same is also true when mechanics and officials inspect the trailer.

We respectively request that you advise us as soon as possible Whether our interpretation of Section 5.2.3.3, i.e., does not require a specific lamp activation pattern, is correct. New tractors must start complying with the new antilock system requirements in 18 months. In order for tractor manufacturers to efficiently design their vehicles to accommodate trailer antilock system malfunction signals, they need to know the standard protocol for these signals soon. In order for antilock manufacturers to standardize the protocol, they need to know if our interpretation is correct.

Please contact us if there is a need for further information.

ID: nht95-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 6, 1995

FROM: Earl Eisnhart -- Vice President, National Private Truck Council; Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President - Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LARRY W. STRAWHORN (A43; STD. 121)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of Section 5.2.3.3, Antilock Malfunction Indicator, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, Air Brake Systems, which requires an antilock malfunction indicator lamp to be mounted on trailers du ring an eight year transition period. This section reads (second sentence emphasized):

"S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2006 shall be equipped with a lamp indicating a malfunction of a trailer's antilock brake system. Such a lamp shall remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever power is supplied to the antilock brake system. The display shall be visible within the driver's forward field of view through the rearview mirror(s), and shall be visible once th e malfunction is present and power is provided to the system."

Since this requirement does not specify a specific "activation pattern", we interpret that the agency expects the industry itself to standardize on an activation pattern. This is consistent with the agency's position in Section 5.1.6.3, Antilock Power C ircuit for Towed Vehicles, where NHTSA is relying on the industry to determine the most effective way to provide separate power to trailer antilock systems.

Section 5.1.6.2, Antilock Malfunction Circuit and Signal, which requires in-cab mounted malfunction lamps for towing and towed vehicle(s) antilock systems does not specify an actuation pattern for malfunction lamps on powered vehicles either. However, t he section in the rule preamble which discusses the in-cab malfunction lamp on powered vehicles, Activation Protocol for Malfunction Indicators (page 13246 Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 47), makes it clear that NHTSA wants the activation pattern for truc k/tractor in-cab lamps to be such that "upon a failure, the lamp would activate and provide a continuous yellow signal" and would "have a continuously burning lamp in response to a malfunction." This preamble section does not discuss trailer mounted malf unction lamps.

The special SAE ABS task force, which was established last April to develop, or modify, standards and recommended practices in areas of vehicle design and performance affected by the new antilock requirements of FMVSS 121, has developed a recommendation for trailer mounted malfunction lamps which most effectively meets the needs for the lamp.

Among the task force's recommendations is one that the lamp activation pattern should be such that the lamp bulb be ON when the antilock system is working properly and OFF when a malfunction exists, the antilock system is not getting electrical power, or the lamp bulb is burnt out.

Adoption of this trailer malfunction lamp activation pattern for trailers during the eight year transition period provides significant safety advantages including:

(1) The lamp activation pattern becomes a fail safe pattern, i.e., it will signal an inoperative antilock system even when the system is not receiving electrical power or the lamp bulb is burnt out. A lamp system which activates by turning the lamp ON w hen there is a malfunction will not warn of antilock failures under these conditions.

(2) The recommended activation pattern fits in with pre-trip walk-around and other trailer inspections. In walk-around inspections, where drivers turn ON all the lamps including the stop lamps (brakes applied through use of the trailer hand valve, trail er air supply valve, stick prop, etc.) and then walk around the vehicle to detect if any lamps (this would include the antilock lamp) are not burning. This inspection is simpler and more reliable if the driver doesn't have to go through a lamp check pro cedure first. The same is also true when mechanics and officials inspect the trailer.

We respectively request that you advise us as soon as possible Whether our interpretation of Section 5.2.3.3, i.e., does not require a specific lamp activation pattern, is correct. New tractors must start complying with the new antilock system requiremen ts in 18 months. In order for tractor manufacturers to efficiently design their vehicles to accommodate trailer antilock system malfunction signals, they need to know the standard protocol for these signals soon. In order for antilock manufacturers to standardize the protocol, they need to know if our interpretation is correct.

Please contact us if there is a need for further information.

ID: 11240-2PJA

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your September 20, 1995, letter asking three questions about school bus requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release.

Your first question is whether, under NHTSA's May 9, 1995, final rule amending FMVSS No. 217, a left side exit door would have to meet the emergency exit location requirements if there were also two exit windows that by themselves satisfy the additional exit requirement of Table 1. The answer is no. Table 1 requires buses with a seating capacity of 46 or larger to have as additional emergency exits "1 left side exit door or two exit windows" (emphasis added). The word "or" indicates that either is sufficient. Therefore, if both a door and two exit windows are provided, the manufacturer could designate either as satisfying the requirements, and the other would not be required to meet the location requirement. Section S5.2.3.2(a)(2)'s location requirement is explicitly limited in scope to only "the first side emergency exit door installed pursuant to Table 1." (emphasis added). Additional exit doors beyond those required would not be considered to be installed pursuant to Table 1.

Standard No. 217 formerly contained a provision requiring that emergency exits installed in addition to what is required for school buses have to meet the requirements for emergency exits from non-school buses. This requirement was dropped from the standard on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871). We note, however, that in an emergency, the extra emergency exit could be the exit

of choice by some occupants. To avoid confusion, the force and motion needed to open the exit should be consistent with the other emergency exits.

Further, the voluntarily installed side exit doors would still be subject to prohibitions and requirements that apply to side exit doors generally. For example, S5.2.3.2(a)(4) prohibits installing two side exit doors "in whole or in part, within the same post and roof bow panel space." In addition, section S5.2.3.2(a)(1) requires "each" side exit door to be hinged on its forward side (not merely those doors installed pursuant to Table 1).

If windows are used to comply with the additional emergency exit requirements of Table 1, they should be located in the same place as the emergency exit door would have been, "as near as practical to the mid-point of the passenger compartment." See the attached August 4, 1995, interpretation letter that NHTSA sent to Thomas Built Buses on this subject.

Your second question concerns the language in S5.2.3.2(c) of the same final rule stating that "[s]chool buses shall not be equipped with horizontally-sliding emergency exit windows." Blue Bird sells some buses with windows that have sections that slide horizontally to provide ventilation, but also push out to create an emergency exit opening. You were concerned that the literal language of the final rule would prohibit these windows because they are emergency exit windows and they slide horizontally. Instead, your understanding is that the language "horizontally-sliding emergency exit windows" was intended to mean "windows that create the exit opening by sliding horizontally."

Your understanding is correct, because NHTSA does not prohibit horizontally-sliding windows generally. There are no safety concerns about horizontally-sliding emergency exit windows that do not apply to other windows in the school bus, unless the window is opened horizontally to its wider, emergency exit-size opening.

Your third question concerns the requirement in the May 9, 1995, final rule that "[i]n the case of windows with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two force applications to release the exit." This language first appeared in a November 2, 1992, final rule. NHTSA acknowledged in a June 13, 1994, interpretation letter that the language was incorrect and should have read "[i]n the case of windows with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open." (emphasis added). The June 13 interpretation stated NHTSA's intention not to enforce the rule so long as the exit requires two force applications to open, and to issue a correction notice in the future. The language was unfortunately repeated in the May 9, 1995, final rule, but the June 13 interpretation still reflects the agency's position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at 202-366-5260.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:217 d:3/20/96

ID: 11537.WKM

Mr. Francis R. Laux
Manager, Safety Standards
Safety Affairs & Regulations
General Motors Corporation
1660 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Laux:

This responds to your letter to me in which you ask whether the back door glazing on two models of General Motors vehicles would be excluded from the definition of "back door" in the September 28, 1995 amendments to Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The answer is yes as to the glazing half of both door designs.

The agency published a final rule on September 28, 1995, (60 FR 50124) extending the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to the back doors of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV), if so equipped, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Exclusions from the definition of "back door," however, include:

[A] door or window composed entirely of glazing material whose latches and/or hinges are attached directly onto the glazing material (emphasis added).

Your questions address the meaning of the emphasized words as applied to the two MPV models in question.

Both MPV models you refer to are equipped with 2-part back doors. The top halves of the doors are composed of glazing that swings outward and upward. The bottom halves are all-metal tailgates that swing outward and downward. On one model the hinges are attached to the glazing by use of mechanical fasteners that are separated from actual contact with the glazing by a washer. The upper part of the door on the other model is composed of glazing, but the hinges are imbedded in the glazing, then covered by a decorative composite material that you refer to as ARIM@ (reaction injection molding). This door is also equipped with a high- mounted stop lamp centered at the top of the door.

You ask whether both windows would be deemed composed "entirely" of glazing material when both contain electric defroster elements and as pointed out above, one contains decorative surround and a high-mounted stop lamp. You suggest that "the agency's intent is to exempt those doors or windows whose latches and/or hinges are attached to glazing material which is the principal structural component of the door or window, rather than to mandate compliance of doors and windows that are not `composed entirely of glazing material'" (emphasis in original).

In excluding doors and windows "composed entirely of glazing material," the agency was referring to the very type doors you describe, that is, where the entire door itself is glazing as opposed to window glazing that is mounted in and framed by a metal door. As explained in the preamble to the final rule, a door composed only of glazing, be it glass, plastic, or glass/plastic, could be expected to fail in a crash before the latches or hinges would fail. In that case, it would be meaningless to require the latches and hinges to comply with the standard. It is immaterial that the glazing might contain defrosting elements, decorative material, or a high-mounted stop lamp, since those components do not strengthen the glazing. Thus, as you correctly pointed out in your letter, the agency intended to exclude from the requirements of the standard those doors and windows where glazing is the "principal structural component of the door or window."

Your other concern was whether the hinges on your upper door halves were attached "directly onto" the glazing. With respect to the model on which the door half is attached by mechanical fasteners separated from the glazing by a washer, the agency would still consider those hinges attached "directly onto" the glazing. It could reasonably be expected that the bare metal of the hinge would be separated from the bare glazing of the door or window by a washer, gasket, or some other cushioning material. The same consideration would apply to the model in which the hinge is embedded into the glazing and covered with decorative material for aesthetic purposes. Either way, the hinges are mounted directly to the glazing, as opposed to being attached to the metal frame into which the glazing is mounted. Accordingly, the agency considers the upper halves of both door designs as being composed entirely of glazing, and the hinges of both are mounted directly onto the glazing. Both doors, therefore, are excluded from the requirements of the standard.

The above discussion does not apply to the bottom halves of the doors in question. Since those doors are metal doors, the latches and hinges on them must comply with the requirements of the standard.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:206 d:5/6/96

ID: 1985-02.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Joseph L. Hourihan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Joseph L. Hourihan Vehicle Inspection Services, Room 438 Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles 100 Nashua Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114

Dear Mr. Hourihan:

This responds to your March 11, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning our school bus safety standards. You asked who is responsible for determining, at the time of the initial sale of a bus, whether the vehicle's intended use is to transport school children. You also asked who is the party responsible for ensuring that a school buses complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

The responsibility for determining whether the vehicle's intended use is to transport school children rests with the seller of the school bus. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers or distributors from selling new buses for school transportation which do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. I have enclosed a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033) that discusses the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers who know that a vehicle will be used to transport school children to sell school buses that comply with our school bus safety standards. As discussed in that notice, the agency believes that, of all the persons in the chain of distribution who are subject to the Vehicle Safety Act, the seller is most likely to have knowledge of the likely use of the vehicle. Of course, the seller is not held responsible for more than its knowledge of the purpose of the sale.

In response to your second question, under the Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer of a new school bus certifies that its vehicle meets the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. The party selling a new bus for school transportation is responsible for selling a complying school bus.

In your letter, you state that new 10- to 15-passenger buses are being sold to schools and school districts in Massachusetts for the transportation of students even though they may not comply with our school bus safety standards. We would appreciate learning more about instances in which a noncomplying bus may have been sold. Please provide any information you may have to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Room 6113, at the address given above. With respect to the future purchases of new vehicles, schools and school districts should keep in mind that the dealers are obligated to sell vehicles that meet the school bus safety standards. The dealers should know that they are at risk if they sell noncomplying vehicles.

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff on March 25, you requested that we send you the Federal Register notice (41 FR 28506) that interpreted the term "public school buses" to include buses owned and operated by a private contractor under contract with a State to provide transportation for students to and from public schools. You will find that notice enclosed.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 11, 1985

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Chief Counsel Legal Section

Dear Sir:

I refer to the definitions "School bus" and "Schoolbus" as contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It appears that the standards listed below are applicable to vehicles designed to carry more than ten passengers (generally van type vehicles), providing such vehicles are sold for the purpose of transporting school students. What is the opinion of the N.H.T.S.A. at the time of original sale as to who is responsible for determining the intended use of the vehicles and if the vehicles are in compliance with those F.M.V.S.S. specifically applicable to School Buses?

I am particularly interested in the application of Standards #217, #220, #222 and #221* (*which relates to a vehicle with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 lbs.) as it appears that factory vans, which have not been modified and which are not in compliance with the provisions of said standards, are being sold and utilized for the transportation of school students, said vans having a seating capacity in excess of ten and up to fifteen passengers.

Very truly yours,

Joseph L. Hourihan Supervising Hearings Officer Vehicle Inspection Services

JLH/eam

ID: nht90-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 30, 1990

FROM: G. Nick Routh -- President, American Energetics

TO: Connie Mack -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from J.M. Fish to C. Mack (A35; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from G.N. Routh to NHTSA c/o J. Medlin

TEXT:

I have a small business that is engaged in the selling and distribution of solar control films throughout the United States. These films are designed to reduce radiant heat gain through windows thereby lowering the energy costs. Over the past ten years or so, the market for auto window film has grown significantly. The demand for these films has increased year after year due to the features they provide for automobiles. As you are aware, the design of cars has changed dramatically due to fuel use co nsiderations and other factors. Cars have become smaller with smaller engines and more glass has been added to give a more spacious feeling. The additional glass and smaller engines have placed a greater load on the air conditioners in automobiles. Th e use of film on auto windows helps reduce the heat gain through the glass area and allows the cars to be more efficient and more comfortable for the occupants. It also reduces the effects of ultra-violet rays on the interior, reduces glare, and makes t he glass more shatter-resistant.

The purpose of this letter is enlist your assistance in a very serious matter that could gravely affect our industry. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), through the U.S. Justice Department, has filed suits against six companies involved in the installation of film on autos in the state of Florida. The six companies named in the suits are all in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area. The basis for the suits is that these companies have violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Statute # 2 05 (FMVSS #205). This statute states that there must be a minimum of 70% visible light transmission through driver and passenger windows of new automobiles and cannot be tampered with even after first sale of the automobile since these windows are consi dered a safety aspect of the vehicle. The problem is that the State of Florida has a law on the books which allows companies to install film on automobiles as long as the film has a visible light transmission of 35% on the driver and passenger windows. Various other Sunbelt states have adopted laws similar to Florida's with no increase in accidents or additional problems with law enforcement officers. Our problem appears to be one of a "jurisdictional" nature in that NHTSA allowed the states to write laws that allowed these six companies and some 5,000 other businesses throughout the United States to be engaged in the business of applying films to automobiles and they are now saying that their statute preempts the state laws that are different from t he statute. I have enclosed a copy of a letter that I have sent to the people at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which will hopefully shed more light on the situation.

Basically, the suits that NHTSA have filed endanger the livelihoods of some 5,000 installers across the country along with some 30 distributors

and 7 manufacturers. We feel that this is an issue that is best left to the discretion of the individual states with regard to the use of film in the automotive aftermarket. In the states that allow darker film than FMVSS #205 would allow, there is no evidence that traffic safety has suffered or law enforcement personnel have been placed in any greater danger than they normally face in the pursuit of their duties. What has happened is that some half-million consumers per year are enjoying the benefit s of a product that is sorely needed in the automotive aftermarket.

Our industry has petitioned NHTSA to change their standard to more correctly reflect what is going on in many states which is the allowance of 35% visible light transmission film on the driver/passenger windows. While this may be one way to address the p roblem we currently face, it would seem to me that the simplest way to address this problem would be for NHTSA to address itself to the standards necessary for the manufacture of new automobiles and let the individual states legislate the requirements of items that are going to be added to automobiles after the car has been purchased and registered in a state.

I would humbly request that you look into this matter at your earliest convenience to see if you can determine what would be the best solution to this problem that is fair to all concerned.

ID: 24366.ztv

Mr. Brian Kavanaugh
Trade Advisor
Deringer Logistics Consulting Group
1 Lincoln Road, Suite 225
Rouses Point, NY 12979




Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:

This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation covering MR-100 and MO-100 compact trailers. You stated that "the MR-100 is for use on the highway and is equipped with DOT approved tail and marker lights." You further stated that "The MO-100 off road trailer is not equipped with any lighting." We understand that you wish to import these trailers into the United States from Canada.

We appreciate your sending us illustrations of both trailers, as that enables us to provide you with a more definitive response to your questions.

We first address your opinion that "the MO-100 off road will not require any DOT approval as it is not for use on the highway." However, you have provided no arguments in support of your conclusion. We do not accept such statements of use at face value when it appears to us that a vehicle is capable of being used both on and off the public roads. As we see them, the MO-100 and the MR-100 are both capable of on and off road use; they are almost identical in appearance and size, and their interior dimensions and volume are identical. There are, to be sure, some distinctions between the two trailers. The rear fender well molding on which the MR-100s rear lamp is mounted has been removed from the MO-100, opening the wheelwell (which might facilitate brush clearance) and the MO-100 is equipped with "AT-22 x 11-8 2 ply tires." However, there does not appear to be any practical reason why the owner of an MO-100 could not replace these tires and their rims with the "5.30 x 12 6 ply tires" of the MR-100. These features taken alone fail to establish that the MO-100 is not likely to be used on the public streets , roads, and highways. I also note that the MO-100 is advertised as having "high speed quality hubs & bearings," which suggests on-road capability.

We would consider such arguments as you care to present in support of your opinion that the MO-100 "is not for use on the highway." We have issued numerous interpretations on the issue of whether particular vehicles are "motor vehicles." I am enclosing one of these interpretations for your consideration (letter to Ronald Sheldon, dated May 4, 2000). For purposes of this letter, we consider that both the MO-100 and MR-100s are motor vehicles and required to comply with the FMVSS that apply to trailers and to be certified as complying with these FMVSS.

You have asked four questions:

"1) Are these trailers in compliance with DOT requirements?"

We do not know. The MO and MR trailers must be manufactured to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 (lamps and reflectors), 119 (tires), and 120 (rims). The MO and MR trailers are too long and too wide to qualify for the exceptions for lighting equipment allowed for smaller trailers under S5.1.1.14 and S5.1.1.15 of Standard No. 108. The manufacturer of the trailers must ensure that they are equipped with all lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 and that they are equipped with tires and rims that meet Standards Nos. 119 and 120 as well.

"2) Do they need a DOT Approval letter to import these trailers into the United States as the Original Manufacturer."

No. There are no "DOT Approval" letters. Each trailer must have a manufacturers certification label affixed to it in the form and manner prescribed by 49 CFR Part 567. That will enable the trailer to be readily imported into the United States.

Nor are there "DOT-approved tail and marker lights" as you referred to them in your letter. A DOT symbol appearing on an item of lighting equipment represents its manufacturers certification of compliance with U.S. Federal requirements. It does not represent any "approval" by DOT. We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" vehicles or equipment.

"3) Will they have to be entered through a Registered Importer?"

A trailer that has been certified by its original manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (see answer to Question 2 above) may be directly imported into the United States. Vehicles that have not been so certified must be imported through a registered importer, and many other requirements may apply.

"4) Do they have to assign a designated agent for a foreign manufacturer? (Service of Process)?"

Yes. The Canadian manufacturer of the trailers must file such a designation, and the designation must follow the form and content specified in 49 CFR 551.45.

I enclose a copy of information that the agency provides prospective manufacturers of motor vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.8/15/02

ID: nht79-2.29

DATE: 11/08/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Veeder-Root Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Alan L. Sinder Manager Vehicle Products Group Veeder-Root Company Hartford, Connecticut 06102

Dear Mr. Sinder:

This is in response to your letter of August 21, 1979, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, Speed-ometers and Odometers, applies to your product, the Veeder-Root 7-Day Tachograph, and whether the odometer provisions of the standard would apply if your product were installed in vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of less than 16,000 pounds. You also asked whether a tachograph installed in a school bus as a replacement for the speedometer and marked with speeds from 0 to 50 mph on both the dial and on the inside chart would comply with Safety Standard 127.

Section 4.1.1 of Safety Standard 127 requires that "each motor vehicle shall have a speedometer that meets the requirements . . ." of the standard. Section 4.2.1 requires that "each motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 16,000 pounds or less shall have an odometer that meets the requirements . . ." of the standard. Therefore a tachograph installed in lieu of the speedometer and odometer in a new vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 16,000 pounds or less must meet both the speedometer and the odometer requirements of Safety Standard 127. If the new vehicle in which the tachograph were installed had a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 16,000 pounds the speedometer requirements of Safety Standard 127 would apply but the odometer requirements would not.

If the tachograph were installed in a new vehicle as a supplement to an existing speedometer and odometer which meet the requirements of Safety Standard 127, the provisions of Safety Standard No. 127 would not apply to the tachograph.

Section 4.1.4 of Safety Standard 127 provides that:

No speedometer shall have graduations or numerical values for speeds greater than 140 km/h and 85 mph and shall not otherwise indicate such speeds.

Although this section specifies the maximum speed indication which may appear on the dial of a speedometer, it does not prohibit the use of a lower maximum speed indication. Section 4.1.5 of the standard provides that "each speedometer shall include the numeral '55' in the mph scale." However, this provision assumes that the speedmmeter dial will have calibrations for speeds in excess of 55 mph. If the speedometer dial will not include calibrations for speeds of 55 mph and above, then there is no requirement that the numeral 55 be included in the mph scale. This follows from the rationale on which Safety Standard 127 is based, which is to reduce the temptation for drivers to test the top speeds of their vehicles and to induce greater compliance with the national maximum speed limit of 55 mph.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been greatly inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 21, 1979

Ms. Kathleen DeMeter Office of Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street, So. West Washington, D. C. 20591

Dear Ms. DeMeter:

Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Office of Crash Avoidance suggested that I write you seeking a legal opinion concerning the coverage of FMVSS-127 in regards to Tachographs.

The enclosed literature describes our products. The Tachograph sometimes is used by itself and sometimes in conjunction with the existing speedometer. I would like to know if 127 is applicable to these products and whether the odometer sections of 127 would apply if these units were installed on vehicles of less than 16,000 pounds GVW.

We are currently working with a School Bus Authority whose installations specify a unit whose dial face shows from 0 to 50 MPH. It is probable that this unit would replace the current speedometer. Must the Tachograph face show from 0 to 85 MPH with 55 highlighted or can this School District specification stand as written ( 0 to 50 MPH on a dial and 0 to 50 on the inside chart)? The specifications also call for road speed - electro mechanical engine - governors permanently set at 45 MPH maximum.

I would appreciate your response as soon as possible as the specification for this School District requirements are in the process of being finalized.

Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

VEEDER-ROOT COMPANY

Alan L. Sinder Manager Vehicle Products Group

ALS/gsb

Enclosure