ID: 86-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Flanagan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas J. Flanagan, Esq. Wiggin & Dana 195 Church Street P.O. Box 1832 New Haven, CT 06508

Dear Mr. Flanagan:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin, of our Rulemaking division, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You described a situation in which a client, Saab-Scania of America, imports cars subject to the theft prevention standard and uses them directly as company cars or leases them to employees for their personal use. After such use, the company sells the cars to dealers as used cars. On occasion, these vehicles may have an original equipment major part covered by the theft prevention standard that is so badly damaged during such use that the part must be replaced before the vehicle is delivered to a dealer or distributor. When this occurs, you asked whether the repair would be required to be made with a part marked with the full VIN or whether the repair could be made with a properly marked replacement part. We conclude that when a manufacturer uses a car as a company car in the manner you describe, it may make any necessary repairs to damaged major parts by installing parts marked as replacement parts. This conclusion is explained in detail below.

Section 2(7) of the Cost Savings Act (15 D.S.C. 1901(7)) defines a manufacturer as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of passenger motor vehicles or passenger motor vehicle equipment including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (Emphasis added). It is clear under this statutory definition that your client is a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the theft prevention standard, since it is importing motor vehicles for resale.

Section 606(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)(1)) requires vehicle manufacturers to certify that each vehicle complies with the requirements of the theft prevention standard "at the time of delivery of such vehicle". The preamble to the final rule establishing the theft prevention standard discussed this agency's conclusion that the "delivery" as used in this part of section 606(c)(1) means the delivery from the manufacturer to a dealer or distributor, and that the delivery occurs when the goods are delivered by the seller to a carrier. 50 FPR 43166, at 131B6-43187, October 24, 1985. In the next sentence, section 606(c)(1) specifies that the certification shall accompany the vehicle until delivery to the first purchaser. NHTSA believes that this statutory requirement means that each vehicle in the lines selected as high theft lines and listed in Appendix A of Part 541 must be delivered to the first purchaser with all covered major parts marked in accordance with the theft prevention standard. However, NHTSA does not interpret this statutory provision as requiring that every first purchaser be delivered a vehicle with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. Instead, the agency believes this means that the first purchaser may receive a vehicle with the undamaged covered original equipment major parts marked with the VIN, and with those covered major parts installed by a dealer or distributor to replace damaged original equipment parts marked as replacement parts.

In accordance with this interpretation, NHTSA does not believe that a manufacturer delivers a car to itself, when the car is sold to the public as a new car. However, you have noted a circumstance in which cars are bona fide used as company cars and are sold to the public as used cars, not new cars. Congress knew that used cars frequently have some replacement parts substituted for the original equipment parts. However, Title VI contains no requirement that used cars have all covered major parts marked with the VIN. In fact, Title VI presumes that when an original equipment major part is so badly damaged that it must be replaced, it will be replaced with a replacement part marked in conformity with Part 541. This reflects a legislative judgment that such replacement does not increase the opportunity for car thieves to steal the car without fear of being apprehended, or otherwise frustrate the purposes of Title VI, even though the car no longer has all major parts marked with the VIN.

On the other hand, a severe burden would be imposed on all manufacturers if they were required to deliver all bona fide company cars to distributors or dealers with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. If this were required and the company car were involved in an accident that required a covered major part to be replaced, the manufacturer would have a choice of either asking the factory to produce a replacement part with the VIN marked on the part and waiting to repair the vehicle until the part marked with the VIN arrived, or ending the vehicle's use as a company car and shipping the unrepaired vehicle to a dealer or distributor with the damaged major part marked with the VIN still on the vehicle. Nothing in the legislative history of Title VI explicitly or implicitly suggests that Congress intended such harsh treatment of company cars under the theft prevention standard.

Balancing the absence of negative policy consequences under Title VI if manufacturers are allowed to repair company cars with properly marked parts against the significant burdens that would be imposed on manufacturers if damaged major parts on company cars had to be replaced with parts marked with the full VIN, NHTSA concludes that Title VI of the Cost Savings Act permits cars damaged while in bona fide use as company cars and sold to the public as used cars, to be repaired by the manufacturer using properly marked replacement parts. This conclusion is based on NHTSA's interpretation that bona fide use of the car as a company car by the manufacturer is, for all practical and policy purposes, tantamount to a delivery of the vehicle under section 606(c)(1). The conclusion is reinforced by the fact that when a company car is later sold to the public as a used car, the consumer purchasing the company car Hill get a car with the same theft markings as any other used car.

NHTSA would like to note that this interpretation applies only to Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, and not to any other statutes administered by this agency. Those statutes may have different underlying policy considerations, which might mandate a different conclusion for cars used as company cars. Further, the agency wishes to emphasize that this interpretation applies only to bona fide company cars that are sold to the public as used cars, and not to most of the cars manufactured by the manufacturer.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions about our theft prevention standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 3, 1986

Mr. Brian McLaughlin Office of Market Incentives NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Theft Prevention Regulations

Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

As you suggested during our phone conversation on March 31, 1986, I am writing to request a more formal response to the question I asked during that conversation.

As you will recall, our client, Saab-Scania of America, Inc., uses some of the vehicles that it imports before selling these cars to dealers as used cars. The company either uses these cars directly or leases them to employees.

The question I asked was whether vehicles so employed by an importer that needed repairs before delivery to a dealer as a used car could be repaired with "R" marked parts or whether such vehicles must be repaired with parts market with the full VIN number.

My reading of the statute is that, under these circumstances, the importer itself becomes the "first purchaser" of tie vehicle thereby allowing the importer to repair the vehicle with "R" marked parts.

Please call if you require any more information to reply.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Flanagan

TJF:j1

ID: 21552

Mr. Juergen Lucht
WIKA Alexander Wiegand GmbH & Co (WIKA)
Dept. GLZ-ID-QN
D 63911 Klingenberg
Germany

Dear Mr. Lucht:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for an air brake pressure hose fitting used in a gauge manufactured by your company. I am pleased to provide this information.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hoses. NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new vehicles and equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which an item of original equipment is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities you must meet as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Standard No. 106
One of the standards we issued is Standard No. 106, "Brake Hoses," which applies to new motor vehicles and to brake hoses (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above.

From the information provided in your letter, it appears that WIKA manufactures a dashboard-mounted brake system pressure gauge which is connected to the brake system through a compressed air hose. Your letter did not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion as to whether the air lines and end fittings used with your product would be considered "brake hoses" and "brake hose end fittings" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106, or whether an assembly of hose and end fitting would be a "brake hose assembly" as defined in the standard. Note, however, that it has been NHTSA's long-standing position that accessory air lines and end fittings, such as those used in your product, are "brake hoses" and "brake hose end fittings" if a failure of the line or fitting would result in a loss of pressure in the vehicle's brake system. (See the enclosed June 5, 1987, letter to Albert Schwarz, and the August 3, 1984, letter to Terry Teeter.) Accordingly, if a failure of the accessory lines or fittings used with your product could result in a loss of pressure in the brake system, the hoses, fittings and assemblies are subject to the provisions of Standard No. 106. Chapter 301 states that "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any of the hoses, end fittings or assemblies unless the products comply with all of the applicable requirements in Standard No. 106.

A copy of Standard No. 106 is enclosed. In addition, you may access this standard and other Federal motor vehicle safety standards through the NHTSA website at www.nhtsa.dot.gov.

You ask several specific questions, which I will address below.

Registration Requirements
You first ask, "What are the usual procedures for a DOT registration like?" If you are asking about a pre-sale approval process, as explained above, NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or conduct pre-sale testing of their products. In the United States, the individual manufacturer must self-certify its product as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you are asking about the labeling requirements of Standard No. 106, the standard requires manufacturers to label their brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies with certain information, including a manufacturer's designation (see S7.2.1(b), S7.2.2(b), and S7.2.3(b)). The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products. Assuming that your products are subject to Standard No. 106, the manufacturer must file its designation (which may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) in writing with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

Enforcing Standard No. 106
You also ask how a manufacturer establishes conformity with our standards and whether a manufacturer may perform certification testing on its own or must use an independent test facility or qualified expert. As noted above, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to certify that its products meet all applicable standards. In meeting this responsibility, the manufacturer need not use an independent test facility and is not required to test in a particular manner. However, manufacturers must exercise due care when making the certification. Once your company has determined that the hoses, end fittings, and assemblies comply with the requirements of Standard No. 106, the standard requires you to mark these products with the symbol "DOT" to show your company's certification of compliance, as specified in the standard.

This agency enforces the requirements of Standard No. 106 by purchasing brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies. The certified products are tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the products pass these tests, no further actions are taken.

Procedural Requirements
I would like to discuss two procedural requirements you must meet to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all processes, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be

mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

1.   A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2.   The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3.   Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4.   A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5.   A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and

6.   The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

Fees or Costs
Finally, you ask what fees or costs are required for registration and inspection. As noted above, NHTSA does not approve products prior to sale and would inspect a product as part of its compliance testing program. Manufacturers and importers of brake hoses are required to register with the agency and all importers and manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are required to meet the identification requirements, and importers are required to provide NHTSA with the identification of an agent for service of process. There are no fees associated with these requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Mr. Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253 if you have any further questions or need additional information .

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:106
d.10/17/00

ID: 2857o

Mr. Troy C. Martin
Specifications/Inspections Chief
Texas State Purchasing & General Service
Commission
Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Bldg.
P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is a response to your letter of last year where you stated your concern respecting the installation of "latches" on the rear doors of a school bus of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR (small school bus), and asked a number of questions on release mechanisms for required rear emergency doors on these small school buses. I regret the delay in this response.

You said that the State of Texas has a school bus specification that requires "the first-closed (left-hand) door)" to have a latching mechanism at the top and bottom. Your supplier tells you that this specification conflicts with provisions of Federal safety standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (Standard 217). You go on to express your concern that a single mechanism would hold both doors closed, and that this feature increases the risk of injury from accidental or intentional opening. You believe that where a small school bus has two rear doors, if each door is secured independently, then there is a decreased risk of a student's falling through a door opened inadvertently.

Let me begin my answer with some general information on the requirement for a rear emergency door in a small school bus. As your supplier suggests, there can be instances where independently securing the rear doors on a small school bus would violate Standard 217. Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires a manufacturer of these buses to install either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) one emergency door on the vehicle's left side and one push-out rear window. Where a manufacturer chooses to meet this requirement by installing one rear emergency door, the door may be hinged on either side of the vehicle.

When a manufacturer installs more than one rear door exit, the question of whether both exits are "emergency doors" under paragraph S5.2.3.1 of Standard 217 depends upon whether one or both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of a specified parallelepiped under paragraph S5.4.2.2. The purpose of the school bus emergency exit requirements is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency. (44 FR 7961, 7962, February 8, 1979.)

Question 1: Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217?

If a manufacturer installs more than one rear door on a small school bus, and intends one door to be a rear emergency door under S5.2.3.1 and one to be a regular door for loading and unloading passengers, then the designated rear emergency door is a sufficient rear emergency exit so long as it will permit unobstructed passage of the device specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2 of the Standard. In a case such as this one, the manufacturer must label the emergency door appropriately, and otherwise ensure that the designated rear emergency door meets the performance, accessibility, and release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus.

On the other hand, if the manufacturer installs two rear doors on a small school bus, and if both of those doors must be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, then both doors constitute a rear emergency exit under S5.2.3.1. In this case, the two doors together must meet the applicable provisions of Standard 217.

There is yet another possibility that a manufacturer may install a second rear exit and designate it as an emergency exit. Assuming that at least one exit meets Standard 217's requirements for a rear emergency door exit, NHTSA would not prohibit installing this additional emergency exit. However, as the agency long has held, that "extra" emergency exit must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Question 2: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require separate, independent operation; that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

Again, the answer to this question depends upon whether one door can meet the unobstructed test measurement for a required rear emergency door. Let me begin this answer by explaining the release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus.

Under paragraph S5.3.3, a required small school bus rear emergency door generally must have a release mechanism that allows (1) a single person (2) to operate the door manually (3) from in or outside the vehicle's passenger compartment without the use of remote controls or tools (4) irrespective of whether the vehicle's power system fails. (Paragraph S5.3.3 also sets the maximum permissible magnitude of force and the permissible direction in which a force must be applied to operate the release mechanism.)

In an interpretation of March 17, 1982, this agency stated that the release mechanism is the mechanism that keeps the door from opening. In other words, the release mechanism is what you refer to in your letter as the door "latch." If the test device described in my answer to your first question passes through unobstructed only when both doors are open, then the door release mechanism must be operable for both doors from inside the vehicle passenger compartment irrespective of whether a person outside the vehicle operates the outside release mechanism. Further, this same release mechanism must be operable from outside the vehicle. In this circumstance, a separate release mechanism for each door would not comply with the Standard.

If only one door needs to be open, and the manufacturer has designated the second door as an emergency exit, then this additional emergency door still must be operable from inside the passenger compartment. In this case, independent release mechanisms may be appropriate, but a release mechanism on an additional emergency exit need not be operable from outside the vehicle. (S5.3.2.)

If only one door needs to be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, and the manufacturer neither intends the second door to be an emergency door, nor designates it as an emergency exit, then the second door is a regular door for loading and unloading passengers. Standard 217 would be inapplicable to this second door.

Question 3: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened to insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelepiped?

If both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of the specified parallelepiped, then there must be a single emergency release mechanism (or latch) for both doors. In a case such as this, there must be an audible alarm under S5.3.3 whenever the release mechanism is not closed and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." That alarm should sound if either door is unsecured.

Question 4: Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelepiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand door closed?

In your question, the manufacturer may designate either door as the required S5.2.3.1 emergency exit if the door accommodates the test device. The warning system then must sound when the release mechanism on the designated rear emergency door is open and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." For example, if in your question, the manufacturer designated the right-hand door as the required rear door emergency exit, then the warning system must sound whenever the release mechanism for that door is open and the vehicle ignition position is "on." As I stated in Question 1, the second rear door could be an "additional" emergency exit, or a regular means for loading and unloading passengers; then the additional door would have to meet such other requirements as may apply to these exits.

Question 5: Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelepiped even though the left-hand door is close by the latches of the right-hand door?

In this circumstance, Standard 217 would prohibit installing a separate release mechanism on each door. Recall that S5.2.3.1 requires on a small school bus, "one rear emergency door," or one side door and one push-out window. If the manufacturer chooses to install the rear emergency door, then under S5.4.2.2, the specified parallelepiped must pass through that rear emergency door without obstruction. If both doors must be open to accommodate the test device, then both doors constitute the single, rear emergency door which the Standard requires. Under paragraph S5.3.3, the required rear emergency door must have its own release mechanism.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:4/29/88

ID: 77-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your frank letter of January 13, 1977, commenting upon the lack of clarity you feel exists in my letter to you of December 6, 1976, interpreting Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As a lawyer it is obvious to me that the best regulatory practice is to be as specific as possible in establishing requirements and prohibitions. When a regulation itself is unclear, however, its interpretation may necessarily be imprecise. Because the term "optical combination" in S4.4.1 is not defined, my answers were necessarily worded in general terms though with the thought of establishing a general framework of guidance for you. They were not intended to be "a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words." My letter meant, in plain English, that where tail lamps and clearance lamps are in a single compartment we don't want one lamp to perform, or to be perceived as performing, the function of the other. It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

SINCERELY,

January 13, 1977

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

Refer: N40-30 Your letter of December 6, 1976

A combination of a Christmas holiday with the family in Arizona and year end activity here in our plant has prevented our sending you a reply to the referenced letter at an earlier date.

As far as we are concerned, your response to our October 28 letter is a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words and one which avoids positive answers or defensible positions on the specific questions we submitted.

Discussing first your lengthy second paragraph; from line 6 we quote: ". . . . Standard 108 does not require separate compartments (i.e. and opaque barrier) for tail lamps and clearance lamps . . . " Perhaps you can give some scientific explanation how two lamps can be in the same compartment and not interfere optically with one another. The degree of candlepower emanating from each bulb is dependent on their respective candlepowers and in the case of tail and clearance lamp bulbs, the lumens generated are not very far apart since clearance lamp bulbs deliver 2 c.p. and tail lamp bulbs 3 c.p. If tail lamp and clearance lamp bulbs were positioned relatively close together in the single compartment (a condition you state is permissible) I submit that a "driver in a following vehicle" could not possibly interpret one lamp from the other.

May we refer you to line 15 of the second paragraph of your letter and we quote: "there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp . . . " To any engineer or attorney involved with compliance regulations, the words "appreciable amount" are incongruous when applied to a standard such as 108, the purpose of which is to spell out specific optical values, tests, and locations for lights. DOT 108 standard permits no deviation from the SAE standards referenced, which standards positively indicate optical values for lamps. Nor does DOT 108 permit any option on the number and types of lamps required on a trailer or where these lamps shall be located. "Appreciable" has no measureable value, therefore, we ask, whose judgement will prevail when evaluating the design and testing of a lamp, the manufacturer or your compliance people. How would you legally defend your position that a light has an "appreciable" amount of spill, hence is illegal, in the absence of an applicable photometric standard.

We also object to the language: "The amount of light spill appears to be so small . . ." (sce para. 2 line 17). What numerical candlepower value do you assign to the words "appears to" as a measure of whether or not a lamp conforms to the published standard? Would we receive approval from your compliance group on a lamp we have marked "DOT" on the basis of our contention that to us the lamp "appears to" meet the photometric standards?

How evasive can a response to our specific question be than your blanket reply of: "If you apply this general principle to the questions you asked, then I think you will have the answers."

We refer you to page 2, lines 2, 3, and 4 of your letter, which we quote: "The principle is necessarily dependent upon the candlepower output of any lamp to which it is applied, a value not given in your questions." Of course we didn't specify "candlepower output". Those values are specified in DOT 108. Or perhaps you were unaware that clearance lamp bulbs and tail lamp bulbs are manufactured to *SAE J573f which specified: Typical Service Trade No. Mean Spherical Candela M ** 57 2 candlepower at 14 volts T *** 1157 3 candlepower at 14 volts

* Photometric tests performed under SAE J592e and SAE J585d are always made using 2 c.p. and 3 c.p. bulb respectively.

** M - Marker, Clearance, Identification

*** T - Tail

These are the lamps and respective candlepowers you will find in all tail lamps and clearance lamps.

Therefore, with such a small candlepower difference between clearance and tail lamp output, the "spill" (to quote your letter) from one to the other, with bulbs exposed in the same compartment, equate one another.

We read with surprise in your letter that "certification is dependent upon a manufacturer's good faith in attempting to achieve compliance." We would like to believe that statement, but the actual experiences of many trailer manufacturers with your compliance people, doesn't bear out what you say. The compliance man recognizes but one criteria: does it or does it not meet the specific requirements of the published standard.

At this moment in time the DOT is quibbling over a specific interpretation of S 4.4.1 with such indecisive language as: "appears to be", "appreciable amount", "good faith". It could be that your indefinite position merely covers a too hasty interpretation by one of your staff, but whatever the reason, please either resolve this problem in terms of specific numbers, or rewrite S 4.4.1 so that there can be no possible misinterpretation of your requirements.

You asked the writer to comment on combining tail and clearance lamp. This combination for boat trailers and some camping trailers is an extremely sensible approach. The 108 standard blankets big semi trailers and small duck boat trailers with the same sets of rules, which rules for a semi trailer are as totally practical as they are totally impractical for a small boat trailer.

In the matter of boat trailers, the over 80" lighting requirements are almost impossible to meet. For example, consider a boat trailer carrying a sail boat. It is virtually impossible to locate an identification light bar that won't be swept off or severely bent when the boat is launched. Use of an identification light bar on a trailer should be eliminated. Very few are operable after a launching.

The trailer manufacturer certifies his trailer as meeting the DOT standards, when it leaves his plant. The dimensions of the boats that trailer may carry vary wiedely and many a trailer's actual width is exceeded by the hull it carries. This is knowledge the trailer manufacturer would not have when he produced the trailer.

It would be economical as well as practical to permit a boat trailer manufacturer to mount his tail lamp in such a position that it would serve the dual purpose of clearance and tail lamp, with no detriment to safety. If anything, we would consider such an arrangement a safer condition than the use of seperate lights.

In conclusion, would you please give us specific answers to the questions posed in paragraph 6 of letter of October 28, 1976, at your earliest convenience. For your convenience a copy of same is attached.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

cc: SEN. WILLIAM PROXMIRE; SEN. GAYLOR NELSON

ID: 1984-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Dick Cheney -- House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Cheney:

This responds to your recent letter to this agency, seeking comments on a constituent's letter concerning seating on school buses and the use of activity buses. Essentially, Mr. Krisko, your constituent, stated that the seating on school buses presents comfort problems on long distance trips, particularly for high school buses athletes, and asked why schools are not permitted to own "Trailways" type buses for use on these long distance trips. Mr. Krisko noted that Federal Law now permits the use of such buses only if they are leased by the schools or if the bus was manufactured before the comprehensive school bus safety standards became effective in 1977. As is more fully explained below, the answer is that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), together with the safety standards for school buses (which the Act required this agency to issue) require that buses which are significantly used to transport school children to and from school-related events must be certified as meeting those safety standards. "Trailways" type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing such, and therefore cannot be so used.

In 1974, Congress passed the School Bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments (Pub. L. 93-492; hereinafter referred to as "the Amendments"). The Amendments added to the Act the following definition of a school bus: "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers is addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools;...(15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). (Emphasis added). Those Amendments also provided that, not later than 15 months after they were enacted, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to promulgate minimum performance standards for specified aspects of safety performance. The Amendments specified further that these standards "shall apply to each school bus and item of school bus equipment which is manufactured in or imported into the United States on or after April 1, 1977." (15 U.S.C. 1392(i)(1)(8))

Prior to this legislative action, many school districts had used so-called "activity buses" to transport students to and from extracurricular activities. The floor debates on the Amendments show that Congress was aware of this practice, yet chose to specify a broad definition of school bus, so as to require vehicles used solely for extracurricular activities to meet the same safety standards as those used to transport the children to and from school. This decision was partially based on the fact that 150 children were killed in 1971 in school bus accidents (see 120 Cong. Rec. HB120, daily ed., August 12, 1974). The statistics since the Amendments were passed indicate that Congress' goal of greatly reducing these fatalities has been accomplished by the school bus safety standards promulgated by this agency. In 1981, the last year for which complete statistics are available, there were 10 fatalities in school bus accidents.

The October 26, 1983 resolution passed by the Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals (WASSP), which was enclosed with MR. Krisko's letter, contains a statement which suggests that the group may not be accurately informed about the origin of the current requirements for school buses.

The WASSP resolved that present administrative definitions be changed to allow schools to own commercial-type buses to transport school children to extracurricular activities. The language in our administratively-adopted for that purpose follows the statutory definition of that term. Without a change by Congress in the statutory definition, the administrative definition must remain as it is.

With respect to the issue of seat spacing, last year this agency amended Standard No. 222 to permit maximum seat spacing of 24 inches instead of teh 21 inches previously specified (48 FR 12384, March 24, 1983). This step could be taken to improve the comfort of those buses without compromising the level of safety afforded the occupants. During that rulemaking action, this agency considered allowing reclining seats similar to those used in commercial-type vehicles, but concluded that reclining seats could not provide the same level of safety protection as is provided by upright seats spaced 24 inches apart. Accordingly, this type of seating was not permitted. I understand Mr. Krisko's concern that such seating would be more comfortable on long trips. I hope that he understands that the agency carefully looked at the available date. In the agency's judgment, the date indicated that these seats would not be as safe if the bus were involved in an accident.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure Ms. Carole Walls Congressional Relations Officer National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation Room 10406 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Walls:

I have received the enclosed information from the President of the Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals.

Mr. Krisko expresses his concern about regulations pertaining to the use of activity buses. He explains the special problems created by the regulations in a state as large as Wyoming, where some of the school trips are as long as 350 miles one way.

Any information you might be able to provide on this matter would be most appreciated.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Best regards, Dick Cheney Member of Congress Enclosure

The Honorable Richard Cheney Room 4003 Federal Building Casper, WY 82601

Dear Representative Cheney:

The Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals recently passed a resolution regarding the use of activity buses in our state. Other western states have also come up against similar problems, which can be summarized as follows:

Federal laws specify types of seating which may be used on buses used to transport students, regardless of the activity. The seats must be fixed (non-reclining) and may have a maximum 24" between seats. For normal school bus runs (to and from school) there is little problems; on long distance but also a safety problem. It is our opinion that regular" school buses are not designed for long distance travel, particularly with large high school athletes. Some of our trips are 350 miles, one way. There are two ways around the Bus Standards: "Trailways" type buses may be leased from another owner, or may be purchased by a school district if manufactured prior to 1977, when the standards became effective. The latter option leads to the purchase of older vehicles, possible unsafe. Some school districts lease a bus from a local recreation district, essentially owning the bus since recreation districts often are set up under statute by school boards. This however, is not possible in many communities. Some districts have taken a chance and purchased commercial-type buses, but are open to lawsuits in the event of an accident.

We are in communication with Mr. Ivan Gluckman, Legal Counsel for the National Association of Secondary School Principals, regarding this matter. Accompanying this letter are:

a) A copy of a resolution passed by WASSP, October 26,1983 b) Copies of correspondence with Ivan Gluckman c) Copies of some Federal Memoranda regarding school buses

We would appreciate your help in this matter. Other State Associations are being contacted.

Sincerely, Robert M. Krisko, President Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals Thermopolis Middle School

Resolution from WASSP Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals regarding Activity Buses.

Whereas: Students in Western States must travel long distances to participate in school related activities.

and Whereas: Regular school buses are not appropriate for long distance travel in terms of comfort storage of luggage and equipment, or safety

and Whereas: Under the Federal regulations school districts may lease commercial-type buses for activities but not own them

and Whereas: Availability of such leasing is unavailable in many locations

BE IT RESOLVED that the WASSP recommends that present administrative definitions be changed to allow ownership of such vehicles for use on activity trips.

Passed October 26, 1983. Robert M. Krisko, President WASSP

ID: nht79-3.8

DATE: 10/04/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Clanahanm, Tanner, Downing and Knowlton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 24 and your telephone conversation with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office in which you inquired about the Federal law applicable to the manufacture and use of auxiliary fuel tanks. You indicated that your client will be in the business of manufacturing auxiliary fuel tanks for use in passenger vehicles and on farm equipment. Most of the tanks will apparently be designed for mounting on the vehicles without connection to the vehicle fuel system, although some will be built with such connections.

Below is a discussion of questions numbered 1 and 6 in your letter, as well as a general discussion of the law applicable to the installation of both types of auxiliary tanks. Following is a brief discussion of the questions numbered 2-5 in your letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire motor vehicles or to equipment for installation in motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment is not encompassed by the term "motor vehicle" because Congress clearly did not intend that such equipment be within the coverage of the Act. Therefore, none of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to farm equipment and the rest of this letter will be concerned only with passenger vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components and thus is inapplicable to the manufacture of auxiliary fuel tanks.

Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to their manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks of either type you have mentioned must be designed and manufactured for safety. As a manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, your client would be subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (section 151 et seq). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer himself, your client, as a manufacturer, would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.

A person who installs an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations if that person modified the vehicle during the installation. As an alterer, your client would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, your client would be responsible for notifying vehicle owners and remedying the noncompliance or defect.

If your client connects auxiliary gasoline tanks to used passenger vehicles, he or she would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowlingly 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, if your client added an auxiliary tank of either type mentioned in your letter to a used passenger vehicle manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or other systems, he or she would have violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

For example, if your client mounted a tank on the exterior of a vehicle, without connection to the fuel system, and one of the mounting bolts caused the existing fuel system to leak in an amount in excess of that permitted by Safety Standard No. 301-75, he would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). Depending upon the way in which he attached the tank to the vehicle or to its fuel system your client could also violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to other safety standards including, but not limited to, the Bumper Standard (49 C.F.R. 581), and Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Questions 2, 3, and 4.

According to the Federal Highway Administration which administers the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, they apply only to motor carriers and not to passenger vehicles that are not involved in interstate commerce. If you have further questions you might wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration directly.

Question 5. Do 49 C.F.R. 171 et seq. which regulate the transportation of certain hazardous materials apply to the private carrying of such materials on passenger vehicles or farm equipment?

These regulations are administered by the Research and Special Programs Administration, which informs me that the Federal regulations applying to hazardous materials concern the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. Thus far, the regulations have not been applied to the private carrying of hazardous materials, such as gasoline, in a passenger vehicle or farm machine. If you have further questions you might wish to contact the Research and Special Programs Administration.

In conclusion, please note that, in general, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration discourages the use of auxiliary fuel tanks of any kind because of the grave dangers of fire and explosion posed by their improper manufacture or installation. In the near future this agency will be making a press release warning consumers of these hazards and discouraging them from using auxiliary fuel tanks.

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

SINCERELY,

CLANAHAN, TANNER, DOWNING AND KNOWLTON

July 24, 1979

Steven Wood, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Re: Specifications for the Manufacture and Use of Auxiliary Fuel Tanks

Dear Mr. Wood:

This letter is an inquiry regarding the requirements and specifications of the Code of Federal Regulations for auxiliary fuel tanks. The fuel tanks with which we are concerned are those which could be mounted on passenger vehicles and farm equipment. Such vehicles would not be involved in interstate commerce.

I talked with Chuck Keiper in the Denver Office of the NHTSA and he recommended that I contact you concerning the following inquiries. Our questions concern both the applicability of the particular sections of the Code of Federal Regulations enumerated below and whether any other sections are applicable to the manufacture and use of the auxiliary fuel tanks described above. Would you please submit to us your opinions on the following:

1. Does the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #301 contained in 49 C.F.R. @571.301-75 apply to auxiliary fuel tanks not connected with the fuel system?

2. How do the regulations define "properly mounted fuel tank or tanks" as found in 49 C.F.R. @ 392.51?

3. What are the manufacturing specifications for such fuel tanks referred to in 49 C.F.R. @ 392.51?

4. Do 49 C.F.R. @ 393.65-.67, concerning the construction of liquid fuel tanks, apply to those auxiliary fuel tanks as specified above?

5. Do 49 C.F.R. @ 171 et seq. which regulate the transportation of certain hazardous materials apply to the private carrying of such materials on passenger vehicles or farm equipment?

6. Are there any other regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or Department of Transportation which would apply to the manufacture and use of such auxiliary fuel tanks?

Mr. Keiper indicated that the NHTSA was considering new regulations regarding auxiliary fuel tanks. Any information concerning such regulations also would be helpful.

Our client is concerned with complying with the regulations as they now exist. Your response to the above inquiries should assist in this regard and will be appreciated. If there is any other information which would be helpful, please contact me at your convenience.

Chuck Reeves Law Clerk

ID: nht74-1.35

DATE: 06/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Committee on Transportation, Florida House of Representatives

COPYEE: W. R. EASON; NHTSA REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR -- ATLANTA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 7, to Dr. James R. Gregory, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the activation of headlamps during periods of reduced visibility, and the automatic illumination of vehicle headlights when the windshield wipers are activated.

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances is the custodian of the Uniform Vehicle Code. Any revision of @ 12-201 relating to operation of headlights in line with the Florida law could be duly considered by its Subcommittee on Vehicles and Highways. Perhaps you may wish to submit a proposal to revise this section of the UVC to Mr. Edward F. Kearney, Executive Director, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, M.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. If you choose to do so, this would be a timely action since the various Subcommittees of the National Committee will be meeting in the next few months to consider pending proposals to revise various chapters of the UVC.

With respect to automatic illumination of headlights with the windshield wipers, the NHTSA has conducted, and will continue to conduct, considerable research on improved headlighting. This research will include evaluations of means and features which will enhance the safety of driving during inclement weather, at which time the driver would normally use his windshield wipers. The simultaneous activation of headlights and windshield wipers would ensure that the headlights are in use during adverse weather conditions. This feature would, however, result in unnecessary use of the headlights under fair weather conditions; for example, when the driver is operating his windshield washer or when the windshield wiper is used while the vehicle is parked. Illuminated headlights under fair weather conditions will also decrease the conspicuousness of the front turn signal lamps which are normally located near the headlights. These and other factors must be carefully considered in determining the true merits of a feature which would provide for automatic illumination of the headlamps when the windshield wipers are activated. Based on the information available to date, we are not in a position to justify proposing a Federal requirement for such a feature.

Furthermore, since paragraph S4.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 establishes special wiring requirements (including simultaneous activation of taillamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps, with the headlamps), we would view differing State wiring requirements as preempted by Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and hence invalid.

An alternative approach to ensuring the use of headlights during adverse weather would be the strict enforcement of State regulations requiring the use of headlights curing periods of reduced visibility, normally less than 500 feet.

This approach might be more cost-effective, since the cost of the automatic feature would be precluded.

Thank you for bringing your Bill HB 3135 to my attention. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

NHTSA CONTROL NO. 1496

ATTACH.

FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

May 7, 1974

James B. Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Uniform Vehicle Code (Rev. 1971) Chapter 12-201 "When lighted lamps are required"

Dear Mr. Gregory:

I call your attention to the above cited requirement of the U.V.C. compared to Florida's law, Chapter 316.217, Florida Statutes. I will agree that Florida requires lamps to be lighted one hour per day longer than the U.V.C. does as well as Florida enumerates the conditions during which time lamps shall be lighted and the U.V.C. does not. We can therefore agree that Florida's law is more stringent in its requirements than your recommendations in the U.V.C.

As you can see from my efforts to change our law, HB 3135 and a timely letter to the editor in the Miami Herald, copies enclosed, we are having our problems in educating the people about and enforcing the provision of the law which requires head lamps to be lighted when it is raining. Rain is not a safety hazard peculiar only to Florida. Perhaps the distinguished drafters of the Code should speak more specifically to this problem, require all states to conform to this law and even require the automobile manufacturers to install the mechanism referred to in Section 2 of my bill which when the windshield wipers are activated, the head lamps will automatically be activated without any additional action required of the operator.

I fully realize just how impractical it is for only one state to have such a requirement placed on the manufacturers of automobiles. However, this is my way of impressing you with the gravity of the situation and that it is within your power to reduce this specific safety hazard by requiring the manufacturers install the aforesaid mechanism. The cost to install such an item will be very nominal, less than $ 2.00, yet the benefits can be very large indeed in the saving of lives and the reduction of property damage.

Sincerely, Vernon C. Holloway -- CHAIRMAN

Enclosures

cc: NHTSA Regional Administrator, Atlanta; Miami Herald, Miami

(Regular Session 1974)

By Representative Holloway

A bill to be entitled

An act relating to the operation of head lamps and windshield wipers during unfavorable atmospheric conditions; arending section 316.217(1), F. S., requiring head lamps and windshield wipers be operated under certain conditions; amending section 501.125, F. S., adding subsection (3) thereto and renumbering (3) as (4); requiring certain automobiles have specific equipment attached before they are sold and licensed in the state; providing an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Subsection (1) of section 316.217, F. S., is amended to read:

316.217 When lighted lamps are required. --

(1) Every vehicle upon a highway within this state at any time from sunset to sunrise, during fog, smoke, or rain, or atmospheric conditions, are such that there is inadequate light, shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices as hereinafter respectively required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles. Stop lights, turn signals and other signaling devices shall be lighted as prescribed for the use of such devices. Whenever conditions are present which require the use of windshield wipers, headlamps shall be activated.

Section 2. Section 501.125, F. S., is amended by adding a new subsection (3) thereto and renumbering (3) as (4) to read:

501.125 Warranty on sale and manufacture of automobiles; energy absorption system, windshield wipers and head lamps. --

(3) Every private passenger automobile manufactured on and after September 1, 1975, and sold and licensed in the state shall be sold subject to the manufacturer's warranty that it is equipped with a mechanism which when the windshield wipers are activated, the head lamps are automatically activated without any additional required action on the part of the operator.

(4) The warranty provisions of this section shall not be applicable with respect to any private passenger automobile as to which the manufacturer files a written certification under oath with the department of highway safety and motor vehicles, on a form to be prescribed by that department, that the particular make and model described therein complies with the applicable standards of this section.

Section 3. This act shall take effect October 1, 1977.

LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY

Requires automobile headlight operation when there is inadequate light, at any time from sunset to sunrise, during fog, smoke or rain. Requires windshield wiper use whenever conditions necessitate. Requires every private passenger automobile manufactured on and after September 1, 1975 and sold and licensed in the state to be warrantied by the manufacturer that it is equipped with a mechanism which automatically activates the head lamps when the windshield wipers are activated.

The Miami Herald

Monday, April 22, 1974

Enforce 'Lights On in Rain' Law

To The Editor:

Is there any law less frequently enforced than the law requiring headlights on during a rainstorm?

I realize that it requires the police officer to get out of his car in the rain, but if nobody is going to enforce it then get the law off the books -- or enforce it.

BOB RESNIZK

ID: nht89-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/89

FROM: JIM EVANS -- QUALITY CONTROL DEPT., THE BARGMAN COMPANY

TO: STEVEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02-26-90 TO JIM EVANS, THE BARGMAN CO., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; (REDBOOK) A35; VSA 103(D); STD. 108

TEXT: My company manufactures lighting products for the recreational vehicle industry and we are in need of an interpretation of the rules in FMVSS 108 concerning the use of reflex reflectors on the rear of vehicles. I can find in this standard where two (2) red reflex reflectors are required on the rear of a vehicle (Tables I, II, III, IV) but I cannot find anything in the standard that would prohibit the use of any other color reflectors that could be used in addition to the red reflectors.

Specifically, we manufacture a red taillight lens that has a reflex reflector area around the outer edge of the lens. The stop, turn and tail, as well as the reflex functions all exceed the minimum requirements for these functions.

One of our customers has asked us to mold this same lens in yellow so that it could be used for the turn signal function. It would be mounted side by side with the red unit which would now be used for only stop and tail functions. The problem now arise s where both the yellow and red lens would be visable to traffic approaching from the rear. I checked with a local State Police Post here in Michigan, and they were able to find a section in the State Code that clearly states that reflectors mounted on the rear of a vehicle shall reflect a red color (I am enclosing a copy of this section for your reference). As I stated in my opening paragraph, I cannot find an equivalent ruling in the National standard. I am hoping that your office may have already addressed this problem in the past and that a ruling is already in effect.

My questions are two-fold: First, is it legal to put any other color reflector on the rear of a vehicle as long as the red reflectors are also present? Secondly, if in fact this situation is illegal (which I believe it probably is), could the National st andard be amended to show this fact and eliminate future confusion? Whichever way is correct, I would like to request a written statement to that effect as well as any supporting documentation for the ruling.

I am looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible so that we can clear this matter up once and for all. Thank you.

Enclosure

(d) On every trailer or semitrailer having a gross weight in excess of 3,000 pounds:

On the front, 2 clearance lamps, 1 at each side.

On each side, 2 side marker lamps, 1 at or near the front and 1 at or near the rear.

On each side, 2 reflectors, 1 at or near the front and 1 at or near the rear.

On the rear, 2 clearance lamps, 1 at each side, also 2 reflectos, 1 at each side, and 1 stop light.

(e) On every poletrailer:

On each side, 1 side marker lamp and 1 clearance lamp which may be in combination, to show to the front, side or rear.

On the rear of the poletrailer or load, 2 reflectors, 1 on each side.

(f) On every trailer or semitrailer weighing 3,000 pounds gross or less:

On the rear, 2 reflectors, 1 on each side if any trailer or semitrailer is so loaded or is of such dimensions as to obscure the stop light on the towing vehicle, then such vehicle shall (Illegible Words) with 1 stop light

(g) When operated on the highway, every vehicle which has a maximum potential speed of 25 miles an hour implement of husbandry, farm tractor or special mobile equipment shall be identified with a reflective device as follows:

An equilateral triangle in shape, at least 16 inches wide at the base and at least 14 inches in height, with a dark red border, at least 1 3/4 inches wide of highly reflective beaded material;

A center triangle, at least 12 1/4 inches on each side of yellow orange fluorescent materials.

The device shall be mounted on the rear of the vehicle, broad base down, not less than 3 feet not more than 5 feet above the ground and as near the center of the vehicle as possible. The use of this reflective device is restricted to use on slow movi ng vehicles specified in this section, and use of such reflective device on any other type of vehicle or stationary object on the highway is prohibited.

On the rear, at each side, red reflectors or reflectorized material visible from all distances within 500 to 50 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps.

Am. 1988, Act 383.

CI 257.689 Clearance and marker lamps and reflectors; color. [MSA 9.2389]

Sec. 689. (a) Front clearance lamps and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the front or on the side near the front of a vehicle shall display or reflect an amber color.

(b) Rear clearance lamps and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the rear or on the sides near the rear of a vehicle shall display or reflect a red color.

(c) All lighting devices and reflectors mounted on the rear of any vehicle shall display or reflect a red color, except the stop light or other signal device, which may be red or amber, and except that the light illuminating the license plate-shall be white.

CI 257.690 Same; mounting [MSA 9.2390]

Sec. 690. (1) Reflectors shall be mounted at a height not less than 15 inches and not higher than 60 inches above the ground on which the vehicle stands, except that if the highest part of the permanent structure of the vehicle is less than 15 inches , the reflector at such point shall be mounted as high as that part of the permanent structure will permit.

(2) The rear reflectors on a pole-trailer may be mounted on each side of the bolster or load.

(3) Any required red reflector on the rear of a vehicle may be incorporated with the tail lamp, but such reflector shall meet all the other reflector requirements of this chapter.

(4) Clearance lamps shall be mounted on the permanent structure of the vehicle in such a manner as to indicate its extreme width and as near the top thereof as practicable. Clearance lamps and side marker lamps may be mounted in combination if illumi nation is given as required herein with reference to both.

Am. 1988, Act 383.

CI 257.691 Same; visibility. [MSA 9.2391]

Sec. 691. (a) Every reflector upon any vehicle referred to in section 689 of this chapter shall be of such size and characteristics and so maintained as to be readily visible at nighttime from all distances within 500 to 50 feet from the vehicle when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps. Reflectors required to be mounted on the sides of the vehicle shall reflect the required color of light to the sides, and those mounted on the rear shall reflect a red color to the rear.

(b) Front and rear clearance lamps shall be capable of being seen and distinguished under normal atmospheric conditions at the times lights are required at a distance of 500 feet from the front and rear, respectively, of the vehicle.

(c) Side marker lamps shall be capable of being seen and distinguished under normal atmospheric conditions at the times lights are required at a distance of 500 feet from the side of the vehicle on which mounted.

CI 257.692 Combination vehicles obstructed lights. [MSA 9.2392]

Sec. 692. Whenever motor and other vehicles are operated in combination during the time that lights are required, any lamp (except tail lamps) need not be lighted which, by reason of its location on a vehicle of the combination, would be obscured by another vehicle of the combination, but this shall not affect the requirement that lighted clearance lamps be displayed on the front of the foremost vehicle required to have clearance lamps, nor that all lights required on the rear of the rearmost vehicl e of any combination shall be lighted.

ID: nht74-3.16

DATE: 08/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 1, and July 30, 1974, request for approval of hydraulic and vacuum brake hose labeling. We have evaluated your examples based on the labeling requirements of the standard as amended by Notice 11 of Docket No. 1-5.

The hydraulic brake hose marking on "Face A" appears to conform to the requirements of S5.2.2, assuming that letter "size" refers to letter height. The interval between markings, represented by "--", also conforms. "Face B" is not regulated by our standard.

With regard to the markings for brake hose end fittings, the date (indicated by "XY") is not required. If you choose to add the date to your markings, it should not interfere with the legibility of the required markings. I would like to point out that under Notice 11, the marking requirements do not apply to end fittings "attached by deformation of the fitting about a hose by crimping or swaging." This means that hydraulic hose fittings for use in passenger cars need not be labeled.

The brake hose assembly markings you submit appear to conform to the requirements of the standard.

With regard to vacuum brake hose, your "Face A" appears to conform to S5.2.2 if letter "size" refers to letter height. S5.2.1 is not applicable and therefore the stripe is not required. "Face B" is not regulated by our standard.

We have placed "MRCC" on file as the manufacturer designation for your company.

Yours truly,

MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

July 30, 1974

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety ADMIN.

Subject: Submission of Comments on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Docket No.1-5: Notice 10

By our letter (Our Ref. No. T-76) March 25, 1974, we asked for your approval of our hydraulic brake hose and Vacuum brake hose labeling.

However, [Docket No.1-5: Notice 10] has been issued, so we would like to ask for your approval of the attached application as corrected.

This was planned according to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards [Docket No. 1-5: Notice 8] Federal Register, Vol.38, No. 218-Tuesday November 13, 1973 and [Docket No. 1-5: Notice 9] Federal Register. Vol. 39, No. 20 Tuesday January 29, 1974.

The places to be corrected are indicated by the symbol(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE). The reason for each correction is indicated by the symbol (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE).

H. Tsukano, Sub-manager

Technical Division

August 1, 1974

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Councel -- NHTSA

We thank you very much for your sending Notice 11.

We apply again on July 30.

This Ref T-129 is the same contents as Ref T-85 which we sent on may 29, '74.

I remain for today

H. Tsukano Sub-manager

Technical Division

LABERING

1. HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSE

1. Hydraulic brake hose (ID 1/8")

1-1. Printed parts

1-2. Face A (printed mark)

<--(symbol illegible) (every 4 inches-->

-- DOT MRCC 1o/74 1/8 HR -- DOT MRCC

Notes: The color of printed letters is white.

The size of a letter is 1/8".

The width of line is 1/16".

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

1-3. Face B (printed mark)

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) MEIJI RUBBER JAPAN 1/8 NO57-1 1974 SAE J1401 (which is indication of the approval for the export to a northern state (pennsylvania).)

Notes: The white letters are printed continuously

The size of a letter is 1/8".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE): The trade mark of Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

1/8: The inside diameter of hoses

1974: year of production

NO57-1: The approval number of RMA (Rubber Manufacturers Association) (444 Nadison Avenue, New York 10022, U.S.A.)

Line number 57

Yarn color code yellow-yellow-black

RMA assignment Meiji Rubber Company, Ltd. attained on March 1st, 1967

SAE JI401 Society of Automotive Hydraulic Brake Hose

2. Hydraulic brake hose and fitting

Dot MRCC (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) 1/8XY

Notes: Letters stamped

The size of a letter 1/16"

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber and Chemical Co.

1/8: The inside diameter of hose

X is the figure of production that comes after 197

Y means the month of production

3. Hydraulic brake hose assembly

DOT MRCC 10/74

Notes: Letters stamped

The size of a letter 1/8"

Rubber band width 6mm

red colored

hypalon rubber MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

II. Vacuum Brake Hose (ID 11/32)

1. Printed parts

(A) Face A (printed mark)

(every 5 inches)

--- DOT MRCC 10/74 11/32 VL --- DOT MRCC

Notes: The white letters printed

The size of a letter 4mm

The width of line 2mm

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co. 11/32 means the inside diameter of hose.

(B) Face B (printed mark)

(every 5 inches)

-- (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Japan 11/32 LD GD2 SAE JI403 (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) ---

Notes: The white letters printed

The size of a letter 4mm

The width of line 2mm

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) is the trade mark of Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

11/32 is inside diameter of hose.

LD is Light-Duty Type.

GD2 is the month and year of production code according to SAE specifications.

As our hose will be imported into the United States only as equipment used in Hond Civic or Mitsubishi Dodge Colt and other vehicles or as parts for the maintenance of these, you can get any further necessary details from the office of these corporation.

FOR INFORMATION

1. Hydraulic Brake Hose

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) 1-2. "Every 6 inches" should be corrected to "every 4 inches".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: According to Notice 10 the interval 6" should be under 6". this hose is used in 4" lengths and can be printed in only one place.

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Hydraulic brake hose assembly Rubber band width 8mm should be corrected to 6 mm.

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: To harmonize the letter size of 1/8" and to make it easier in printing.

II. Vacuum Brake Hose

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Inside diameter 3/8 inch should be corrected to 11/32 inch.

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: The actual measurment is nearer 11/32" than 3/8".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Every 6 inches" should be correct to "every 5 inches".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The size of a letter should be corrected from "5 mm" to "4 mm".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE)The width of line should be corrected from "3 mm" to "2 mm".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: To harmonize letter and hose size and to print more clearly. (every 6 inches)

--- M --- MRCC JAPAN ---

The above mentioned mark should be corrected as follows according to SAE specifications by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (every 5 inches)

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) JAPAN 11/32 LD, GD2 SAE JI403

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The size of a letter should be corrected from "5 mm" to "4 mm". 11/32 is inside diameter of hose.

LD is Light-Duty Type.

GD2 is the month and year of production code according to SAE specification.

As our hose will be imported into the United States only as equipment used in Honda Civic or Mitsubishi Dodge Colt and other Vehicles or as parts for the maintenance of these, you can get any further necessary details from the office of these corporation.

ID: nht75-2.41

DATE: 12/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Maine

COPYEE: LEONARD FINK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received copies of correspondence between you and Leonard A. Fink, Washington counsel for Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycles, concerning requirements of the State of Maine for motor driven cycle headlamps. I understand that Mr. Fink has provided you with a copy of my letter of September 17, 1975 to him. Mr. Fink has asked that I write you directly concerning our views on Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards.

At issue is whether the State of Maine may continue to require motorcycles of 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with multiple beam headlamps. In my letter to Mr. Fink I stated:

"Any motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, may be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlamp (Table III, Standard No. 108, incorporating by reference SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. See Table I of J584. This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one".

You replied to Mr. Fink on November 7, 1975 that

"Table I appears to be inconclusive . . . . The most reasonable interpretation . . . is that motor driven cycles at high beam frequently utilize both the upper beam of the multiple beam light and a additional single beam light, whereas motor driven cycles at low beam may use the lower beam of the multiple lights (Table II of J584). At any rate, I have not found any clear preemptive language such as we find with regard to turn signal lamps in Standard No. 108 @ 4.1.1.26."

There are actually four different permissible lighting configurations available for motor driven cycles. The "multiple beam light and an additional single beam light" to which you refer is one of them, specifically the "one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam units" referred to in SAE J584's General Requirement. But the photometrics of Table I do not refer to this configuration, whose photometrics are those of J579. As a practical matter motor driven cycles will rarely if ever be equipped with more than one headlamp because of the severe drain on their low power reserve. In recognition of the limited generating capability of motor cycles with 5 horsepower or less, J584 does allow use of a single beam headlamp as the sole forward lighting source. The texts of the sections on Beam Aim During Photometric Test and At-Focus Tests refer specifically to test methods for single beam headlamps, and while the standard could be even more specific, its requirements appear to be generally understood by manufacturers and law enforcement officials. It is not a prerequisite for preemption that there be language in the body of Standard No.

108 specifying allowable headlamp systems for motor driven cycles. Where, as here, the area of motor driven cycle headlighting is clearly covered by Standard No. 108, a State must allow all four headlighting systems and cannot require only one of them.

If Maine officials would like the NHTSA to consider changing these existing Federal requirements for motor-driven cycles, they should submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552 for an amendment to Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions I would be pleased to answer them.

SINCERELY,

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE AND OCHS

November 17, 1975

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Re: Federal Preemption of State of Maine Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

As suggested by Mr. Taylor Vinson in our telephone conversation of November 17, I am enclosing copies of the following correspondence re the above:

1. My letters dated August 22, 1975 and September 22, 1975 to Robert S. Raymond, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Maine.

2. Your letter dated September 17, 1975 to me, a copy of which was enclosed with my September 22, 1975 letter to Mr. Raymond.

3. Mr. Raymond's reply letter to me dated November 7, 1975.

One would have thought that your September 17 letter clearly resolved any doubts as to whether the State of Maine could require motor driven cycles of 5hp or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlight. Alas, Mr. Raymond still seems unpersuaded. Mr. Vinson thus suggested that NHTSA deal directly with Mr. Raymond. I would appreciate your doing so and sending us copies of the relevant correspondence.

For your information, on November 17 I contacted Mr. Walter Ross, Chairman, Motorcycle Headlight Task Force, SAE, 216-266-2272. Mr. Ross confirmed that SAE J584 permitted either single or multiple beam headlight in this case. According to Mr. Ross, SAE will provide any further statement of clarification in support.

On behalf of our clients, Steyr-Daimier-Puch, A.G., and Bombardier, Ltd., and others in the same position, our thanks for your efforts to resolve this situation.

Leonard A. Fink

cc: TAYLOR VINSON (W/ENCS.)

STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL November 7, 1975

Leonard A. Fink, Esquire Friedman, Medalie, Ochs and Jacks

Re: Federal preemption - motor driven cycle headlights

Please excuse my tardiness in researching the questions you presented to me pertaining to the above matter.

It is my feeling at this point that federal rules and regulations in the motor vehicle safety area do indeed generally preempt state regulations. I say this, however, with the qualification that federal courts narrowly construe the preemptive provisions to give states as much flexibility as possible within the federal regulatory framework.

With that introduction in mind, it is my present feeling that there is no federal requirement which prohibits a state from requiring a high and low beam headlight on a motor driven cycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 m.p.h. I say this after having carefully studied Table III of Federal Standard No. 108 which incorporates by reference SAE Standard J584. Both you and Mr. Frank Berndat have placed great significance on Table I of SAE J584. At best, however, Table I appears to be inconclusive as to the issue we are concerned with. The most reasonable interpretation of Table I of J584 is that motor driven cycles at high beam frequently utilize both the upper beam of the multiple beam light and an additional single beam light, whereas motor driven cycles at low beam only use the lower beam of the multiple lights (Table II of J584). At any rate, you have not indicated to me and I have not found any clear preemptive language such as we find with regard to turn signal lamps in Standard No. 108 @ 4.1.1.26.

In conclusion, I feel it would be improper for me at this time to recommend a change in Maine's regulations pertaining to head lamps on motor driven cycles. I will be glad to correspond with you further regarding this matter.

ROBERT S. RAYMOND Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division

cc: CAPT. RICHARD JONES -- DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

September 22, 1975

Robert S. Raymond, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Attorney General's Office

AUGUSTA, MAINE 04330

Re: Federal Preemption

Following up my letter of you of August 22 and our several telephone conversations, I am enclosing for your information a copy of an opinion letter dated September 17, 1975 from Frank Berndt, Esq., Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

As you will see, Mr. Berndt's letter makes clear that Federal Safety Standard No. 108 permits a motor driven cycle of 5 bp or less to be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlight. Furthermore, Mr. Brandt's letter states "This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392 (d), that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one."

I would hope that under these circumstances you can promptly advise the appropriate State of Maine officials that the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle, and any others in the same category, quality for registration and inspection with the single beam headlight. As you can well understand continued delay in resolving this matter is working a hardship on purchasers, dealers and distributors of the motorized bicycle.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Leonard A. Fink