ID: 86-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Gordon T. Germain; NHTSA

TO: Gordon T. Germain, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Gordon T. Germain, Esq. Bertram & Germain P.O. Box 132 Monticello, Kentucky 42633

Dear Mr. Germain:

We regret the delay in responding to Your January 1, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the applicability of Federal law to the modification of used vans. You explained that in 1980, used 1971 model year vans were purchased by the Wayne County School Board and converted by the Wayne County's school systems into school vehicles. You asked whether Federal law applies to the conversion of the used vehicles by the school systems. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

Before I begin, I would like to emphasize that our comments relate only to our interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act from our vantage point as a Federal enforcement agency. This letter explains how our requirements apply to the situation you present and is an opinion on compliance with Safety Act provisions. It does not address the manner in which violations of Safety Act provisions affect private litigation. Such an issue would be a matter for state courts to determine.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), which authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, includes a limitation on the modification of safety systems installed on used motor vehicles pursuant to those standards, Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Thus, the applicability of section 108(a)(2)(A) depends in part on the identity of the person converting the vans. That section applies only to the aforementioned commercial-type businesses modifying used vehicles. It does not apply to an owner, such as a state or a school, which

January 7, 1986

Chief Counsel of Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel N. H. T. S. A. Room 5219 NOA-30 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

If you would, please accept this letter as an inquiry for a certified copy of an opinion as to the application of the traffic and motor vehicle safety regulations applicable to a school system purchasing used vans and converting them to use as school buses.

In 1980, the Wayne County School Board purchased used 1971 telephone vans from General Telephone. The school system then took the vans and converted them for use as school buses. My question is whether any of the Federal traffic and motor vehicle safety regulations or standards would apply to the school board in the conversion of these vans. If there are applicable Federal statutes, codes or safety standards, I would appreciate knowing which ones would apply. If no Federal statute, regulation or standard applies, I would appreciate an opinion as to the exemption of the school system from the application.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gordon T. Germain

GTG/jj

ID: 20178.ztv

ECIE
Via Comune Antico, 43
20125 Milano
Italy
Attn: Mara Migliazza

Dear Ms. Migliazza:

We are replying to your emails of June 18, 1999, to Kenneth Weinstein of this agency, and of July 8, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. We apologize for the delay in responding to you.

In your first email, you have told us that your company manufactures lighting equipment for motorcycles and that you "have the certificate of compliance and test report of our device with tests according to your FMVSS 108." You have asked whether the certificate of compliance is "always acceptable for you or have we to remake all the test to obtain another certificate after some year?" You reference a headlamp that meets the 1992 version of Standard No. 108 and is molded with a "92DOT" symbol, which is supported by "the test report and the certificate of compliance of 1992."

First, a clarification. We believe that you are using the term "certificate of compliance" to mean the statement by a test laboratory that the lighting device that it has tested meets the specifications of Standard No. 108, as indicated by the accompanying test report. However, under our laws, a "certificate of compliance" is the indication by a manufacturer that its lighting product meets Standard No. 108, such as the DOT symbol on a headlamp lens.

Each item of motorcycle lighting equipment covered by Standard No. 108 must comply with the standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to the standard. A test report based on proper testing can verify that the particular lamp tested conforms to Standard No. 108, and can afford a reasonable basis for the manufacturer to certify compliance, by concluding that identical lamps, if tested, would also conform to Standard No. 108. However, human and mechanical errors in production (such as failure to account for variations in tolerances) can result in the production of non-complying products. Therefore, we believe that a manufacturer of lighting equipment should test its product pursuant to a quality control program after the lighting item is produced to assure itself that the product as manufactured conforms to Standard No. 108.

In your email of July 8, 1999, you ask if we can write "what is the US right procedure for lighting device certification." We are pleased to provide you with this information. The lens of each headlamp (other than a motorcycle headlamp) must be certified by marking it with the DOT symbol (S7.2(a) of Standard No. 108), whether the headlamp is original or replacement equipment. Other items of replacement lighting equipment, including motorcycle headlamps, may be certified either by marking with the DOT symbol (S5.8.10), or "by a label or tag on the equipment or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered" (49 U.S.C. 30115). Other than headlamps, no certification is required for lighting items installed on a motor vehicle as original equipment; the manufacturer of the vehicle attaches a label to the vehicle certifying that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and this includes certification to the requirements of Standard No. 108. Of course, the vehicle manufacturer should obtain test reports and other quality-related assurances from the lighting equipment manufacturer that the equipment complies before it affixes its vehicle certification label.

There is no need to "register" a certificate of compliance with NHTSA or any other entity. However, a manufacturer located outside the United States is required to designate an agent in the United States who can receive official correspondence (49 CFR 551.45). Further, all manufacturers of equipment covered by Standard No. 108 are required to file an identification statement with us (49 CFR 566).

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/28/99

ID: 8317

Mr. Milford R. Bennett
Acting Director
Automotive Safety Engineering
GM Environmental and Energy Staff
Box 9055
Warren, MI 48090-9055

Dear Mr. Bennett:

We have received the petition by General Motors (GM) for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures.

First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until "resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . ." We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV.

We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be "slightly below" the minimum requirements "at a few test points". Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points?

Similarly, GM has argued that "preliminary testing has indicated that" the GMEV will "substantially comply" with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide ". . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . ." Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition.

Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that "the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles." The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above.

When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:3/15/93

ID: 2622y

Herr Hanno Westermann
Hella KG Hueck & Co
Postfach 28 40
4780 Lippstadt
W. Germany

Dear Herr Westermann:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency with respect to "multi bulb devices", specifically "how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure lb have to be interpreted. . . ." You have asked this question because "Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have --opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb." Your question assumes that Standard No. l08 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-compartment lamps.

We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September l988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, l990, an amendment to Standard No. l08 was published, effective December 1, l990, the effect of which is to restrict Figure 1b to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

Your question relates to "signalling devices" for new motor vehicles, and Figure 1b shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December l, l990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width. SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width. In the May l990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for "Multiple Compartment Lamp". Such a lamp is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens." The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition.

SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5.1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395 applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections". Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:8/22/90

ID: 77-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Commercial Plastics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 7, 1976, regarding the use of plastic glazing materials for side windows of school buses. You asked what materials are permitted by Federal regulations for school bus side windows and whether Federal laws concerning the materials that may be used preempt State laws on the same subject.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et. seq.) provides in part:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205) currently does not permit the use of plastic glazing in bus side windows. Therefore, State laws that permit plastic glazing are in direct conflict with Standard No. 205, and it is the agency's opinion that they would be preempted.

I would point out that the agency recently issued a proposal to amend Standard No. 205 that would permit the use of rigid plastic glazing in bus side windows (41 FR 56837, Dec. 30, 1976). I am enclosing a copy of this proposal for your information. I am also enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 and the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205. From these standards you can determine the various types of glazing materials that are permitted for side windows and the requirements that the glazing must meet.

Regarding your question about replacement glazing, Standard No. 205 is not a vehicle standard and is applicable to all glazing for use in motor vehicles, whether the glazing is to be installed in new vehicles or as replacement in used vehicles. Therefore, glazing manufacturers and fabricators cannot produce glazing to be used in a given location in a vehicle unless the standard permits that type of glazing to be used in that location, regardless of whether it is original or replacement glazing.

SINCERELY,

COMMERCIAL PLASTICS & SUPPLY CORP.

December 7, 1976

Office of Chief Council National Hway Traffic Safety Admin.

Att: Mr. Oates:

We have received many inquiries in recent months regarding the use of plastic glazing materials for the side windows of school buses. Naturally, our primary concern is what material is permitted by the Department of Transportation for this use.

On Thursday, November 18, I was in telephone contact with you regarding this subject of school bus glazing. My question is, does the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation supercede that of the State Agencies concerning material permitted in the buses? If so, then why are there states that presently have their own requirements for these buses, which greatly differ from those of your department.

My second question is, what material is accepted by your department for side window glazing and what are the specifications and requirements this material must meet? If it is possible, please send me a copy of this for examination.

Finally, please explain in detail the Standard 205 with respect to replacement window glazing and new equipment requirements. I feel a full explanation will clear up many of my questions.

Thanking in in advance, I remain

David Munafo Transportation Division

ID: 77-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Senate Transportation Committee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Permit me to comment upon Oregon House Bill 2998 which I understand is to be considered by the Transportation Committee of the Oregon Senate on June 3, 1977.

The Bill would amend ORS 483.404 to require that headlamps on motor vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or

". . . the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts; done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both."

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for headlamps both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles. Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." [Emphasis added.]

The United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, permit the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000, and do not require that they be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and requires that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, do not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that if House Bill 2998 is enacted in its present form the language that I quoted from it would, in our opinion, be preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect. This means also that any person in Oregon manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States a headlamp that did not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon House Bill 2998 were it to be enacted, would be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) in an amount up to $ 800,000 (15 U.S.C. 1398(a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C.

1399(a)).

Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariably upheld. (See e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy, 294 F. Supp 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)) We would also observe that the interpretation of the preemption language by this agency, as the administering agency, has been viewed by courts as "of controlling weight." (Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra, at 512.)

If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to assist you (202-426-9511).

ID: 77-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Krystal Glass Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 11, 1977, question whether the stained glass portholes manufactured by your company for use on van vehicles have to comply with Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You contend that since the portholes are backed by complying safety glazing the intent of Standard No. 205 is met, even though the stained glass itself is not safety glazing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot agree with your interpretation. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing material for use in specified locations in motor vehicles. All parts of your stained glass porthole windows must comply with the requirements of the standard. The safety glazing that backs your portholes could be damaged during a crash and the vehicle occupants could be exposed to the noncomplying stained glass. The NHTSA, therefore, disagrees with your conclusion that the intent of Standard No. 205 is met by the Krystal Glass porthole windows.

You should be aware that paragraph S6.2 of the standard requires a prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing material that is designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, (15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et. seq.), and by marking the glazing with the "DOT" symbol and a manufacturer's code mark. A prime glazing material manufacturer is defined as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. A manufacturer's code mark is assigned by the NHTSA upon the written request of a manufacturer.

Enclosed is a copy of the ANS Z26 standard, as requested in your telephone conversation with Hugh Oates of this office.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MARCH 11, 1977

Frank Berndt

Subject: Stained Glass Portholes, with safty glass backing.

Dear sir,

In our research to insure that Stained Glass Portholes were a safe and legal product, we have met and discussed the product with both State and Federal officials. Our first step was directed toward approval from the California Division of Highway Patrol - Engineering Division. Stained Glass Portholes, backed with safety glazing, (AS-2) were shown to a Mr. Robert Sheppard. He held the Portholes for inspection by his department until he was assured that we had a safe product, (one that complies with the safety codes). He telephoned Krystal Glass Co. on 3, March 1977 and gave an assurance that we had a safe product and that it was ok to go ahead with manufacturing.

We proceeded to manufacture and market our windows until 8, March 1977. On this day a Federal Official, Mr. Joseph Zamaitas, contacted our company and informed us we were required to meet Federal Safety Standard #205, also that we possibly needed a manufactures code number. Therefore would you please consider our question. If we install Automotive Safety Glazing (AS-4) or Laminated Safety Glass (AS-2) on the inside portion of the unit, towards the passenger compartment, does this comply with the intent of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205?

Besides protecting the passenger compartment with an approved Safety Glazing, we were concerned with the shattering effects of our Stained Glass Plate. After testing the evidence, it is quite clear that the shattered glass was contained within the leaded channels.

We have submitted the Stained Glass Porthole that we tested for your inspection, also included are two undamaged protholes for your inspection.

Your rapid reply to our question in regards to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205, would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

John Watson -- Krystal Glass Co.

ID: 77-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: TTMA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 16, 1977, letter in which you ask for an interpretation of the certification label requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, as they apply to trailers.

In your first question, you ask whether a trailer manufacturer may conform with the certification requirements in any one of three ways: list the GVWR and GAWR with the corresponding tires, rims, and inflation pressure with which the trailer is equipped; list all suitable combinations with the required information as shown in the example appearing in Standard No. 120; or list only the maximum GVWR and maximum GAWR with the proper tires, rims, and inflation pressure, plus the GVWR and GAWR of the trailer with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure with which it is equipped. According to the requirements of Standard No. 120, any of the three methods outlined above would appear to be acceptable.

Your second question presents a sample certification plate which lists all of the axles on the trailer. You ask whether it is permissible, where the data for all axles is identical, to list the proper tires, rims, and inflation pressure for the front axle then merely state "Same as Front" for the remaining axles rather than repeat the same data for all axles. The label requirements of the standard do not permit the approach you suggest. You must list all data for each axle. You should note that there is a proposal to amend Part 567, Certification, to permit a simplification of label requirements when the data for all axles is identical. I am enclosing a copy of this proposal for your information.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

March 16, 1977

Fred Koch Office of Crash Avoidance National Highway Safety Administration

S. 120 - Tire Clarification

It is our understanding that if a trailer manufacturer has several tire options for a trailer model, such as 10.00 x 20, 10.00 x 22, and 10.00 radial x 22, then he may note this at least three different ways on the certification label per S. 120.

(a) He may list the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure as the trailer is equipped. That is, he may have three labels to choose from, depending on the tires selected by the purchaser.

(b) He may list the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tire, rims, and inflation pressure for each option as shown in the example in S. 120.

(c) He may list the maximum GVWR and the corresponding maximum GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure yielding the maximum rating and the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure for the trailer as equipped.

Since some European tire manufacturers do not use the "R" in their tire size designation to indicate radial it is understood that the trailer manufacturer may add the note that the stated inflation pressure is for radial tires.

It is also our understanding that where all axles on a trailer are similar, that the certification plate may state:

GVWR: x x x x

GAWR: Front - x x x x with x x x x tires, x x x rims, at xx psi cold dual.

First Intermediate - Same as Front

Second Intermediate - Same as Front

Rear - Same as Front

Please inform us if our understanding of S. 120 is correct.

Don W. Vierimaa Engineering Manager

cc: TTMA ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

ID: 1984-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: COSCO -- Don Gerken, Research and Development

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Don Gerken Senior Product Engineer Research and Development COSCO 2525 State Street Columbus, Indiana 47201

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S 571.213). Specifically you noted that your company would like to begin producing a child restraint system with a new shield design. The new shield would be substantially smaller than the shield your company currently uses. You noted that this type of shield is already being sold by other companies, and that in your restraint, the harness system, but not the shelf-like shield, would restrain the child's forward movement. A system with that characteristic would not comply with Standard No. 213.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 213 specifies that no fixed or movable surface shall be in front of the child, except surfaces which restrain the child. Since your proposed new shield does not restrain the child, it is expressly prohibited from being mounted on the child restraint.

Even assuming that the proposed new shield did act to restrain the child, there is still a question of whether the shield would comply with section S5.2.2.1(c), since your drawing does not indicate which portions of the shield would restrain a child's torso and thus would need to comply with the 2-inch radius of curvature requirement.

At this time, the Enforcement Division of this agency has several investigations pending concerning potential violations of the standard by firms using shields along the lines of the shield you propose. These investigations focus primarily on whether such shields satisfy the 2-inch radius of curvature requirement of section S5.2.2.1(c) of Standard No. 213.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information or have further questions on this matter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

September 27, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt:

My present project is to reduce cost of our Child Restraints and, at the same time, comply with the Standards.

We make a shield, illustrated as Design "A" attached, that is costly and we cannot produce it in-house. The shape illustrated as Design "B" lends itself to injection molding that we could do in-house. If this shape were used in such a way that it was spring loaded upward and moving it down in front of a child would also place a harness system on the child, would this design violate the Standards, assuming it met all the test criteria?

In effect, the harness system would restrain the child's forward movement -- not the shelf-like shield.

This is not something new. The concept now is being sold; but before pursuing this concept further ourselves, we would like assurance that the concept will comply.

Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Don Gerken

Senior Product Engineer Research and Development

rm

Encl.

INSERT GRAPH

ID: 1984-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Regional Administrator, NHTSA Region V

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Legal Opinion - School Bus Definition Change Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Regional Administrator, NHSTA Region V

This responds to your May 10, 1984, memo regarding Representative Mautino's bill, NB 3117, which would amend the Illinois Vehicle Code to exclude from the definition of "school bus" any vehicle designed to carry 15 or fewer passengers. The Illinois Department of Transportation asked what the consequences would be if this amendment were enacted into law. You referred their inquiry to this office for our reply.

HB 3117 would classify as "school buses" vehicles which are designed to carry 16 or more passengers that are owned by or operated for a school, for the transportation of students. Our Federal regulations define a bus to be a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and further define a school bus to be a bus that is sold for the purposes of carrying students to and from school or related events. The decision of Illinois not to adopt the Federal classification has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standard to that vehicle. The Federal school bus safety standards would apply to vehicles that meet the Federal definition of a school bus, regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under the state regulations. Of course, the Federal standards apply only to those vehicles that were manufactured after the effective date of the standards, April 1, 1977.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states generally that no State shall have in effect any State standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. State standards that are not identical are preempted by the Safety Act unless they impose a higher level of safety and are applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use.

Thus the preemptive effect of section 103(d) is not altered by the fact that a vehicle classified as a school bus under the Safety Act is classified as some other type of motor vehicle under State law. Regardless of how Illinois classifies a particular vehicle, if there are Federal standards regulating certain aspects of performance of the vehicle, any State standards regulating the same aspects of performance must be identical except, as already noted, when it sets a higher standard of performance for a vehicle procurred for the State's own use.

A state decision to adopt all or none of the Federal standards applicable to a type of motor vehicle has no effect on the necessity under the Safety Act of manufacturing such a motor vehicle is accordance with the Federal standards. Further, any person selling vehicles for use in school transportation which fail to comply with all applicable safety standards is violating the Safety Act and is subject to a maximum penalty of $1,000 per violation. We note further that use of noncomplying vehicles as school buses could result in potential liability problems for the users of the vehicle if the buses are involved in accidents.

The proposed State definition change also would not affect the definition of school bus used by the agency for the purposes of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17.