ID: 1983-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: LJM Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 22 1983

Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President, LJH Associates. Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91034

Dear Mr. Mandell:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1983, discussing a lighting product that you have developed and asking for "the approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.

Your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rear lights to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, your devise operates by lights spreading from the center of the panel outward, in either or both directions.

We think that there is a great potential for confusion that this devise could create since it is so unlike anything seen before on a motor vehicle. In the stopping mode the driver following will see the steady light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, but also the dynamic lights of your devise spreading out from the center. The same dynamic light spread is seen but is meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously in the hazard warning mode. Thus, the potential for impairment of the required lighting equipment exists.

Generally, we do not favor any lights on the rear of a vehicle that are not required by the Federal lighting standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 19, 1983

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

I am president of a small consulting firm in Los Angeles that has developed a product that at worst I believe to be a decorative device and at best I believe to enhance the safety of an automobile. I hope to be raising venture capital in the near future to allow me to go into production of this device but before I do so I would Like to obtain approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.

This device is a display integrated into the standard rear grill many production automobiles. The intention of this device is to enchance the normal rear lights on an automobile and to exist in addition to and to not impair the effectiveness but to enchance the normal operating characteristics of the existing rear lights (Motor VehicLe Safety Standard No. 108 - S4.1.3).

The major functions of this device work in conjunction with normal light functions without any additional operator intervention. Some of these functions are:

BRAKE < -> < ---> < -----> BRAKE

RIGHT TURN

LEFT TURN

EMERGENCY FLASHERS

CAUTION

REVERSE BACKING UP

Some sample photographs are enclosed to illustrate these displays. Please feel free to contact me if necessary to insure a positive disposition of this inquiry.

Sincerely,

Lee Jay Mandell President, LJM Associates, Inc.

INSERT GRAPH HERE

INSERT GRAPH HERE

ID: 1983-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Scully Vice President Peterson Manufacturing Co. 4200 East 135th Street Grandview, Missouri 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1983, to Mr. Cavey of this agency asking for a copy "of an NHTSA ruling issued sometime ago which supposedly permits the triple identification lights normally mounted on the top rear center line of semi-trailers to be mounted at the lower sill location."

I enclose a copy of an interpretation furnished the State of Wisconsin on June 18, 1981, concerning this practice by Fruehauf Corporation. In summary, Fruehauf demonstrated to us the impracticability of mounting the lights at the top of a body with high-opening doors and a narrow header (chiefly because of vulnerability of the wiring).

The agency's interpretation was limited to vehicles of that specific configuration, and was not intended to apply to semi-trailers in general.

If you have any further questions, we shall be glad to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

October 25, 1983

Mr. Kevin Cavey Crash Avoidance The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Kevin:

At the recent SAE Lighting Committee meetings, there was some discussion of an NHTSA ruling issued sometime ago which supposedly permits the triple identification lights normally mounted on the top rear center line of semi-trailers to be mounted at the lower sill location. Frankly, I was rather surprised at this and had not been aware of any such ruling. Most of the industry now feels that the NHTSA has granted the trailer industry permission to mount these triple identification lamps at the lower sill level rather than at the top most part of the trailer which had previously been required.

I would very much appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the reference letter which had been discussed granting permission for these lamps to be mounted at the lower heighth.

Since the rear clearance lamps are now normally mounted in combination with the turn signal lamps at the lower rear of the trailer, these identification lights were really the only high mounted lamps required on the rear of the trailers and they served well to indicate that a heavy, over 80" vehicle was on the highway. If these lights are permitted to be mounted at the lower level, the following drivers will have absolutely no means of knowing that a large, heavy-duty vehicle is in front of them. If information I have received is correct, in a few years time we have gone from these five high mounted lights on the rear of semi-trailers to no lighting at the top of the trailer. Obviously, a vehicle directly behind the trailer could block all access to the lower lights and a following driver, except the one directly behind the trailer, would have no way of knowing the vehicle was even there. I am quite surprised that NHTSA would grant such an exception on a permanent basis and therefore I would very much appreciate a copy of that so-called ruling which I understand has been issued.

Very truly yours,

Paul Scully Vice President

cc: Don Armacost, Jr. Joe Hodges

ID: 1983-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jeff S. Brantner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1983, to the Urban Mass Transit Administration, which was forwarded to this agency for reply, concerning legal requirements regulating window stickers. The following discussion addresses the Federal requirements applicable to sticker or other films applied to glazing materials in motor vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that films such as the type referred to in your letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-1834).

SINCERELY,

Arthur E. Teele Jr. Urban Mass Trans. Admin.

November 9, 1983

Dear Mr. Teele.

I have designed an automobile sticker that I feel is very catchy and will hopefully be on the rear windows of a large number of vehicles. I do have a question though, regarding the legal size of a window sticker. My tentative design is three (3) inches high by sixteen (16) inches wide. I feel that the width is not as critical as the heighth as far as a visability restriction is concerned, yet I would like to keep it legal in order to avoid any trouble.

I will appreciate any help that you can give me, since this means a great deal to me. Thank you, in advance, for your time and effort.

Jeff Brantner

ID: 1984-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/84 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. -- Seiroku Miyauchi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Seiroku Miyauchi Plastic Products Dev. & Marketing Div. Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. 1-2, Marunouchi, 2-Chome Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100 Japan

This responds to your letter to Mr. Francis Armstrong asking several questions about Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. The answers to your questions are discussed below.

Your first question concerned the requirements of Weathering Test No. 16 of American National Standard Institute Z-26. The version of ANSI Z-26 currently incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205 is ANSI Z-26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1a, July 3, 1980, rather than ANSI Z-26.1-1977 as cited in your letter. Your question has to do with the language of section 5.16.3 of ANSI Z-26, which states that after the weathering test, "the decrease in regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of the irradiated specimen shall not exceed 5 percent." You ask whether the permissible decrease is an absolute 5 percentage points (defined as A-B, where A is the luminous transmittance before the test and B is the luminous transmittance after the test) or is a relative decrease of 5 percent (defined as (A-B)/A). The permissible decrease is a relative decrease of 5 percent (defined as (A-B)/A), or stated another way, the irradiated specimen must have 95 percent of its original transmittance after the test.

You also asked if Weathering Test No. 16 applies to AS-7 glazing materials. As required by Table 1 of ANSI Z-26, the weathering test does apply to AS-7 glazing materials.

Finally, you asked which DOT number, yours or the resin maker's, should be applied to a motorcycle windshield you make with an injection machine from polycarbonate resin pellets. Your DOT number must be used, since you fabricate the actual item of glazing material that will be placed in a vehicle.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Dec. 26, 1983

Mr. Francis Armstrong Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Sw. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Mr. F. Armstrong :

This is a letter in response to your letter of December 8, 1983. We appreciate your kind cooperation very much. This time, we would like to inquire you the following questions.

(1) Concerning the weathering test (test No.16 of ANS Z26.1-1977) It describes that the decrease in luminous transmittance of the irradiated specimens shall not exceed 5%. Would you tell me the meaning cf the above mentioned decrease ? It can be defined as either way ... (A-B)/A or (A-B) A : the luminous transmittance before test B : the luminous transmittance after test We think (A-B) is correct. Because if (A-B)/A is correct, the allowable decrease (A-B) is relatively smaller in proportion to the smaller A value. And in addition, is the above criteria applied to AS-7 grade, which is defined at the level not requisite for driving visibility?

(2) Concerning the marking of safety glazing materials. We purchase the polycarbonate resin pellets from resin makers, and mold windscreens for motorcycles with injection machine. In this connection, which DOT number should we mark the resin maker's number or our number ?

Your prompt answer will be much appreciated.

Yours Sincerely,

( Seiroku Miyauchi ) Technical Manager Plastic Products Dev. & Marketing Div. Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.

SM / yy

ID: nht79-2.41

DATE: 06/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1979, asking two questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is "if it is permissible to locate clearance lamps up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a boat trailer?" You have submitted a drawing approved by NHTSA in 1975, in which the center of the rear clearance lamps are within a zone extending from the edge of a truck to 13 inches inboard.

Standard No. 108 requires rear clearance lamps to be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle" (Table II). The zones installed on the truck drawing are at the extreme width of the vehicle at its top, and proper for the configuration shown. The widest part of a boat trailer, however, is at its fenders, but because of its configuration, clearance and identification lamps are necessarily mounted at the bottom of the vehicle rather than at its top. In this location they can be obscured by the load projecting over the rear of the trailer edge if mounted inboard of the fenders whereas outboard mounting renders this improbable. We conclude, therefore, that a mounting 13 inches inboard would not meet the requirement of Table II that clearance lamps be mounted to indicate the overall width of the vehicle.

Your second question is whether "it is permissible to combine a clearance lamp function in a tail lamp fixture if a second bulb is installed in the tail lamp which, when lit alone, satisfies the photometric requirements for the clearance lamp shown through the tail lamp lens . . . and further assuming that all tail lamp photometric requirements are met when the tail lamp bulb alone is lit and when both lamps are lit."

The answer is no. Paragraph S4.4.1 clearly specifies that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp . . . ." The combination lamp you describe would appear to create an optical combination when both bulbs are lit.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

Trailer Manufacturers association

May 2, 1979

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Recently the enclosed information came to our attention where apparently since 1975, an interpretation has existed that the clearance lamps on commercial highway trailers may be up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a trailer.

Boat trailer manufacturers would like to take advantage of this same interpretation which would allow clearance lamps to be mounted directly to trailer frame siderails where both the lamp and wiring harness would be better protected than mounted to projecting fenders that owners invariably use as steps. These fenders do not project more than 13 inches, and are normally well forward of the rear of the trailer.

Please advise us if it is permissible to locate clearance lamps up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a boat trailer.

A second question is if it is permissible to combine a clearance lamp function in a tail lamp fixture if a second bulb is installed in the tail lamp which, when lit alone, satisfies the photometric requirements for the clearance lamp shown through the tail lamp lens --- and further assuming that all tail lamp photometric requirements are met when the tail lamp bulb alone is lit and when both bulbs are lit.

Director of Engineering

Donald I. Reed

KEY

(Illegible Lines)

NOTES

(Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.5

DATE: 04/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Studio Aguila

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 12, 1979, letter asking whether a sports car designed for use without doors must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). The vehicle design discussed in your letter would apparently only have attachable doors for use in bad weather.

Since the test procedures in Safety Standard No. 214 require a loading device to be placed against the vehicle door, a passenger car having no doors could not practicably be tested. Therefore, a vehicle having doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from the vehicle are not required to comply with Safety Standard No. 214, if the vehicle is designed to be operated without the doors.

SINCERELY,

MARCH 12, 1979

Joseph J Levin Jr Chief Counsel Deartment of Transportation NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINSTRATION

Dear Mr. Levin,

Our office would like clarification from your Department on a point of ruling refering to USFMVSS 214.

We have a client, for whom we are developing a vehicle design aimed at introduction into the US market. This vehicle, being principally recreational in nature (In the sense of a sports car rather than a camper) is designed for use without doors.

Whilst this clearly is covered in clause S4 of VS206 we are concerned about VS214.

On the face of it one might say this vehicle need not comply with the standard VS214 as doors are not fitted except as draft excluders for use in any inclement weather. (Ref: VS206).

However, as we see it, although the rule VS214 states its purpose is to test door strength, the intent and partialy stated objective is to prevent injury to the occupants in a side collision situation. We feel therefore morally obliged to meet this aspect of the rules intent.

We would like your confirmation of the following points in this regard.

1/ Does the fact that the vehicle complies with VS206 Clause S4 (ie is Designed for use without doors) mean that we are not required to demonstrate compliance with VS-216?

2/ If the answer to the above is affirmative and we do have to show compliance with VS214 how should we locate the test device when we have no door?

3/ May we demonstrate compliance by placing the loading device at a height above the ground line with the vehicle loaded to its GVW which corresponds to the typical height at which the load device would be placed for the majority of the US vehicle population?

Our vehicle has extremely deep sills which are effectively very deep but rigidly integrated into the chassis structure, doors.

May we therefore locate the test device with reference to this sill provided that the height covered (See first para of Q3) indicates the strength at the point at which a side intrusion at an intersection collision is most likely to occur?

If we can have your confirmation of approval of proceedures outlined in 3, we will test to VS214 on those lines.

Otherwise we shall require a clear answer to Q1/.

We are looking forward to your reply at your earliest opportunity.

Dave Williams DIRECTOR -- DESIGN OFC.

ID: nht79-2.50

DATE: 01/23/79

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

TO: Esley Development Corporation

COPYEE: Don Morrison -- BMCS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1978, asking about your responsibilities, as the manufacturer of a snow plow headlamp holder, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Under the Act a truck, with or without snow plow attachment, is a "motor vehicle" and the plow itself and any associated equipment is considered "motor vehicle equipment" since it is an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. But Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, contains no requirements either for snow plow or accessory lighting, and your sealbeam holder therefore is not subject to regulation under the standard. However, as a manufacturer of "motor vehicle equipment," you are responsible for notification of purchasers and dealers, and remedy of any safety-related defects that may occur in your product. (Sec. 151 et seq. of the Act)

As to "what legal burden rests" with you as a "manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse" of your units once they leave your plant, we are uncertain what you mean by "misuse." If you mean that the holder is used in a way that you did not intend, then the question would appear to be one not answerable under Federal law. If the "misuse" is attributable to a defect in the sealbeam holder, then the question would arise whether the defect is safety-related. If the answer is affirmative, then you would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, for a reply to your question as to what Federal requirements must be met for use of your units "on inter and intra state highways."

Enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested, as well as a copy of the Act.

SINCERELY,

ESLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

December 21, 1978

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of an all rubber heavy duty auxiliary lighthousing used in off road mining, construction and logging. We are looking into manufacturing a snow-plow headlight with a turn signal attachment out of the same heavy duty rubber. It will be similar to the Yankee snow plow light and the Dietz snow plow light. It will be designed to hold a standard PAR 56 sealbeam of the 6014 or 6015 series as manufactured by G.E., Wagner Tung-Sol, and Westinghouse which are the standard sealbeams being used as OEM in autos and trucks for their primary headlights. Since we are not manufacturers of the sealbeams but just the holder of the sealbeam we would like your determination and response to the following questions:

-- Is a snow plow or truck using a snowplow attachment considered a motorized vehicle?

-- What legal burden rests with us as a manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse of our units once they leave our plant?

-- What federal requirements or regulations must be met for use of our units on inter and intra state highways? $-- Please send us a copy of Federal Standard 108.

Gentlemen, it takes 6 to 8 months to develope a product such as this prior to going into production. We are aiming at the 79-80 winter season and would therefore appreciate receiving your reply and any other advise you care to pass along as soon as possible.

Stephen E. Hall President

ID: nht81-3.31

DATE: 11/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - New York

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 8, 1981 letter enclosing correspondence from Mrs. Barbara Stephens asking about extending the seat spacing in a school bus that is designed to transport handicapped children. You ask for general guidance in this area.

First, let me say that the safety standards apply to manufacturers of vehicles as well as those individuals that alter new motor vehicles. Further, repair businesses are not permitted to render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. On the other hand, nothing prohibits an individual from rendering inoperative the compliance of his or her own vehicle with any safety standard.

In specific reference to seat spacing in school buses, two general rules apply. First, seat spacing is not regulated in vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Accordingly, any modification of seat spacing in these vehicles is permissible. Second, in vehicles with GVWR's in excess of 10,000 pounds, seat spacing is regulated, and a manufacturer may not produce a vehicle whose spacing exceeds the specifications set in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Further, a repair business may not affect the seat spacing in a way that would violate the standard. An owner, however, may change the spacing in his or her own vehicle.

The agency has specifically provided for the transportation of the handicapped by allowing the installation of side-facing seats in school vehicles designated for handicapped transportation. We would suggest that this is a more suitable approach than extending seat spacing. By extending seat spacing, a school would be taking its vehicles out of compliance with the safety standards. In the event of an accident involving one of these vehicles, the school might be subject to unnecessary liability for having made these modifications to its vehicles.

I hope that this will be of use to you in advising schools of the Federal requirements, and if I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

SINCERELY,

NEW YORK STATE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

September 8, 1981

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Tilton:

We recently received the attached request and contacted a member of your organization (Mr. Robert Williams) to determine the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards once a vehicle reaches the users hands.

Since Medical Motor Service intended to modify the vehicle after taking title, it was determined that the standards did not apply since they are designed for manufacturers and manufacturers' representatives.

In discussing this situation, it was decided that we should send you a copy of the request since your organization is in the process of analyzing needs for handicapped transportation. We would appreciate your reactions and thoughts concerning the proposed modification. It is quite possible that similar circumstances might arise in the future and since we have no substantive guidelines to follow, your research in this general area might provide us with some input that will enable us to better cope with these situations.

We have already advised the company officials that there are no restrictions that would deny them the right to modify their vehicle so we are not delaying this operation in anyway while your review process takes place. Thank you for any help you can provide in this area.

JOHN H. SHAFER, Director Traffic and Safety Division

BY

MARTEN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ATTACH.

CC: BARBARA M. STEPHENS, EXECUTIVE DIR, MEDICAL MOTOR SERVICES; G. HUSSONG, TRAFFIC & SAFETY, REGION

ID: nht80-2.26

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Missouri

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 30 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Woody Fitzmaurice Supervisor, Pupil Transportation State of Missouri P.O. Box 480 Jefferson City Missouri 65102

Dear Mr. Fitzmaurice:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the State of Missouri has authority under Federal law to specify location requirements for fuel tanks on school buses.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) preempts, with one exception, State motor vehicle safety standards of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal safety standard governing the same aspect of motor vehicle performance. Thus, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), would preempt State requirements of general applicability governing the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 301. The specification of tank location in the Missouri requirements is intended to insure the integrity of the vehicle fuel system and, therefore, would be regarded by the agency as relating to the same aspect of performance as the barrier impact tests of Standard No. 301. In developing the performance requirements of the standard, the agency did not intend to regulate the location of fuel tanks.

The second sentence of section 103(d) of the Act clarifies that the limitation on State safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, the State of Missouri or its political subdivisions such as the Board of Education could specify additional fuel system requirements, such as tank location, in the case of public school buses, but not in the case of commercial buses. The State requirements are not permitted, however, to prevent the school bus or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. Therefore, the school bus manufacturer would have to comply with Safety Standard No. 301 regardless of the State requirements.

I hope this has answered all of your questions. However, if you require further information, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992)

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 2, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ATTENTION: Mr. Hugh Oates NOA-30 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oates:

The State Board of Education has statutory authority, in Missouri, to make manufacturing specifications for school buses. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the administrative arm of the State Board of Education, has always required that fuel tanks be placed on the right outside frame rail of the chassis. In our review of Federal Safety Standard 301 we found no mention of placement; however, we did find, in one preamble, that it might be construed that states would not have the authority to require placement of the fuel tanks in a specific location.

We would appreciate a more detailed and thorough explanation as to where the authority lies. You may or may not be aware that during the first week of May the National Conference on School Bus Specifications will be held and your reply will be used at this meeting.

Thanking you in advance,

Sincerely,

Woody Fitzmaurice, Supervisor Pupil Transportation

WF:pc

cc: Bruce McGuire National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Bob Burgess Missouri Division of Highway Safety

ID: nht80-2.34

DATE: 05/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Samual S. Stratton - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 7 1980

NOA-30

Honorable Samuel S. Stratton House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Stratton:

This responds to your recent correspondence requesting information on behalf of the Schenectady County Traffic Safety Board. The Safety Board is concerned that many new or converted propane-powered vehicles carry no identification indicating that the vehicles contain propane fuel instead of gasoline. The Safety Board states that this creates a dangerous situation for firemen, policemen or other emergency personnel who respond to accidents involving propane-powered vehicles. You were asked to initiate legislative action to require such identification on these vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, if there were a demonstrated safety need for identification on propane vehicles, the agency would have authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) to require a label or tag as was suggested by the Safety Board. Please inform the Safety Board that it should petition the agency to initiate rulemaking action to establish such a requirement if it has information or evidence indicating that a safety problem does indeed exist. I have enclosed a copy of the regulation which explains what must be included in a Petition for Rulemaking.

The agency has no authority under the Vehicle Safety Act to regulate used motor vehicles and, therefore, could not require an identification label on a used vehicle that is converted to propane fuel. Congress left this jurisdiction to the individual States. Consequently, Congressional action or action at the State level would be required to mandate identification labels on used vehicles.

I am also enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issued last August which discusses the implications under Federal law of installing auxiliary fuel tanks in motor vehicles and of converting vehicles to the use of propane gas. Although not directly related to the Safety Board's concern, it might be of interest.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

3 Enclosures: Constitutent's correspondence Copy of regulation Copy of August letter

March 26, 1980

Hon. Samuel Stratton House of Representatives United States Congress Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Congressman Stratton:

The Schenectady County Traffic Safety Board is concerned that many new or converted propane-propelled vehicles carry no indication that these vehicles contain propane fuel tanks.

This lack of information could have very tragic results if a propane-propelled vehicle is involved in an accident or catches on fire. Firemen, policemen, or other emergency personnel responding to the scene will be unaware of the danger presented by the propane fuel tanks and will not take the proper precautions required when working near such a highly volatile substance.

The Traffic Safety Board strongly recommends that new or converted propane-propelled vehicles be clearly marked as carrying propane fuel tanks. The marking should be in a conspicuous location and might be similar to the markings that are currently used on many vehicles to identify them as being diesel-powered or as using only unleaded fuel.

The Traffic Safety Board asks for your help in initiating legislative action on this matter. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

John L. McGovern Chairman

JJMG/db

cc: Traffic Safety Board Members Executive Secretary