ID: aiam5060

"Dear Ms. Lang: This responds to your letter of September 12, 1992 requesting information on regulations concerning bus conversions. Your company converts the interior of buses by installing such materials as carpets, wall coverings, and blinds. In particular you asked for information on regulations concerning the attachment of seats to vehicles and the material used for the construction of seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish one safety standard relevant to seating, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. There is one other safety standard that could be affected by the work your company performs. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, including buses. If your company converts previously certified buses, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as: A person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified ... other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale .... If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. The label must also state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed. Your company would not be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7 if the modifications involve only readily attachable components. However, the modifications would still be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. I hope you find this information helpful. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 18033.ztv

Mr. Edward F. Dugan
President
Soda Fountain
FAX 908-322-3026

Dear Mr. Dugan:

This is in reply to your letter of May 14, 1998, to the New York Regional Office of this agency, with respect to a lighting device that you wish to offer to funeral directors. This device is a battery operated lamp, 3 inches in diameter, intended to be attached by a magnet or suction cup to the roofs of cars in funeral processions. The lamp, which emits a white color, flashes, with the intent of assisting drivers in the procession to stay together. You also note your belief that, with the advent of daytime running lamps, headlamps alone "are no longer a sufficient identifier of a funeral procession." You have asked if we have any objection to the use of these lamps.

The use of these lamps would not violate any Federal statute or regulation. They are subject to the laws of the State or municipality in which they will be used. Some jurisdictions may prohibit the use of flashing lights except on police or emergency vehicles. However, we are not conversant with local laws and are not able to advise you about them.

Because our interpretations are a matter of public record, I would like to explain briefly, without legal citations, how we reached our conclusion that the use of these lamps is not prohibited under Federal law. A flashing white lamp cannot be installed on a new motor vehicle, before its first sale, because all lamps must be steady burning, except for turn and hazard warning signals, school bus warning lamps, and headlamps that flash for signaling purposes. After the first sale of a vehicle, the lamp could not be attached by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business because that would make inoperative the Federal lighting standard that applied to the vehicle when it was new. But this prohibition covers only the entities named, and installation of the flashing lamp by a person other than the entities named is not prohibited. That is to say, an employee of a funeral home or the owner of a vehicle in the procession can install the lamp without violating Federal law.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/24/98

ID: nht88-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/88

FROM: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARDS 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 12/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On November 3, 1988 your office responded to our correspondence of August 11, 1988. A copy of both these letters are included for your convenience. In our letter we requested an opinion that our "Impact Control System" or safety-bar did not infringe on any existing standard for installation in school buses. Your reply details a number of conditions that must be complied with if we choose to install our system in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less; however, it is n ot clear to us from your letter that the device does not infringe on standards for installation in the larger school buses. While we are prepared to certify compliance with Federal safety standards for large bus installation, we do not wish to go forwar d on the assumption of not conflicting with those standards. In this regard, we would appreciate clarification on the following:

1) that your letter of November 3, 1988 addresses both the large and smaller school buses.

2) that your letter addresses only those vehicles with (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds and under.

If your letter addresses only the smaller vehicles, we wish at this time to request an opinion that our device does not conflict with any standard for large school bus installation. In that your office has recently reviewed this matter you should refer to the supporting documents previously submitted. Should you need any additional information, please let us know.

Thank you.

Cordially,

ID: 8067

Mr. Richard Langlais
Prelco Inc.
94 Boulevard Cartier
Riviere-Du-Loup
Quebec, Canada G5R-2M9

Dear Mr. Langlais:

This responds to your December 7, 1992, inquiry requesting information about the agency's requirements set forth in 49 CFR 551.45, Service of Process; Agents. In a November 26, 1991, letter to you, Ms. Kathleen DeMeter, NHTSA's Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, sent you a letter explaining your responsibilities pursuant to 551.45. You now have some additional questions related to Ms. DeMeter's letter. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your additional questions.

As our earlier letter explained, 551.45 sets forth this agency's requirements as they relate to the service of process on non-American manufacturers and importers. One such requirement provides that you must send a declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed and that agent must be a permanent resident of the United States. The agent may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation. You asked who could be appointed as your agent and whether we would recommend some agents or firms which specialize in this kind of service.

With respect to your first question, any individual, firm, or United States corporation may be an agent provided that it is a permanent resident of this country. With respect to your second question, this agency does not recommend or endorse entities which may serve as an agent. Nevertheless, the National Glass Association, a trade association whose members include automotive glass manufacturers, may be able to assist you. It is located at 8200 Greensboro Drive, Suite 302, McLean Va 22102, and its telephone number is (703) 442-4890.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:551#205 d:2/23/93

ID: nht93-1.48

DATE: 02/23/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: RICHARD LANGLAIS -- PRELCO INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM RICHARD LANGLAIS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 8067); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-26-91 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER TO RICHARD LANGLAIS

TEXT: This responds to your December 7, 1992, inquiry requesting information about the agency's requirements set forth in 49 CFR @ 551.45, Service of Process; Agents. In a November 26, 1991, letter to you, Ms. Kathleen DeMeter, NHTSA's Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, sent you a letter explaining your responsibilities pursuant to @ 551.45. You now have some additional questions related to Ms. DeMeter's letter. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your additional questions.

As our earlier letter explained, @ 551.45 sets forth this agency's requirements as they relate to the service of process on non-American manufacturers and importers. One such requirement provides that you must send a declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed and that agent must be a permanent resident of the United States. The agent may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation. You asked who could be appointed as your agent and whether we would recommend some agents or firms which specialize in this kind of service.

With respect to your first question, any individual, firm, or United States corporation may be an agent provided that it is a permanent resident of this country. With respect to your second question, this agency does not recommend or endorse entities which may serve as an agent. Nevertheless, the National Glass Association, a trade association whose members include automotive glass manufacturers, may be able to assist you. It is located at 8200 Greensboro Drive, Suite 302, McLean Va 22102, and its telephone number is (703) 442-4890. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33[2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATH LEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Ms DeMeter:

I recently sent two letters to NHTSA, the first dated June 9, 1988 and the second dated June 23, 1988, in which I described my invention, the "Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF)." I requested an evaluation or interpretation to determine if my device would meet the standards established by NHTSA, AND I also requested "reasonable confidentially." You responded in a letter dated July 13, 1988 that NHTSA "requires that all of its interpretations be made publically available."

Since the SSF is now registered in the U.S. Patent Office, I have decided to allow NHTSA to conduct an evaluation and publicize the results as required.

However, please ignore the two letters referenced above for purposes of the evaluation and replace them with Enclosures (1) and (2), attached. The Enclosures attached will be much easier for the evaluators to follow than the two misdirected letters, which are somewhat disjointed and contain extraneous details.

Thank you for your attention.

Enclosures: (1) Request for Evaluation/Interpretation of Proposed Invention: "Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF)"

(2) An Appeal for Variant Interpretation of NHTSA STANDARDS as they Relate to Brake Lights and the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF)

ID: aiam5115

Dear Senator Wellstone: Thank you for your letter on behalf of you constituents, Ms. Tutti Sherlock and Ms. Mary Bock, regarding the application of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus standards to Head Start facilities. Your constituents ask that NHTSA inform the Minnesota Department of Transportation that we do not require school bus manufacturers to provide school bus equipment, such as stop arms and special stop lights, on Head Start buses. They base this request on their belief that in 1985, NHTSA said that states may decide which regulations should apply to Head Start buses. They also believe that stop arms and lights for Head Start buses are unnecessary, and that painting Head Start buses yellow could be confusing. We cannot provide the requested interpretation, because the understanding of your constituents is incorrect. By way of background, your constituents' concerns relate to two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act'), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSS's for school buses, including FMVSS's requiring these buses to have a stop arm and warning lights. The Safety Act requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSS's for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement. The question of whether Head Start facilities are 'schools' under the Safety Act has been addressed by NHTSA since the beginning of the school bus FMVSS's. The agency's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore 'schools' under the Safety Act. We base this conclusion on a review of the goals and functions of the Head Start program (see, e.g., 45 CFR 1304.1-3), and on past NHTSA interpretations of 'school.' NHTSA has stated its position that Head Start facilities are schools most recently in an August 21, 1992 letter to Mr. Chuck Anderson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Any new bus that is sold to a Head Start facility must have the safety features of a school bus at the time of the vehicle's sale, including the stop arm and signal lights. However, the Safety Act does not require Head Start facilities to use school buses or any other particular vehicle, nor does it require school buses to be painted yellow. The maintenance and operational characteristics of school buses are matters left to the individual states. NHTSA's second set of school bus regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, is a set of recommendations to the states for developing effective pupil transportation programs. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, 'Pupil Transportation Safety' (copy enclosed), recommends that any vehicle designed for 11 or more persons that is used as a school bus should comply with the FMVSS's for school buses and should be painted yellow. However, Guideline 17 would affect the operation of your constituents' school buses only to the extent that Minnesota has incorporated it into state law. I hope this information will be helpful in responding to your constituents. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: nht88-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 11/15/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2812; LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JO NES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

We are writing to you to confirm our understanding that our "Impact Control System", or safety bar is not in conflict with any existing standard for installation in school buses. The device was presented to various staff peopled in NHTSA on July 28, 1988. Our principal contact was Dr. Carl Clark.

Transportation Equipment Corp. was formed in December 1987. The company has conducted extensive market research to determine the concerns of the numerous interest groups who would be affected by installation of our system. The engineering and design process undertaken has resulted in solving two major problems involving the safe transportation of school bus passengers; 1) a drastic reduction of HIC (Head Injury Criteria) numbers by spreading the load across the chest, and 2) overcoming the utility problems associated with seat belt use on school buses.

Included for your review and evaluation are the following materials:

Engineers drawings and photographs of the device.

Video tape and written documentation of the dynamic testing conducted at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Independent Consultants opinion on the design and dynamic test results.

Background information on our Consulting Engineers.

We have identified those vehicles under 10,000 pounds (small buses & mini vans) as a target market for installation of our system. At present, these vehicles are under a federal mandate to be equipped with seat belts. It is our objective to have our device offered as an alternative option to seat belts in this class of vehicle. We respectfully request your opinion concerning a ruling and/or confirmation of the systems acceptance as an alternative option.

If we have omitted any information needed to consider this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

ID: 2987yy

Mr. Keith Salsman
1296 Carman Court
Conyers, Ga. 30208

Dear Mr. Salsman:

This responds to your letter of April 16, l99l, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to the "Braking Intensity Array" that you have invented.

The device is an array of nine rear lamps which include a high mounted stop lamp. The center lamp responds to pressure on the brake pedal. If "actual braking" occurs, then the lamps adjacent to the center lamp "will respond appropriately with the adjacent lights lighting under mild braking force", and the remaining pairs of lamps lighting as the braking force increases. You have assured us that the center lamp meets all requirements of Standard No. l08, and that the remaining lamps in the array are controlled by a separate device and will not operate independently.

As we see it, the acceptability of your invention under Standard No. l08 is not dependent upon any of the five sections of the standard that you quote. The four pairs of lamps that flank the designed-to-conform center stop lamp are "additional lamps" within the meaning of S5.1.3, which prohibits the installation of any additional lamp as original equipment if it "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. l08. Whether impairment exists is a determination to be made by the person installing the lamp as original equipment, either the manufacturer or the dealer prior to the vehicle's first sale. In this instance, it does not appear to us from your description of the array that it would impair the effectiveness of the center lamp or other stop lamps on a vehicle. We would be concerned if the size of the array is such that the interior rear view mirror could not meet the field of view requirements of Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors; however, if the field of view is not met, the standard allows, as an alternative, the installation of an exterior rear view mirror on the passenger side.

Although your array may be permissible under Federal law, it remains subject to regulation by the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:5/8/9l

ID: 9189

Mr. Milford R. Bennett, Head
Safety Affairs and Operations
NAO Engineering
Safety Center
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road/S3-N27
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This is in reply to your letter of October 7, 1993, to Howard Smolkin concerning information labels for vehicles covered by NHTSA temporary exemptions (49 CFR Part 555).

Paragraph 555.9(b) requires that a windshield or side window label containing an advisory statement be affixed securely to each exempted vehicle. You have concluded that this label is intended to notify prospective purchasers that the vehicle has been exempted from compliance with certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because General Motors (GM) does not intend to sell its recently exempted GMEV, it believes that it is not required to place the label on its vehicles.

Section 123(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1410(b)) specifies that "[t]he Secretary may require that written notification of [an] exemption be delivered to the dealer and first purchaser for purposes other than the resale of such exempted motor vehicle in such manner as he deems appropriate." NHTSA chose to exercise this discretionary power through promulgating paragraph 555.9(b) requiring windshield and side window labels on exempted vehicles, commenting that "[t]he window label appears to be the most appropriate way of providing written notification of exemptions to dealers and first purchasers" (37 FR 25534).

We read in The New York Times on October 14, 1993, that GM will build 50 Impacts (presumably the exempted GMEVs) "and lend them for two to four weeks to 1,000 drivers around the country over the next two years, with the help of 14 utilities." If these cars are made available through GM's dealer network, then we believe that the label should nevertheless be provided even if the vehicle is not sold, and that it should remain affixed until the vehicle is first lent or leased through the dealer. Although subsequent users of the GMEV will not have access to the temporary label in order to evaluate the risk they assume by accepting temporary use of a nonconforming motor vehicle, the permanently affixed exemption certification label will furnish this information should they care to consult it.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:555 d:10/22/93