ID: 86-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Bill Taylor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bill Taylor General Manager Airport Honda P.O. Box 297 Alcoa, Tenn. 377

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This is in reply to your letter of February 24, 1986 to Ms. DeMeter of this office with reference to the installation of a luggage rack on a vehicle equipped with a center high-mounted atop lamp, and the liability of a dealer for such installation if in accident occurred while the rack was in use.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a dealer of new passenger cars must not perform such modifications as will create a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards before initial sale of the car. This means that a deck mounted luggage rack must be mounted in such a way that the center high-mounted stop lamp continues to meet the visibility and photometric requirements that it did when originally installed. However, compliance with these requirements is judged with the rack in place, and not with the rack in use. There is no liability of a dealer under the Vehicle Safety Act for any accidents that might occur while the rack is in use.

We are not aware of any suits in State courts seeking recovery against dealers who have installed luggage racks on cars equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 24, 1986

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Chief Counsel's Office 400 7th St. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms DeMeter:

I am writing in reference to a telephone conversation I had with Ms. Walsh of Consumer Affairs on February 25. I was inquiring as to whether or not federal laws would be violated by installing a luggage rack on the trunk of a 1986 Honda. By doing so, if the driver was to put luggage on the rack, it would block the high-mount stop light. My concern is not only if the customer would be in violation of federal law, but also, what would the dealership's liabilities be if there was an accident while the luggage rack was in use.

Ms. Walsh's reply, after talking with you, was that there is no liability to the dealership. In either case, please send me a letter stating what liability if any, the dealership may have.

Sincerely,

Bill Taylor General Manager

rjc

ID: 86-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada;

This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1986, asking for an opinion regarding a "decorative extra lighting device." It appears from the drawing that you enclosed that the device would be a part of a three-compartment housing incorporating also a rear turn signal lamp, and one that performs that tail and stop functions. It would be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. You have informed us that the lens color of the device would be red and its maximum luminous intensity lower than the minimum of the adjacent taillamp.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of lighting devices not required by the standard if such a device would impair the effectiveness of the equipment that is required. It is our impression that your device performs the function of a rear side marker lamp, required to be installed on all motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, you have not told us any of the operational characteristics of the lamp, such as whether it would be steady burning in use and activated simultaneously with the headlamp and taillamp, or whether it would flash with the rear turn signal lamp. Nevertheless, it would appear to be acceptable as a supplemental taillamp or turn signal lamp, or as a side marker lamp, either with or without the decorative trim.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel February 5, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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

Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

According to your letter of Nov. 4, 1985, we would ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.

This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp and a rear turn signal lamp. A lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp. There is a possibility of attaching an ornament on this accessory lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Enc. The details of the device

ID: 86-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Doug Cole

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Doug Cole Director of Public Relations and Membership National Van Conversion Association, Inc. 2 West Main Street, Suite 2 Greenfield, IN 46140

Dear Mr. Cole:

Thank you for your letter of December 2, 1985 to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how our regulations would affect the placement of a national Van Conversion Association (NVCA) certification decal on vehicle windows by a van conversion company. The material enclosed with your letter explains that the NVCA certification program is a voluntary effort by the van conversion industry to set minimum safety and quality standards for its products. You explained that the decal, which has a diameter of 2 1/2 inches, would be placed on the lower corner of the passenger's side of the windshield by a manufacturer whose products conform to the NVCA program.

Placement of the decals on a vehicle's windshield would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield in motor vehicles).

Part 567, Certification, of our regulations requires each vehicle manufacturer to place a plate within the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A person, such as a van converter, who makes significant modifications to a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered a vehicle alterer under our regulations. Under Part 567.7, an alterer must also add a plate to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, still continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, no manufacturer or alterer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screening devices or other opaque materials in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

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

We have not previously ruled on whether these prohibitions apply to the installation of State vehicle inspection and private industry regulatory decals by commercial businesses. In general, these decals are small in size and placed in locations which minimize the obstruction, if any, to the driver's vision. In contrast, tinting films and other sun screening devices are generally applied to the entire window and thus can substantially obscure the driver's vision if they do not meet the light transmittance and other performance requirements of the standard. As with State regulatory decals, your proposed decal is small in size and would be placed in the lower right corner of the vehicle windshield, an area which should minimize any possible obstructing of the driver's vision. Given these considerations, we would consider the placement of the NVCA decal in the lower right hand corner of the windshield to be merely a technical violation of Standard No. 205, and would exercise our prosecutorial discretion and not bring an enforcement action.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

December 2, 1985

Mr. Steve Oeshe NHTSA, Office of the Chief Council 400 7th Street South West Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve:

Will you please provide me a written statement, from your department, that the placement of our Certification decals are not in violation of any Federal Safety Standards?

I have enclosed a rough drawing showing the placement of the decal, on the inside lower passenger side of the windshield. Also enclosed is our information packet about National Van Conversion Association's Van Conversion Manufacturer Certification program.

If you have any questions about the program, or if I can be of service, please call on me.

Sincerely,

Doug Cole Director of P.R. and Membership

DC/lp

Enclosure:

ID: 86-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert P. Horbatt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert P. Horbatt President Semperit Tire Company 156 Ludlow Avenue Northvale, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Horbatt:

This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in which you stated your interpretation of the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR S575.104: "UTQGS"). You stated that your company is introducing a new all-season tire to the United States market, and that you would like to import the first six months' production without the UTQGS grades molded onto the sidewall of the tires, but with paper labels showing those grades. This course of action is expressly permitted by the UTQGS.

First, the UTQGS is applicable to all-season tires. Section 575.104(c)(1) specifies that the UTQGS does not apply to "winter-type snow tires." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has explained that winter-type snow tires refers only to tires with a deep tread rubber and tread design which are inadvisable for year-round use on passenger automobiles. Since all-season tires are not "winter-type snow tires," they are subject to the requirements of the UTQGS. See 44 FR 30139, at 30140: May 24, 1979.

The requirement that the grades assigned under the UTQGS be permanently molded onto one sidewall of each passenger car tire is set forth in 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(i)(A). However, that section reads: "Except for a tire of a new tire line, manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line, each tire shall be graded with the words, letters, symbols, and figures ... permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall...." A tire line introduced for the first time into the United States is considered a new tire line for the purposes of this section. Therefore, our UTQGS regulation does not require you to mold the assigned grades onto a sidewall of those tires manufactured within the first six months of production. Such tires are subject to the requirement that a paper label, showing the UTQGS grades assigned to the tire, be affixed to its tread surface (49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)), and that the grades assigned to those tires appear in the information furnished to prospective purchasers of the tires (49 CFR S575.6 (c)).

If you have any further questions or need more information of this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 27, 1986

Mr. Steven Kratske Office of Chief Council NHTSA Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratske:

Semperit Reifen A.G. in Austria, our parent company, would like to introduce a new All Season Tire to the United States market.

In accordance with the DOT regulations, we would like to import the initial first six months' production without engraving the UTQG ratings in the sidewall but with a label listing UTQG ratings.

In the meantime, we are in the process of permanently engraving the UTQG ratings in the molds to comply with the regulations.

Yours truly,

SEMPERIT TIRE COMPANY

Robert P. Horbatt President

RPH:ms

ID: 86-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/86

FROM: GEORGE W. KEELEY -- HALFPENNY, HAHN & ROCHE

TO: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/25/86 EST, TO GEORGE W KEELEY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29(3), VSA 102; LETTER DATED 02/25/86 EST, TO RICHARD F HAHN FROM DIANE K STEED

TEXT: Dear Ms. Steed:

Thank you for your reply of February 25, 1986 to Mr. Hahn's letter to Secretary Dole on behalf of the Construction Industry Manufacturers Association. From your letter it is my understanding that the "interpretation letter" at issue does not constitute an NHTSA advisory opinion, nor does it have any legal precedential force or value. If my understanding is incorrect please advise.

I would like to receive copies of correspondence and other documents if an advisory opinion is requested by, or issued to, Mr. Pennells, Pilington Glass Limited on this issue.

Very truly yours,

ID: 86-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jerry Koh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Koh:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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

February 6, 1986

Dear Mr. Vinson:

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

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

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

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

(Insert Graphics)

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

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

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Respectfully Yours,

Jerry Koh

Encls.

ID: 86-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey, Esq. Dean Hansell, Esq. Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell:

Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1985, concerning the applicability of S7.4.5 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to manual Type 2 safety belts in passenger cars. As explained below, S7.4.5 is not currently applicable to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars. However, as a result of a recent amendment to Standard No. 208, the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard will be applied to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars, beginning on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirements are rescinded.

As you pointed out, S7.4(b) of Standard No. 208 requires vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less to meet the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard, including the requirements of S7.4.5. However, S7.4(b) specifically excludes manual Type 2 safety belts installed in the front seats of passenger cars from the comfort and convenience requirements. Thus, you are correct that a manual Type 2 safety belt installed in the front outboard seating position of a passenger car currently does not have to meet the requirements of S7.4.5.

In April of this year, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (50 FR 14580) proposing that if the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 are rescinded for passenger cars, then manual Type 2 safety belt systems in those vehicles would have to meet all of the comfort and convenience requirements, including the requirement of S7.4.5, beginning on September 1, 1989. On November 6, 1985 (50 FR 46056), the agency issued a final rule adopting that requirement.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 12, 1985

Jeffrey Miller, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

We seek your opinion about a portion of Standard 208. Specifically, we wish to confirm that Part S7.4.5 of Standard 208 is not applicable to passenger cars.

According to Part S7.4(b) of Standard 208, 49 C.F.R. 571.208, vehicles with gross vehicle weights of 10,000 pounds or less must, inter alia, meet Part S7.4.5. However, Part S7.4(b) excludes manual Type 2 seat belts in the front seat. Part S7.4.5, on the other hand, appears to apply only to Type 2 seat belts in the front outboard seating position. Further, there is no reference to Part S7.4.5 in the regulations other than the one in S7.4(b).

Our review of these two standards leads us to conclude that Standard S7.4.5 does not apply to passenger cars, but is rather limited to trucks and buses. Our subsequent discussions with Mr. Oesch in your office have reinforced this conclusion.

We would appreciate your confirming our conclusion.

Yours truly,

Stephen T. Waimey

Dean Hansell

cc: Stephen P. Wood, Esq. Stephen L. Oesch, Esq.

ID: 86-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/86

FROM: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY; DEAN HANSELL -- LAW OFFICE OF DONOVAN LEISURE

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 103 AND 104

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/29/86, TO STEPHEN J WAIMEY FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A29 (4) STANDARD 103 AND 104

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

We write on behalf of Porsche to verify our understanding of a portion of FMVSS 103 (Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems) and 104 (Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems). Our question concerns the method of determining the areas to be included in calculating the percentages required to be wiped or defrosted under FMVSS 103 and 104.

Porsche is considering a windshield design that would be 5% smaller than the "A" area, as defined by the angles set forth in SAE J903c (Passenger Car Windshield Wiper Systems) and SAE J902b (Passenger Car Windshield Defrosting Systems). Our understanding is that, for the purpose of determining compliance with the percentages of the "A" area required to be wiped or defrosted under FMVSS 103 and 104, the percentages are based on the actual windshield size (less a one inch border) rather than the theoretical size that is derived from an abstract application of the specified angles in the SAE procedures.

Our conclusion is based on statements contained in SAE J903c, which is incorporated into FMVSS 104, S4.1.2, and SAE J902b, which is incorporated in FMVSS 103, S4.2. Both SAE J903c and J902b provide that "the areas used in determining the percentage of [wiped or defrosted] area are

those areas on the exterior glazing surface which are not within 1 (one) inch of the edge of the daylight opening." Thus, it is only the area that falls on the windshield itself, and excluding a one inch border at the outer edge of the exterior glazing surface, that need be used in calculating the appropriate percentages.

If our interpretation is correct, then any part of Area A (as determined by the given angles) that falls outside the windshield's physical area is immaterial.

A prompt response would be appreciated. Many thanks.

Yours truly,

ID: 86-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 3/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter M. Kopanon -- Vehicle Inspection Services, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 22, 1985 letter to our office concerning Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381). You asked several questions about the provision in @ 103(d) which permits a State to establish higher safety requirements for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use. In a January 31 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that you were interested in how @ 103(d) applies to vehicles procured for school transportation purposes.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehcile equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Your first question asked whether vehicles "directly owned" by the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions fall within the category of vehicles procured by the State or its subdivisions for its own use. The answer is yes, if the governmental entities have purchased the vehicles for their own use. While governmental entities may specify additional safety features in their own vehicles, keep in mind that section 103(d) does not permit them to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

Your second question, referred to buses that are owned and operated by a private contractor who has contracted with Massachusetts or its political subdivisions to provide pupil transportation to and from public schools. You asked whether "vehicles privately owned while under contract with the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions" are considered "vehicles procured for the State's own use." The answer to your question is yes.

NHTSA addressed this question in an interpretation to the New York Department of Transportation in May 1976 (copy enclosed). In that letter, we concluded that a contractual arrangement between a State and a private contractor for the supply and operation of school buses for public school transportation is a "procurement" of those vehicles for the State's own use. The agency made this determination after reviewing the legislative history of @ 103(d), which indicated that Congress intended the term "procured for its own use" to refer to established practices used by governmental entities for obtaining goods and services. Those practices have included contracting for services from a private contractor who owns or leases the materials involved. Therefore, the State's provision of public school transportation is a service which can be obtained by contract from a private contractor, and those vehicles provided by the contractor would be considered "procured" for the State's own use. Massachusetts may therefore set requirements for those vehicles which impose a higher standard of performance than Federal standards, if the additional safety features do not prevent the vehicles from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

As stated in our 1976 interpretation, however, vehicles "procured for [the State's] own use" would not include vehicles provided by a private contractor to transport students to private schools. Therefore, in response to your third question which asked whether the State may prescribe nonidentical safety standards for privately-owned school buses that transport children to private schools, the answer is no.

We note that your questions about @ 103(d) referred to motor vehicles which operate intrastate. Whether a vehicle operates in interstate commerce is not a condition affecting the applicability of @ 103(d) to the States. We believe that Congress intended the Vehicle Safety Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of all new motor vehicles, and did not limit the Act's requirements to vehicles which cross State lines. Further, as a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any vehicle would never be in interstate commerce at some time during its lifetime. For example, the delivery of the vehicle from its place of manufacturer to its original place of sale will generally involve movement in interstate commerce. In addition, whether or not the vehicles cross State lines, their use on public roads substantially affects interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law. Thus, the effect of @ 103(d) on State standards is not conditioned on vehicle usage in interstate commerce.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hestate to contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Registry of Motor Vehicles

November 22, 1985

OCC 1599

Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel for RULEMAKING, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wood: Thank you for your prompt and thorough response to my recent telephone inquiry regarding the transportation of school pupils. I am sure you understand the problems that arise when one attempts to dovetail Federal laws, rules and regulations with State laws, rules and regulations and then intelligently advises and/or directs others.

As I mentioned on the telephone, I have, and am sure will continue to have, questions in this regard and certainly appreciate your cooperation.

Attached is a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Section 1392. My concern is how you interpret the third sentence. Specifically, what is meant by "equipment procured for their own use"? Does this mean that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may prescribe standards higher than a Federal standard on vehicles operated intrastate under the following conditions:

1. Directly owned by the Commonwealth or by any of its political subdivisions;

2. Vehicles privately owned while under contract with the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions;

3. Vehicles privately owned and operated transporting persons for hire.

Thank you for giving consideration to this request for information.

Very truly yours,

Peter M. Koparon, Director -- Vehicle Inspection Services

Enc.

ID: 86-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking whether it is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to equip a motorcycle with an auxiliary lighting device described in your letter. The device is mounted on an optional trunk and performs the functions of a supplementary taillamp and stop lamp, though its maximum intensities in either mode is less than the minimum required by Standard No. 108 for each such mode.

Under paragraph S4.1.3. a device such as you have described is permissible as original vehicle equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. From your diagram and information, it does not appear that these supplementary taillamp and stop lamp functions will impair the effectiveness of the primary ones, and therefore paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 18, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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

Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

We are thinking of producing a decorative extra lighting device which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108.

As shown in the attached sheet, this decorative device will be mounted on the rear face of an optional motorcycle rear trunk. Emitted light color of this extra lighting device is red, and its size is smaller than the tail & stop lamp required in FMVSS No.108. Its function is interlocked with a tail lamp. Its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the tail lamp. When the stop lamp is lit, it increases the luminous intensity, but the maximum is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the stop lamp.

We would like to ask you whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the above mentioned accessory lamp.

We believe that this device have a good effect on the safety by increasing the visibility from upside.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting