ID: 86-6.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Melvin Krewall -- Administrator, Transportation Section, Finance Division, Oklahoma State Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Melvin Krewall, Administrator Transportation Section, Finance Division Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599

This responds to your August 22, 1986, letter to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller concerning our regulations for school bus manufacturing. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has certified and approved the "Asia Smith Chassis" for school buses. You stated that you need a copy of the certification because Oklahoma requires chassis to be approved by the state Board of Education before they can be sold in Oklahoma.

I would like to begin by clarifying that NHTSA does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. This agency regulates motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computers simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. Manufacturers certify their school buses by attaching a label to their vehicles in accordance with our certification procedures. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with applicable safety standards.

A school bus manufacturer who installs a school bus body on a new chassis (such as an Asia Smith chassis) is required by our certification regulations (49 CFR 567 and 568) to certify the completed vehicle to Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those regulations require the chassis manufacturer to furnish information which assists the vehicle manufacturer in making that certification. When certifying its school buses, the manufacturer affirms that the vehicle, including the chassis, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including school bus safety standards.

You indicated that Oklahoma requires school bus chassis to be approved by the state before their sale. I am concerned with this requirement because its imposition could be preempted by operation of the Vehicle Safety Act. The first sentence of section 103(d) of the Safety Act states: 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 or 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.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Federal Register notice issued by the agency concerning the issue of preemption and pre-sale state enforcement of safety standards (47 Fed. Reg. 884; January 7, 1982). The notice discusses NHTSA's position that Federal law preempts state requirements which prescribe the sale of equipment certified to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless the equipment is also approved by the State. We believe that Oklahoma's requirement for approval of school bus chassis is analogous.

As I understand Oklahoma's requirement, it imposes requirements which have the effect of proscribing the sale of certified school buses unless their chassis are also approved by the State. Apparently, school buses manufactured with chassis lacking state approval may not be sold in Oklahoma. Even though the vehicle has been certified as meeting all preempted because it imposes burdens differing in a significant respect from the Federal regulatory scheme.

I hope this information is helpful. If you wish to further discuss the preemption issue or have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

AUGUST 22, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The August/September 1986 issue of School Bus Fleet magazine has an article about Asia Smith Chassis for school buses. They are marketed by Asia Smith Motor Inc. of Plaistow, New Hampshire.

My question to you is, has this chassis been certified and approved for sale in the United States? If it has been certified, where can I receive a copy of the certification showing that it meets all the federal minimum standards. It is imperative that this information be disseminated to us as our State Board of Education must approve all chassis manufacturers after they receive federal approval.

Thank you in advance for this vital information.

Sincerely,

Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division MK:bam

ID: 86-6.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Slade Gorton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Slade Gorton United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Gorton:

Thank you for your November 3, 1986, letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Laurel Kuther of Clarkston, who asks that safety belts be required on school buses. your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns. As explained below, NHTSA does not require large school buses to have safety belts for passengers because we require those buses to provide an alternate form of passenger crash protection. Our safety standards are directed at improving the interior of large school buses so that passengers will be provided adequate crash protection even if safety belts are not used.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through q concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fastened a safety belt. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance.

Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus driver since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses and the additional restraint system is needed to provide adequate crash protection for passengers.

However, because large school buses already offer substantial protection to passengers, we believe a Federal requirement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary: In addition to meeting Federal school bus safety standards, large school buses are very safe vehicles because of their size and weight, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large school buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own pupil transportation needs.

A June 1985 NHTSA publication entitled, "Safety Belts in School Buses," discusses many of the issues relating to safety belts in large school buses. I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.

I hope you have found this information to be helpful. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 December 1, 1986

Dear Senator Gorton:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mrs. Laurel Kuther.

I have transmitted your Inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Mr. David P. Sloane Director of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SW, Rm. 10408 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Mrs. Laurel Kuther. As you will note, this constituent is concerned with seat belts on school buses.

Your comments on this matter may be forwarded to my Washington, D.C. office, Senate Office Building. Washington, D.C. 20510. I look forward to your prompt response. PLEASE MARK THE ENVELOPE TO THE ATTENTION OF: Pat McCausland.

Thank you for your attention to this inquiry.

Sincerely,

SLADE GORTON United States Senator

SG:pmm Enclosure SEE HARD COPY OF HAND WRITTEN LETTER

ID: 86-6.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY -- LEBEOUF, LAMB, LEIBY AND MACRAE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/17/86 RE FMVSS 103 AND 104, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL OCC-0349

TEXT: Dear Mr. Waimey:

This responds to your letter regarding the method of determining the windshield areas required to be cleared under Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, and Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You state in your letter that your client, Porsche, is considering a windshield design that would be five percent smaller than the area of the windshield or glazing surface established as Area "A" in Standard No. 104. Area "A" is the largest of the three windshield areas, designated in that standard as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each of these areas is required to have a certain percentage defrosted within a specified time period under Standard No. 103. Similarly, each of these areas is required to have a certain percentage wiped under Standard No. 104. These areas are established by the angles which are set forth in the SAE Recommended Practices and referenced in Standards Nos. 103 and 104. Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 states that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

You also say in your letter that you understand that the percentages of the "A" area of the windshield, which are required to be cleared under these standards, are based on actual windshield size, less a one-inch border, rather than the theoretical windshield size that is derived using the specified angles in the referenced SAE procedures. You conclude that only the portion of Area "A," for example, which falls on an actual windshield, less a one-inch border, need be used in calculating the percentageswhich are required to be cleared under these standards.conclude that any portion of Area A which falls outside a windshield's actual size is immaterial with regard to the areas required to be cleared under these standards.

2

The agency believes your interpretation of Area "A" is correct, for the following reasons. Unlike the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 128, Fields of Direct View, which was issued and rescinded in 1981, Standards Nos. 103 and 104 were not intended to regulate the size of structural and other obstructions in the driver's field of direct view. Paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 103 requires each passenger car windshield defrosting and defogging system to meet the requirements of section 3 of SAE J902, when tested in accordance with paragraph S4.3 of the standard, except that the "entire windshield" specified in SAE Recommended Practice J902 must be that established as Area A in accordance with Standard No. 104.

Thus, Area A is defined according to the requirements of Standard No. 104. Paragraph S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104 states that Area A of a passenger car windshield must be established as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, using the angles specified in Columns 3 through 6 of Table I, II, III, or IV, as applicable. These tables are set forth in Standard No. 104 and apply to passenger cars of specified overall widths, i.e., from less than 60 inches to 68 or more inches. The angles in these tables vary according to the overall width of the passenger car model. This office agrees that the projection of the correct angles onto an actual windshield surface may produce a projected surface larger than the windshield itself and that only the portion of Area A which is projected onto the actual windshield is material.

Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 also limits the percentage of the windshield required to be cleared to that inside the perimeter line on the windshield one inch from the edge of the daylight opening. Since Standard No. 103 references Standard No. 104 for the determination of Area A, this office also agrees that the percentages of the windshield required to be cleared under Standard No. 103 are those inside the perimeter line on the windshield one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

As an aside, we note that you state in your letter that your conclusion is based on statements contained in SAE Recommended Practices J903c and SAE J902b. Paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, references SAE Recommended Practice J902, Passenger Car Windshield Defrosting Systems, August 1964, not SAE Recommended Practice J902b, as stated in your letter. Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, references SAE Recommended Practice 903a, May 1966, not SAE J903c, as stated in your letter. In any case, we do not believe the quoted statements affect the requirements of either Standard No. 103 or Standard No. 104, because each reference in the safety standards to an SAE Recommended Practice is to a specific portion of it, not to general language such as your quotation.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LANCE E. TUNICK, -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL MASERATI AUTOMOBILES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5); LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JON ES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your October 20, 1988 letter, in which you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). More specifically, you noted that section S4.1.3 requires a specified percentage of a manufacturer 's annual production to be equipped with automatic occupant protection. You stated that some vehicles imported into the United States may subsequently be exported to Canada. Since section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5); the Safety Act) specifies that none of the safety standards apply to vehicles intended solely for export, your company assumes that it should not include vehicles subsequently exported to Canada in its annual production totals when determining compliance with S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208. This assumption is incorrect, as explained below.

In a September 4, 1985 letter to Messrs. Stephen Waimey and Dean Hansell (copy enclosed), we answered the question of how manufacturers that produce cars outside the United States should calculate their annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208. That letter explains that foreign-based manufacturers should count the number of vehicles that were produced and certified for sale in the United States, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, durin g the relevant time period to determine their annual production for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

Your letter referred to section 108(b)(5) of the Safety Act, and suggested that this statutory provision means that any vehicles that are imported into the United States and subsequently exported to a different country should not be counted as part of th e manufacturer's annual production. I am happy to explain our view of what is permitted under that statutory provision.

Section 108(b)(5) provides that the requirements in the safety standards "shall not apply in the case of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle

equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported." This statutory language establishes three separate conditions that would have to be satisfied to exclude a vehicle from the requirements of the safety standards, including the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for purposes of Standard No. 208. These three conditions are:

1. The vehicle must be intended solely for export;

2. The vehicle must have a label or tag on it at the time it is imported which shows that the vehicle is intended solely for export; and

3. The vehicle must actually be exported.

We agree with your contention that a vehicle satisfying all three of these conditions would not be subject to the requirements of any of the safety standards, and could properly be excluded from the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for t he purposes of Standard No. 208. For a similar interpretation regarding imported tires that are intended solely for export and so labeled, see the enclosed November 10, 1975 letter to Mr. John B. White. Of course, it would not be sufficient if only one of these conditions, such as the third one regarding actual exportation, were satisfied.

We are uncertain regarding the facts surrounding the vehicles that have already been imported into the United States and then exported to Canada and thus are unable to give an opinion concerning their satisfaction of the section 108(b)(5) conditions. It should be relatively simple for you to determine whether these vehicles satisfied the first two conditions. Did those vehicles truly just pass through the US on their way to Canada? To what country's standards were those vehicles certified and when? When the vehicles were imported into the United States, your company was required to complete a Form HS-7. That form allows the importer to declare that a vehicle is intended solely for export and that the vehicle bears a label or tag to that effect. W hat type of declaration was made with respect to the vehicles in question?

As to vehicles which Maserati Automobiles, Inc., wishes in the future to import into this country and pass directly through to Canada for sale there, satisfaction of each of the three section 108(b)(5) conditions will assure that the vehicles are not included in the Standard No. 208 calculations.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht76-2.19

DATE: 11/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Crown Coach Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1976, in which you ask several questions concerning Standard No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release, and Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Your first question asks whether a California regulation requiring 20-inch minimum seat spacing in school buses would be preempted by the requirement for 20-inch maximum seat spacing in Standard No. 222.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) provides in section 103(d) that any state or local law or regulation on an aspect of motor vehicle performance covered by a Federal standard must be identical to that Federal standard. Although the NHTSA requirement is phrased in terms of maximum spacing while the California standard concerns minimum spacing, the aspect of performance in question is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that a California standard on seat spacing regulates the same aspect of performance and to the degree it is not identical to the Federal standard, it would be preempted.

Your second question asks whether the seating reference point, as specified in relation to the "H" Point used in SAE Standard J826b, varies with the size of different individuals. The seating reference point, as defined by the NHTSA in Part 571.3 allows the manufacturer some discretion in selecting a point that approximates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh. While the NHTSA definition does refer to the SAE procedures for "H" point location that includes the specific measurements you cite, the manufacturer retains discretion to vary this point slightly as long as he can show that the point selected continues to simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh of the passengers for whom the seat is designed.

Finally, you note in your letter that compliance with the seat spacing required in Standard No. 222 might entail relocation of the side emergency exit, because Standard No. 217 requires that "[a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." The seat spacing requirement arguably could occasion the realignment of the side emergency door, but this does not have to be the case. The manufacturer is free to adjust seat spacing to be properly aligned with the emergency exit. The NHTSA's intent in this requirement is to provide an emergency exit opening extending at least 2 feet rearward of a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back. The agency would not prohibit the use of doors wider than 2 feet as long as a minimum 2-foot opening is provided rearward of the reference plane and the latch mechanism is operated by a device located within the required 2-foot opening.

SINCERELY, Crown COACH CORPORATION

October 7, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Programs Office of Chief Council

SUBJECT: Federal Standard 222-School Bus Seating and Crash Protection

We are presently trying to establish a seating floor plan to conform to your standards. So far, we know of only one manufacturer that may produce a seat meeting your requirements, namely American Seating Company.

The point in question is the establishment of some manufacturing tolerance between seats. Standard 222 states the maximum spacing from the seats, Seating Reference Point (SAE "H" Point), is 20 inches. This distance is equal to the minimum California standard of 25 inches from seat back to the back of the seat in front. This would leave no manufacturing tolerance. We know that Federal Standards take precedence, but the State could put a limitation on minimum spacing. American Seating has told us that they are using 20 inches +/- 1/2 inch. as a target. They will also have a tolerance on the thickness of their seat, which would affect seat spacing.

Another question on the "H" Point as specified in SAE Standard J826 - the distance up from the seat to the "H" Point is 3.84 Inches and from the "H" Point to the seat back is 5.28 Inches. Would not these dimensions change with respect to different percentile figures?

The location of the seats and tolerances create another problem which cannot be solved until something has been firmed up; that is, the location of the side emergency exit.

Standard 217, Docket No. 75-3, Notice 4, states "A vertical transverse plane tanget to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." This means the door has to float with the seat locations. Also suppose the door is larger in size than the Standard states, this would penalize the manufacturer of the bus body, having to redesign side walls to accept different door and window locations.

We have been in contact with Mr. Tim Hoyt of your Docket Writer Section, who has been very helpful, but cannot answer our specific questions, and recommends we contact your Department for clarification of the Standard and specific answers to our problems.

If you need any clarification on our questions please phone and we will try to explain more fully.

Ray Hartman Vice President-Engineering

ID: nht76-2.5

DATE: 02/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Jeep Corporation's October 16, 1975, petition to initiate rulemaking to amend the present definition of "Unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR @ 571.3) which reads:

"Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

Jeep requests that the definition be amended to "indicate that the unloaded vehicle [weight] does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories." The Jeep petition argues that the impracticality of conducting some dynamic testing with "work-performing accessories" in place may force the discontinuance of some factory-installed accessories although factory installation may be more safe than a subsequent aftermarket installation.

The Jeep Corporation petition is denied. As a general matter, the NHTSA has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed. The NHTSA has evaluated the potential problems of dynamic testing with heavy or protruding accessories in place and concludes that a decision on the practicality and wisdom of so doing should be made on a "standard-by-standard" basis. As you noted, the NHTSA has provided for removal of work-performing accessories in conducting compliance tests under Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. If Jeep considers dynamic testing in other standards to be unjustifiably burdensome because of the necessity of testing with all accessories in place, it would be appropriate to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard in question.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

October 16, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: Petition For Rulemaking 49 CFR Part 571.3 - Definitions

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" contained in Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 571.3.

Currently, unloaded vehicle weight means the weight of the vehicle to be loaded with its maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for normal operation, but without occupants or cargo. This is the base vehicle condition used throughout the safety standards when vehicle dynamic performance is being evaluated. Jeep Corporation requests that this definition be revised to clearly indicate that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories. Currently, it is unclear whether a vehicle being subjected to a dynamic test should include such items.

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as "Jeep Special Equipment", are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modification which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle. Thus, it would be in the best interests of safety to allow Jeep Corporation to continue to provide approved special equipment.

This will not be possible, however, if future dynamic testing procedures in several safety standards require vehicles tested to be equipped with all types of special equipment accessories. To assure compliance to any Federal Standards with all possible vehicle equipment combinations would create a financial and testing burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which, as noted earlier, may not be in the best interest of public safety.

The NHTSA has, in the past, recognized the influence of certain work-performing equipment on vehicle dynamic performance. In Docket No. 73-29; Notice 1, published in 38 FR 33501, the NHTSA proposed the exemption of original equipment snow plows from vehicles being tested to the braking requirements of Standard (Illegible Word)

The concept of eliminating the effects of "work-performing accessories" from the unloaded vehicle weight was further confirmed by the NHTSA in its recent promulgation of Standard 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. In this standard, it is stated that, "(F)or the purpose of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR Part 571.3) such that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories.

Jeep Corporation submits that for the reason stated above, such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.

Stuart R. Perkins Director Vehicle Safety

ID: 86-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section Oregon Department of Transportation Motor Vehicles Division 1905 Lana Avenue N.E. Salem, Oregon 97314

Dear Mr. Ivie:

Thank you for your letter concerning Oregon's new vehicle code. You asked us to review the code and comment on possible Federal preemption of Oregon's laws for motor vehicle equipment. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

On March 19, Ms. Hom of my staff explained in a telephone conversation that this office is unable to undertake a general review of your state vehicle code as you requested. It would be more appropriate if your legal department reviewed your requirements.

Your letter also requested a clarification of our regulatory definition of a "bus." You asked whether we have a definition of a "bus" separate from definitions for "school buses" or "commercial motor buses." You appeared to question whether privately-owned passenger vans would be classified as buses since Oregon currently considers 15-passenger vans as either "passenger vehicles" or "trucks."

NHTSA's regulatory definitions for motor vehicles, issued for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are set forth at 49 CFR Part 571.3. We define a "bus" as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. This definition would include 15-passenger vans, and would thus apply to both commercial motor coaches and privately-owned 15-passenger vans.

Our definition of a "bus" is separate from our "school bus" definition. While the latter term incorporates our "bus" definition, it includes further criteria based on the intended use of the vehicle. Under Part 571.3, a "school bus" is a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (excluding common carriers in urban transportation). If a new 15-passenger van were sold for school transportation purposes, it would be considered a "school bus" and would have to comply with NHTSA's school bus safety standards.

For purposes of understanding the interaction between Federal and state vehicle definitions, it is important to distinguish NHTSA's motor vehicle safety standards from state safety standards. State motor vehicle safety regulations apply to the sale and use of motor vehicles. Oregon's vehicle definitions are relevant for determining state requirements applicable to the sale and use of particular classes of motor vehicles. On the other hand, our regulations apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and our definitions specify categories of vehicles subject to appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards. New vehicles included within particular categories must be certified as complying with the safety standards applying to that vehicle type. The applicability of our safety standards to a vehicle is not altered by the fact that a vehicle type is classified differently under state law. Thus, although Oregon classifies 15-passenger vans as passenger vehicles or trucks, manufacturers of new 15-passenger vans must manufacture those vehicles to Federal safety standards for buses, or school buses if intended for school use.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

NHTSA Jeffrey Miller, Chief Council US DOT 400 7th Street S. W. Washington D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

We are reviewing the equipment portions of our new vehicle code. I know that some of our equipment laws, especially those that pertain to "approval" of certain equipment may be in conflict with current federal regulations and laws.

Copies of the equipment chapters from our "new" vehicle code are enclosed. I will appreciate any comments and suggestions you may be able to give us in suggesting changes in our equipment laws, especially with respect to federal standards.

There is one other problem that perhaps you can help us with--is there a "bus" definition in the Federal Code which could help us uniquely define a bus that is not used as a commercial motor bus, or as a school bus?

We do not have a registration classification of a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. And, if the definition of a bus were to State it is a vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, it could include privately owned and used passenger vans. Under our registration classification, vans designed for 15 persons can presently be registered as passenger vehicles, so long as their loaded weight remains under 8,000 pounds. If over 8,000 pounds, they could be classified as trucks. The GVWR of a vehicle is not a consideration in classifying them for registration purposes.

We will appreciate and help you can give.

Very truly yours,

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section Telephone (503) 378-2057

WI/ao

Enc.

ID: 86-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jerry Koh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry Koh 7617 DeLongpre Ave., #1 Los Angeles, California 90046

Dear Mr. Koh:

This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking whether a lighting accessory you wish to import for sale is acceptable.

The device you describe is intended for installation on the rear parcel shelf of passenger cars. You state that it emits a "stream of flashing lights in continuous sequence when the driver steps on the brake (stops), turns (right or left), and when overtaking other cars." The specification sheet that you enclosed indicates that the device has an adjustable flashing speed between 66 and 140 times a minute.

This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, establishes manufacturing requirements for new motor vehicles and equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, applies to lighting equipment that is required on new motor vehicles, and to aftermarket equipment that is intended to replace the required equipment. The standard does not itself cover accessory lighting equipment such as you propose to import, and thus there is no U.S. safety standard that applies to it. Whether it is permissible for use therefore must be determined by the law of each state in which it will be sold and operated.

However, Standard No. 108 does prohibit installation of any aftermarket lighting device before initial sale of a new vehicle if that device "impairs the effectiveness" of lighting equipment that the standard requires, and you should be aware of this prohibition if you intend to sell the device to new car dealers for installation on new cars in stock. Thus, we must consider whether your device would impair the effectiveness of the center high-mounted stop lamp, and the turn signal lamps. We offer these comments: stop lamps must be activated simultaneously and not sequentially. The mode of operation of your device to indicate brake application is not clear. If all eight lights are activated simultaneously, and are steady burning, that would not appear to impair the effectiveness of the center stop lamp. If they are activated in a sequential spread, or flash if activated simultaneously, this could possibly be an impairment of the nature contemplated by Standard No. 108.

With respect to the turn signal function, the flash rate should be synchronized with that of the vehicle's standard turn signals. Under Standard No. 108, 60 to-120 cycles per minute is permissible, Thus, the highest speed attainable of your device, 110, could be viewed as a possible impairment. We do not understand the safety purpose of the overtaking function and how it operates.

If you have any further questions, we will be happy to answer them. Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson Legal Counsel NHTSA. U.S. Dept. Of Transportation 400 7th ST. S.W. Washington D.C.

February 6, 1986

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Please provide me a letter of interpretation regarding the following item. Thank you.

I have an illumination accessory (Highway Flasher FS-7100, made in Tiawan for automobiles which can be mounted on rear dash of each car.

The Flasher Hill emits a stream of flashing lights in continuous sequence when the driver steps on the break (stops), turns (right or left), and when overtaking other cars. It is a very good safe-guard device in which it alarms other drivers and at the same time it is a beautiful car ornamentation.

" In a way The Flasher is similar to the 3rd light that is now mandatorily required on all 1986 cars. However, it can be used on all cars that are with or without the 3rd light. For the 3rd light is always mounted in the center of the rear window; whereas The Flasher can be mounted on the rear dash board and its light will flash on either right or left or both sides of the rear window. (Figure 1)

(Insert Graphics)

In fact with the Flasher it will actually enhance the visibility of all vehicles, increase drivers' awareness at night, in heavy fog and on highways, and complement cars that already have the 3rd light.

I am thinking about importing the Flashers into the U.S. but I want to make sure it is safe and legal to do so. I am unable to find out from the manufacturer whether this product has met U.S. Highway Safety Standard or not, probably because the product is not being imported yet.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Respectfully Yours,

Jerry Koh

Encls.

ID: 86-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Earl J. Ogletree; John Gaski -- Harley Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Earl J. Ogletree Mr. John Gaski Harley Products Inc. 904 S Prospect Avenue Park Ridge, IL 60068 Dear Mr. Ogletree and Mr. Gaski: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1986, asking how our regulations would affect a product you intend to manufacture both as an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment and as an item of original equipment on some vehicles imported into this country. You described the product as a sun visor that clips onto a vehicle's regular visor. You further explained that the sun visor has an extension arm that allows the visor to be moved to filter out the sun coming in through the window to the left of the driver, or moved below the original equipment visor or between the two original equipment visors. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations affect your proposed visor.

Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of your proposed sun visor in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We have issued 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 (708 in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the sun visors described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install devices which could impair their vision and thus adversely affect safety. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

LEGAL COUNSEL NHTSB U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR SIR/MS:

I AM REQUESTING A RULING OR INFORMATION ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENTS POSITION ON THE LEGALITY OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING A NEW TYPE OF SUN VISOR* FOR USE ON AUTOMOBILES IN THE AFTER SALE MARKET IN THE U.S. ALSO WE ARE PLANNING TO INCORPORATE THE NEW SUN VISOR AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT ON AUTOMOBILES MANUFACTURED IN KOREA WHICH WILL BE SOLD IN THE U.S. SOLD.

* THE NEW SUN VISOR CLIPS ONTO THE AUTOMOBILES' REGULAR VISOR. WHAT MAKES THE NEW SUN VISOR DIFFERENT IS THAT THE TINTED SUN VISOR CAN BE MOVED TO FILTER OUT THE SUN VIA AN EXTENSION ARM THAT HOLDS THE TINTED SUN VISOR WITHOUT MOVING THE REGULAR OR ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR. WITH THE NEW SUN VISOR ONE CAN FILTER OUT THE SUN AT THE LEFT SIDE DOOR WINDOW, BELOW THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR AND BETWEEN THE TWO ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISORS.

PLEASE ADVISE US AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A FEDERAL ISSUE OR PROBLEM.

SINCERELY, EARL J. OGLETREE AND JOHN GASKI

ID: 86-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rolf Seiferheld

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Service & Technical Bitter Automobile of America, Inc. 401 Willowbrook Lane West Chester, PA 19380

Dear Mr. Seiferheld:

This responds to your letter asking about 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are considering integrating fog-taillight assemblies in the rear bumper of a car and asked about relevant requirements. You noted in your letter that section S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) states that "(n)o additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." You stated that this paragraph seems to be relevant but that it is unclear to you.

Both Part 581, Bumper Standard, and Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices( and Associated Equipment, are relevant to the location of fog-taillamp assemblies in the rear bumper. Fog lamps are lighting devices that are not covered by Standard No. 108. Therefore, two questions must be asked: are they permissible, and if so, may they be combined with items of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Under section S4.1.3, quoted above, fog lamps are permissible provided that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, the question cannot be answered without reference to whether its combination with the taillamp is permitted, for from the photo and drawing submitted, both appear combined in a single housing incorporating, we assume, one filament for each function. Both lamps are "position lamps", indicating the presence of the vehicle in the roadway ahead to a driver who is following behind. The fog lamp is intended to be activated under extreme conditions of reduced visibility, and hence, would appear to increase the effectiveness of the taillamp rather than impair it. Section S4.4 of Standard No. 108 prohibits combining taillamps only with clearance lamps (not required lighting equipment for passenger cars), and thus combining the taillamp and fog lamp functions are permissible. Section S4.3.1.1 of the standard specifies, among other things, that no part of the vehicle may prevent a taillamp from meeting its photometric output at specified test points. Further, a taillamp located in the bumper must also meet the visibility requirements of SAE Standard J585e Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), September 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of J585e taillamps must be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 15 degrees to the right; to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface (excluding reflex), not less than 2 square inches measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

Finally, Part 581 Bumper Standard specifies requirements for the impact resistance of vehicles in low speed front and rear collisions. Vehicles must be capable of meeting certain damage criteria, following specified test impacts. Among other things, lamps must be free of cracks and comply with applicable visibility requirements of section S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 following the impacts.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 18, 1985

Chief Counsel Jeff Miller National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., Southwest NASSIF Bld., Rm. #5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: CFR 49, PART 581 BUMPER STANDARD

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is an Informal inquiry concerning the above referenced subject. Bitter Automobile of America, Inc. is the national importer of the Bitter SC automobile.

This Inquiry is in regard to the configuration of the rear bumper assembly of our automobile. In the past we have had a full face bumper bar without any light assemblies incorporated. However, I have been asked by Bitter K.G. GmbH Engineering staff what the regulations are of incorporating fog-taillight assemblies in the bumper; e.g. integrated into the rear bumper (see attached photograph and drawing). In consulting the Motor Vehicle Standard, No. 108, Part 571; S 108-7 , S 4.1.3, it states:

"No additional lamp reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard."

This paragraph seems to relate to what we are contemplating, but is not clear to me. I kindly ask if the above could be feasible to change to a new style bumper.

I hope to hear from you soon and thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Rolf Seiferheld Service & Technical

Enclosures

RS/red