ID: 86-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Don Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo, Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Dear Mr. Black:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, requesting an interpretation of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you stated that Alfa Romeo plans to label its front and rear bumpers in the following locations. The front bumper would have a label attached to the bumper assembly in the area where it would not be visible if a front license plate was attached to the bumper. The rear bumper would have a label attached to the rear bumper in an area that will be covered by a plastic snap-in molding. This molding must be removed to remove the rear bumper from the vehicle. You asked whether these planned locations would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(iii) that the labels be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle." It is NHTSA's opinion that the locations specified for marking bumpers in your letter would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(iii).

Your planned location for labeling the front bumpers is in an area where those labels will be visible at the time the cars arrive at the dealer and will remain visible unless and until a front license plate is installed on the car. NHTSA must thus determine whether the possible need to remove a front license plate would result in labels in this location failing to satisfy the requirement that labels be placed so that they will be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle." It appears not to be necessary to remove the front license plate in order to remove the front bumper from your vehicles. Hence, one might conclude that such location would not satisfy this requirement.

However, the intent underlying this requirement was clearly set forth in the rulemaking proceeding that established Part 541. The preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking contained the following sentence: "Both commenters agreed, however, that NHTSA's regulations should ensure that investigators will not have to conduct any additional dismantling (over and above what chop shops, parts dealers, or thieves have ordinarily done) to locate the identifier on parts removed from a vehicle." (Emphasis in original) 50 FR 19731, May 10, 1985. NHTSA believes that license plates are routinely removed from front bumpers by legitimate parts dealers prior to reselling the bumper. Law enforcement groups have assured us that license plates are removed from stolen bumpers, so that the stolen part cannot be traced to its rightful owner. In these circumstances, the agency has no reason to believe that labels for front bumpers that are covered by the front license plate will require investigators to conduct additional dismantling of the front bumpers. Accordingly, we conclude that labels on front bumpers that are clearly visible when the front license plate is removed satisfy the requirement that those labels be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle."

With respect to the rear bumpers, the situation is simpler. According to your letter, the plastic molding covering the labels must be removed to remove the bumper from the vehicle. Thus, the label would be visible without further disassembly once the bumper has been removed from the vehicle. As such, it would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(l)(iii).

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ref. #027 February 18, 1986

Mr. Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - Part 531 F.M.V.T.P.S.

Dear Mr. Felrice:

The enclosed sketches depict Alfa Romeo's intended bumper markings.

Sketch "A" - Shows the front bumper assembly. The complete bumper is covered with a semi-rigid plastic to protect it against minor damages. The label is attached to the actual bumper which is an aluminum extrusion. The label is visible following vehicle manufacture and at any time the front plate is not installed. These are two obvious cases where no front plate is used:

a) In states where only a rear plate is used.

b) On stolen vehicles, where the plates are removed.

Sketch "B" - Is a cross section of the bumper itself, an aluminum extrusion. This is to be considered the permanent part of the bumper assembly, while the semi-rigid decorative/protective cover mentioned above is considered a "wear" or "aesthetic" part subject to replacement.

Sketch "C" - Depicts the rear bumper, also an aluminum extrusion covered by a semi-rigid facing as used on the front bumper. The label is located in a groove in the facing where the aluminum extrusion is exposed adjacent to the mounting bolts for the bumper structural extrusion.

Ref. #027 Mr. Barry Felrice N.H.T.S.A. February 18, 1986 Page two

The label and the bumper bolts are covered by a small plastic snap-in moulding. To remove the bumper, the moulding must be removed followed by removal of the bumper bolts. It is worthy to note that with this design there is no location on which to place a label on a permanent part of the bumper since it is covered by the semi-rigid facing, which is again a "disposable" part of the bumper assembly.

Sketch "D" - Is a vertical view of the horizontal section carrying the label. Here the snap-in moulding can be seen covering the bumper bolts.

Alfa Romeo's opinion is that, considering the bumper design, these locations meet the requirements of "VISIBILITY" for the actual bumper since the facing itself would not likely be a theft target. We hope that N.H.T.S.A. will concur with Alfa Romeo's choice of location.

Respectfully,

ALFA ROMEO, INC.

Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office

DB/as

Enclosure

cc: B. McLauglin - N.H.T.S.A. Fogliata - Dires Sego Guelfi - Tires Carr Francioni - Marketing Prodotto M. Kole - ARI T. Tooley - ARI

ID: 86-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Delta Radio Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Delta Radio Co. P.O. Box 531 Spring Valley, N.Y. 10977

Gentlemen:

The enclosed publicity on the "Attention Getter" motorcycle accessory lighting device has come to our attention. It is represented as "Approved by the NHTSA". We do not know whether that is your characterization or that of the publication in which it appeared. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not "approve" or endorse products. Upon request, it will provide an interpretation of whether a lighting device is regulated, permitted, or not permitted by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. If a device is deemed permitted by the standard, in no sense should that be construed as "approved by NHTSA".

As a matter of fact, we have never been asked for an opinion of the "Attention Getter" but its installation could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Federal standard (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108), and prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard. A stop lamp is required to be steady-burning in use, and not flash as does your device, and its intensity must not exceed the maximum limits imposed by SAE Standard J586c, which is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. The fact that "Attention Getter"s intensity goes from "normal intensity to extra bright" raises the possibility that the maxima may be exceeded.

If you have any questions regarding your further responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Subject: Advertisement for "Attention Getter" Date: Mar 14 1986 Motorcycle Taillight Flasher From: George L. Reagie Associate Administrator, TSP

To: Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel, NHTSA

The attached advertisement was sent to us by Mr. Niel Tolhurst, Assistant Manager of Motorcycle Safety and Recreation for American Honda Motor Company. Mr. Tolhurst questioned the reference to "Approved by the NHTSA" in relationship to the "Attention Getter" motorcycle tail light flasher.

Since NHTSA does not approve or endorse products, I wanted to bring the advertisement to your attention so that appropriate action might be taken with the manufacturer of the product to correct the erroneous information.

Attachment

October 31, 1985

Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Enclosed is a sketch of a proposed motorcycle rear turn signal lamp positioning for some models of motorcycles. Reference is made to part 571.108, Title 49 of the CFR.

Table IV of the above cited reference specifies a minimum 9 inch horizontal separation distance. As indicated by dimension "A" this distance is 12 inches. This table also specifies that minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp is 4 inches. Dimension "B" indicated as 5.00 inches satisfies this requirement.

Your timely confirmation that our interpretation of this standard is correct will allow us to initiate tooling orders for 1987 model vehicles.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning the attached sketch and provide any additional information required. I may be reached at

Please receive this information as "Confidential business information" as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(6)(4). The release of details from the correspondence may provide vehicle styling information that could benefit our competitors.

Sincerely,

rn Enc.

ID: 86-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Clark, Esq -- Tabbert and Capehart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert R. Clark, Esq. Tabbert & Capehart One Indiana Square Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

This responds to your letter dated October 21, l985, inquiring about the certification responsibilities under federal law of your client, a new car dealer. You stated in your letter that your client plans to convert new automobiles into limousines. These limousines would then be sold wholesale to dealers.

The relevant federal statute in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.). Under section 103 of the Act, this agency issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applying to motor vehicles and their equipment.

As we understand the facts stated in your letter, the automobiles will be completed by the original manufacturer who will certify that they meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You client plans to alter the automobiles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Your client's plan to convert automobiles would make him an alterer, subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7 Certification. An alterer is a person who alters a previously certified vehicle by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid. If the alteration is performed before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the alterer must supplement the certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and containing the firm or individual name of the alterer.

An alterer is also considered a manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

In addition, please note that your client should take care in making the conversions not to harm the vehicles' safety features. Under section 108 of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design which is installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your client would be subject to this prohibition which applies both before and after the first purchase of a motor vehicle for purposes other than resale.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Jeffrey R. Miller, Esqu. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219, 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

On Tuesday, October 15, l985, I telephoned your office and spoke with Mr. Steve Oeshch regarding a client of this firm who wishes to convert fully assembled automobiles into limousines. After speaking with Mr. Oeshch, he suggested that I write to your office and request a formal interpretation in regard to this matter, in view of the facts as discussed.

The client is a new car dealer in Anderson, Indiana. He desires to purchase full assembled new automobiles from the manufacturer and subsequently convert them into limousines. The limousines will in turn be sold wholesale to dealers.

I wish to know which Federal Department of Transportation statutes must be complied with and how to classify the client, i.e. dealer, manufacturer or remanufacturer.

Could you kindly at your earliest convenience render an opinion regarding this matter. Any assistance you might give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Clark

ID: 86-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D. -- Research Associate, Division of Legislative Services (Virginia)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D. Research Associate Division of Legislative Services Box 3-AG Richmond, Va. 23208

This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1985 to Jere Medlin of this agency with respect to whether the Commonwealth of Virginia is preempted under Federal law from prohibiting flashing headlamps on motor vehicles.

Section 1392(d) of Title 15 of the United States Code in essence prohibits a State from maintaining or enacting standards covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. Paragraph S4.5.11(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (formerly Paragraph S4.6(b)) states that "Headlamps...may be wired to flash for signaling purposes." S4.5.11(c) was not intended as a regulation of this aspect of vehicle performance, in the sense that it would preempt all State regulation of the sale or use of headlamp flashers. It is basically an exception to the requirement of paragraph S4.5.11(e) that all lamps (other than those specifically referenced in other subparagraphs of S4.5.11) be steady-burning when in use. The section, in other words, was included to make it clear that automatic headlamp flashers are not prohibited by the Federal standard. We have concluded therefore that State regulation of headlamp flashers is not preempted by the Federal standard.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 16, 1985 Mr. Jere Medlin Safety Standards Engineer US Department of Transportation 400 7th. St.,SW Room 5307 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Medlin:

I spoke with you on the telephone in early October of this year regarding Virginia law's prohibition on flashing headlamp; on motor vehicles -- particularly ambulances and rescue squad vehicles. At that time I believe you told me that the language of S S4.6 in 49 CFR S571.108 preempted the Commonwealth in the matter or flashing headlamps for emergency vehicles.

Since that time I have looked at that section, and have been able to find language in it that, to my satisfaction, makes this preemption clear. It is possible that I either understood you, or that I have made a mistake the citation.

One of the members of the Virginia General Assembly is considering the introduction of legislation during the upcoming session of the legislature to conform Virginia law to the federal regulation, and, you are more familiar with the Code of Regulations than I am, I was wondering whether you be so kind as to send me a copy of the relevant sections or sections. I am certain that many people would be glad to see the discrepancy between the federal regulations and the Virginia law eliminated.

Sincerely yours,

Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D Research Associate

ID: 86-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Larry Alexander

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Larry Alexander Senior Product Manager Consumer Products Division Tuck Industries, Inc. Lefevre Lane New Rochelle, NY 10801

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of October 1, 1985 asking whether any of your pressure sensitive tapes packaged for the automotive aftermarket are subject to any regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You have been asked by one of your customers to certify that your tape meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

You provide four types of tapes: lens repair tape (for temporary use until a broken lens is replaced), hose repair tape (for temporary repair of leaks in water hoses), clear patch tape (for repair of upholstery), and carpet tape (used to hold carpets in place). This agency has jurisdiction over items of motor vehicle equipment, which are defined in part as:

"any system, part or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory or addition to a motor vehicle...."

Your tape could be regarded as an "addition" to a motor vehicle but even assuming that it is an item of motor vehicle equipment, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would apply to it. Therefore, no manufacturer certification is required, and you may so inform your customer. Further, any such certification could be viewed as a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by being certification that is false and misleading in a material respect, stating compliance with standards which are, in fact, non-existent.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 1, 1985

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

We are a large manufacturer of pressure Sensitive Tapes, some of which are packaged for the Retail Automotive After-market.

One of our Retail Automotive customers has asked us to certify that our tape sold in this market meets all applicable standards and regulations of the Traffic Safety Administration. These products are:

1. Lens Repair Tape - A plastic transparent tape used to repair plastic lenses on broken directional signals as a temporary measure, until they are replaced. Available in amber and red.

2. Hose Repair Tape - A special duct tape used in emergency to temporarily stop a leak in a water hose until it can be repaired.

3. Clear Patch Tape - A clear polyethylene plastic tape us for interior patching of upholstery.

4. Carpet Tape - A double coated plastic tape used to hold carpets in place or keep the edges down.

Please advise if there are any rules or regulations affecting these products sold to the consumer through Retail Outlets, and please forward a copy of such regulations if they apply.

Very truly yours,

TUCK INDUSTRIES, INC.

Larry Alexander Senior Product Mgr. Consumer Products Div.

LA:jas cc: John Iodice Ted Levine

ID: 86-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: I. Levy -- B.P.T. Leisure International Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. I. Levy B.P.T. Leisure International Ltd. 3/4 Portland Street London, WIN 56G ENGLAND

Thank You for your letter of January 11, 1984, concerning the effect of our regulations on a product you may export to the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

The product, which you call a "Klunk-Klip" safety belt comfort device, consists of a plastic device which attaches to the upper torso belt anchorage. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge and close the wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt.

As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards.

Your particular aftermarket product is not covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your product. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I have enclosed an information sheet on our defect and other regulations for your review.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Your Ref.

Our Ref. IL/MN

Date: 14th January 1986

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington D.C., 20590 United States of America

Dear Sirs,

We are endeavouring to export to the United States an attachment which fits into the seatbelt of a motor vehicle and provides the possibility of the adjustment to heighten the comfort level of the wearer.

In order that you may understand exactly what is meant by the above, we enclose herewith a diagram together with the instructions for this item.

We should be most obliged if you could confirm to us that his item would not be excluded from use and does not violate any present Federal Safety Regulations which are in force.

We look forward to hearing from you in this matter.

Yours faithfully, for BPT LEISURE INTERNATIONAL LTD.

I Levy

The KLUNK KLIP* attachment can be used on most cars fitted with automatic (self-retracting) seat belts, where the seatbelt anchor point on the door pillar is similar to the above diagram. (It is not suitable for cars with recessed mountings).

It is designed to provide a personal adjustment which was previously only possible with static-type belts.

KLUNK-KLIP is designed for those who find seatbelts uncomfortable or even claustrophobic to wear. The use of KLUNK-KLIP avoids the tightness and tension so disliked by the users of automatic seatbelts. Ladies in particular appreciate the improved comfort when using KLUNK-KLIP.

KLUNK-KLIP does not effect the efficient working of the automatic seat belt.

TO FIT (see above illustration)

Remove the rotary wedge (A) by easing the two lugs (B) apart. Fit the hook part over the anchor bolt (C) on door pillar. Refit the wedge (A) as shown in diagram. The wedge should now lift freely to grip the belt.

TO USE

Fasten seat belt in the usual way.

Place one hand flat on chest beneath belt. This will extend the belt sufficiently to relieve the tension.

Lift wedge to lock belt.

You may now drive freely without tension. Any movement of the body or slight pull will release the KLIP and the belt will return to its retracted position.

Each time the belt is used the KLUNK-KLIP should be set as advised above, being careful to avoid introducing excessive slack.

ID: 86-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Ivie:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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

Dear Mr. Miller:

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

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

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

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

We will appreciate and help you can give.

Very truly yours,

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

WI/ao

Enc.

ID: 86-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter M. Kopanon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1986 letter to our office concerning Federal preemption of state motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Previously, you had requested us to clarify the language of section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We responded by letter dated March 24, 1986, which explained the phrase "procured for [the State's] own use." Your current letter focuses specifically on requirements for school bus mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, and asks whether Massachusetts could require an additional mirror on school buses owned by the state and its political subdivisions to enhance the view of the school bus operator.

The answer to your question is yes. As explained in our March 24 letter, under @ 103(d) of the Safety Act, a state may establish safety requirements for motor vehicles procured for its own use if such requirements impose the same or higher standard of performance than the Federal standard. The phrase "higher standard of performance" means that the state standard must not conflict with the Federal standard, but may contain additional or more stringent requirements. Massachusetts may thus require an additional mirror on its school buses that provides greater views of areas in front of and along sides of the bus. This requirement, however, must not conflict with Federal requirements and prevent the school buses from complying with Federal safety standards.

We explained in our March 24 letter that states may not prescribe safety standards for privately-owned school buses transporting children to private and parochial schools that are not identical to the Federal safety standards covering the same aspects of performance. Your current letter asked further about Massachusetts' requirement that school committees (which we understand to be political subdivisions of the state) provide equal pupil transportation to public, private and parochial schools. You asked whether buses procured to fulfill this mandate are "procured for the state's own use," even though the buses would be used to transport students to private and parochial schools.

In our opinion, the answer is yes. NHTSA has interpreted the phrase "procured for its own use" to apply to any vehicle intended for transporting the public which is procured by a state or political subdivision thereof. Buses procured by the state to transport students to private and parochial schools are thus "procured for the state's own use," and may be required by Massachusetts to have additional mirrors to promote the safety of the school children they carry. We note, of course, that we suggest no position as to the constitutionality of state law.

I hope we have responded to your concerns. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

SINCERELY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

March 19, 1986

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wood:

Pursuant to my letter of November 22, 1986, (copy enclosed), and subsequent telephone conversations with Ms. Hom of your office, I find it necessary to request additional clarification concerning a possible unique situation regarding the transportation of school pupils enrolled in private or parochial schools.

The State of Massachusetts provides equal financial assistance for the transportation of public, private or parochial school pupils to and from school, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 76 Section 1 (summary attached).

Accordingly, I am in the process of drafting legislation that will require a system of mirrors that will provide the seated operator of a school bus with a view of the roadway immediately to each side of the bus, and of the area immediately in front of the front bumper.

In order to provide this reflected view, Massachusetts would require a minimum of one additional mirror and would, therefore, place Massachusetts in noncompliance with No. 111 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

In conclusion, it is my understanding that I may require such mirrors on school buses owned by the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions; however, it appears there may be some doubt regarding school buses used solely for the transportation of private and parochial children.

Thank you again for your much needed and appreciated guidance. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (617)727-3785.

Peter M. Kopanon, Director Vehicle Inspection Services

ENCS.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The following is a partial summary of current statutory requirements in the Massachusetts General Laws as they pertain to pupil transportation services in the Commonwealth. The statutes listed include school committee responsibilities, educational program requirements and reimbursement programs. This is only a summary: statutes should be consulted in their entirety.

CHAPTER 76, Section 1. REGULATION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE - (PUPIL TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATION - HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS - NON PUBLIC SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION)

. . . In order to protect children from the hazards of traffic and promote their safety, cities and towns may appropriate money for conveying pupils to and from any schools approved under this section.

Except as herein provided, pupils who attend approved private schools of elementary and high school grades shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as to transportation to and from school as are provided by law for pupils of public schools and shall not be denied such transportation because their attendance is in a school which is conducted under religious auspices or includes religious instruction in its curriculum. Each school committee shall provide transportation for any pupil attending such an approved private school within the boundaries of the school district, provided, however, that the distance between said pupil's residence and the private school said pupil attends exceeds two miles or such other minimum distance as may be established by the school committee for transportation of public school students. Any school committee which is required by law to transport any pupil attending an approved private school beyond the boundaries of the school district shall not be required to do so further than the distance from the residence of such pupil to the public school he is entitled to attend.

CHAPTER 71, Section 68. DUTIES OF TOWNS TO MAINTAIN SCHOOLS: TRANSPORTATION OF CHILDREN - (MILEAGE - SCHOOL BUS STOPS)

Every town shall provide and maintain a sufficient number of schoolhouses, properly furnished and conveniently situated for the accommodation of all children therein entitled to attend the public schools. If the distance between a child's residence and the school he is entitled to attend exceeds two miles and the nearest school bus stop is more than one mile from such residence and the school committee declines to furnish transportation, the department, upon appeal of the parent or guardian of the child, may require the town to furnish the same for a part or for all of the distance between such residence and the school . . .

CHAPTER 71 - Section 37H. PUBLICATION OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE RULES AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CONDUCT OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS - (PUBLICATION AND FILING REQUIREMENTS)

The school committee of every city, town or district shall publish its rules or regulations pertaining to the conduct of teachers or students which have been adopted. Copies of the rules or regulations shall be provided to any person upon request and without cost by the principal or headmaster of every school within each city, town or district. Such rules or regulations shall not become effective until filed with the commissioner of education, accompanied by a certification by the committee that copies of the rules or regulations are available as previously set forth.

CHAPTER 40, Section 4. TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS - (PUPIL TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS)

A town may make contracts for the exercise of its corporate powers including the following purposes . . .

For the furnishing of transportation of school children. Contracts for such transportation may be made by the school committee for periods not exceeding five years; provided, that no such contract, whether written or oral, shall be made for the use of such transportation of a school bus, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, other than a motor vehicle for the operation of which security is required to be furnished under section six of chapter one hundred and fifty-nine A, unless there shall first have been filed with the registrar of motor vehicles and by copy with the city or town clerk the certificate of an insurance company or surety company authorized to issue or to execute as surety within the commonwealth motor vehicle liability policies or bonds, both as defined in section thirty-four A of chapter ninety, except as to amount, that there is in force such a policy or bond issued or executed as aforesaid, covering such school bus, which provides indemnity, protection or security to the amount or limit of at least fifteen thousand dollars on account of injury to or death of any one person, and subject to such limits as respects injury to or death of one person, of at least two hundred thousand dollars on account of any one accident resulting in injury or death of more than one person; and provided, further, that the termination of such a policy or bond during the term of any such contract shall be breach thereof and forthwith terminate it. All provisions of law applicable to motor vehicle liability policies and bonds as defined as aforesaid shall apply to policies and bonds containing such additional amount of indemnity, protection or security . . .

CHAPTER 71, Section 7A. TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS (REIMBURSEMENT)

The state treasurer shall annually, on or before November twentieth, pay to the several towns subject to appropriation, the sums required as reimbursement for expenses approved by the commissioner of education, incurred by any town for the transportation of pupils once daily to and from any school within the town, or in another town, in excess of five dollars per annum per pupil in the net average membership of such town; provided, (a) that no transportation reimbursement shall be made on account of any pupil who resides less than one and one-half miles from the school which he attends, measured by a commonly traveled route; (b) that the amount of grant, per pupil, for transportation to private schools in towns which furnish such transportation, shall not exceed the amount of grant per pupil for transportation to public schools and (c) that no contract shall be awarded except upon the basis of prevailing wage rates . . . and of sealed bids, and the school committee shall, in the event that a contract is awarded to other than the lowest bidder, file with the department a written statement giving its reasons therefore, which statement shall be open to the public inspection . . .

ID: 86-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Miller -- Sales Manager, Arizona Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Miller Sales Manager Arizona Bus Sales, Inc. 4001 South 34th Street P.O. Box 21226 Phoenix, Arizona 85036

This responds to your February 27, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking us to clarify Federal requirements applying to the sale of school buses. You first asked whether a dealership that sells 15-passenger vans to a private school violates Federal law if the vans do not comply with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. the answer to your question is yes. As we explained in our previous letter to you dated June 24, 1985, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of all new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under Federal law, a "bus" is a vehicle designed to carry children to and from school or school-related events. We require persons selling new buses to ensure that those vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards when they are sold for purposes that include carrying school children. A person who sells a new bus for pupil transportation purposes would be subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act if the bus does not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Your second question asked whether the lease between the dealership and the school could be dissolved since the sale involved noncomplying buses. While we have no regulations which void or "dissolve" sales of noncomplying motor vehicles, the school might be able to contact the dealership that sold the noncomplying school buses and arrange to have the vehicles repurchased or modified to meet Federal school bus safety standards. In addition, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law. In the past, many dealers who have been notified by NHTSA of the illegality of selling noncomplying vans as school vehicles repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law. Your final question asked about an October 15, 1982 memorandum from Arizona's Motor Vehicle Division regarding Arizona's school bus definition to buses used to carry school children to school-related activities. You believed that this interpretation conflicted with Federal law and asked for clarification of the matter. It is important to separate NHTSA's regulations for school buses from state school bus regulations. State regulations apply to the use of motor vehicles. Your state's definition of a "school bus" is thus relevant for determining the state requirements applicable to school bus use. The consequence of Arizona determining that activity buses could not be considered "school buses" under state law was to exclude those vehicles from its vehicle use laws for school buses. On the other hand, as explained above, Federal regulations apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Our "school bus" definition is relevant for determining manufacturers' compliance with certifying their vehicles to the school bus safety standards and sellers' compliance with Federal requirements to sell complying school buses. Since our "school bus" definition includes buses sold to transport school children to school-related events, persons who sell new vehicles designed to carry 10 or more passengers to persons intending to use the buses for that purpose must sell complying school buses. Whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under state regulations does not affect the responsibility of manufacturers and sellers to comply with Federal law. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Marshall D. Carter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking two questions with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to electric vehicles, you have asked "is there a standard regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?" There is no such standard. The vehicle must be equipped with a hazard warning signal operating unit designed to conform to SAE J910, January 1966, and a hazard warning signal flasher designed to conform to SAE J945, February 1966, but there is no requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, that the hazard warning signal flashers perform for a minimum specified period of time in service.

You have also asked "Is there a requirement that the vehicle be equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection?" We are unable to confirm your conclusion that there is no such requirement under Standard No. 101. Paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions or patterns be permanently displayed in front of the driver. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 requires illumination of the "gauges" listed in Column 1 of Table 2 that are accompanied by the word "Yes" in Column 5. The last "gauge" listed is "Automatic gear position", and the word "Yes" appears in Column 5. The automatic gear position is a "gauge" as defined by paragraph S4 of Standard No. 101, "a display that is listed in . . . Table 2 and is not a telltale". Thus the Federal standards do require illumination of the gear positions of automatic transmissions, but not of manual ones.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

SINCERELY,

Whisper Electric Car AS National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Att: Erika Jones, Office of the Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones,

I am writing to obtain confirmation that the FMVSS do not regulate certain specifications and parameters of automobile performance and design.

First, I should explain that our vehicle is exclusively battery powered, with 12 X 6-volt traction batteries, plus a service battery for the auxilliary functions (lights, windshield wipers, etc.). The service battery is charged at the same time as the traction batteries. In addition, the service battery is charged while driving through a converter between the 72-volt system (traction batteries) and the 12-volt system (service battery).

Now comes an engineer with the following hypothetical: The vehicle is unable to drive because of mechanical breakdown, therefore the converter between the 72-volt and 12-volt systems cannot recharge the service battery. There is no supply of electricity nearby to recharge through the main charger. The hazard lights are engaged, running only on the service battery. The characteristics of the hazard light design and intensity aside, is there a standard regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?

In the absence of NHTSA direct regulation or past practice with respect to this situation, may we suggest that fulfilling the European standard is this regard also be sufficient to the U.S. market.

A second question involves illumination within the passenger cabin. Is there a requirement that the vehicle be equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection? I do not see that SN 101 requires either a display or illumination, but we request your comments.

SINCERELY,

Marshall D. Carter

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

MARCH 18, 1986

Dear Ms Jones,

I am also enclosing some guidelines which one of our people found by chance. I understand these to be requirements for the electric vehicles for which the Fed. Gov. has granted funding or subsidies and requirements for vehicles which the Fed. Gov. might purchase, but, while useful guide-lines, not requirements which apply generally to electrical vehicles. I would ask you to please confirm this interpretation.

WHISPER ELECTRIC CAR A/S

Marshall D. Carter

encl.: FR Part 475

Whisper Electric Car AS