ID: 7896

Mr. Douglas Berg
President
Ascend Productions
9823 Lake Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44102

Dear Mr. Berg:

This responds to your letter asking whether Standard No. 125, Warning Devices, applies to your product, the "Hazard Helper Safety Sign." In an earlier letter to the agency, you stated that this reversible device attaches to the driver's window and displays either a help needed symbol (a stick figure with extended arms and legs) or a hazard alert symbol (a triangle). In my July 28, 1992 response, I explained that your device was subject to the Standard and that it appeared not to comply with certain provisions in the Standard.

In a subsequent letter, you explain that you have added a cyalume light stick to your product to illuminate the warning sign. As explained below, you are correct in your belief that your warning device containing a light stick would no longer be subject to Standard No. 125.

As you correctly stated, Standard No. 125 applies to "devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (emphasis added; see section S3) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In an August 10, 1982 interpretation to Dwight Hicks, Jr., the agency determined that the phrase "self-contained energy sources" includes such things as cyalume light sticks. Accordingly, a warning device to which a cyalume light stick was added would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:125 d:12/17/92

ID: 7906

The Honorable Bob Graham
United States Senate
Post Office Box 3050
Tallahassee, FL 32515

Dear Senator Graham:

Thank you for your letter of December 15, 1994, addressed to John Womack of this office. You forwarded to us a letter from your constituent, Mr. Howard Levy, Vice-President, Used Tire International, of Deerfield Beach, Florida.

Mr. Levy expressed concern in his letters to you and this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about a proposed bill in the Puerto Rico Senate which would require that used tires imported into Puerto Rico have not less than 5/32 inch tread depth and which would impose a tax of $10 per tire on such imports. Mr. Levy is concerned that the proposed bill would mean the end of the used tire industry on the island. In his letter to this agency, he asked "Does NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested our help in this matter.

We have carefully evaluated Mr. Levy's concerns. As discussed in our enclosed response to Mr. Levy, however, we have concluded that the laws and regulations that we administer will not be of help to him. Since our opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have suggested to Mr. Levy that he may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to his concerns.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:109 d:1/17/95

ID: 7912

Mr. Chester I. Nielsen, III
Vice President Sales
Wesbar Corporation
P.O. Box 577
West Bend, WI 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This responds to your letter of October 21, 1992, to Walter B. McCormick, Jr. (the General Counsel of this Department). You have written for "further explanation of S5.3.1.1.1 in FMVSS 108."

You have heard that there is an additional interpretation with respect to the location of clearance lamps on boat trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which would allow mounting of these lamps in accordance with a sketch that you enclosed, and you ask for confirmation of this interpretation.

We are unaware of any interpretation of this nature. The requirements for the provision and location of clearance lamps on wide boat trailers remain those set forth in Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, with the exceptions set forth in paragraphs S5.1.1.9, S5.3.1.1.1, and S5.3.1.4.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/1/92

ID: 7913

Mrs. M. Frances Parton
5788 Cypress Cr.
Tallahassee, FL 32303

Dear Mrs. Parton:

This responds to your letter of October 7, 1992, requesting information on whether a 1992 van can be modified by installing swivel bases on the seats so that you can transfer from the seat to a wheelchair. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat you want modified is a front or a rear seat. As explained below, there is no federal requirement that expressly prohibits installing a swivel base on a seat, provided that the seats and belts continue to comply with the applicable safety standards.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that modifies a van for you along the lines described in your letter after you have purchased the van would be subject to the requirement of the Safety Act (at 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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.

Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design installed in the van in compliance with applicable safety standards, this section prohibits any of the named commercial entities from making any modification or repair to the seats and/or their accompanying safety belts if such modification or repair would cause the vehicle no longer to comply with an applicable safety standard.

Adding a swivel base to a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Based upon the information in your letter, it appears that the vehicle you wish to have modified would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) for purposes of NHTSA's regulations. Standard No. 208 requires an MPV to provide occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. Standard No. 208 also requires an MPV to have a lap/shoulder belt at every rear outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other rear seating position. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages.

As you can see, with the exception discussed below, there is nothing in Federal law that prohibits persons from adding a swivel base to a seat. Instead, Federal law requires that modifications to a van that include adding a swivel base to a seat be done in such a way that the seats and safety belts continue to provide the safety protection mandated by the safety standards.

With respect to Standard No. 208's requirements for front seats, NHTSA has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from van converters and individuals, suggesting that the crash testing requirement for front seats in MPVs will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency has also received a petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requesting an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, the agency granted the RVIA petition. On August 5, 1992, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the requirements of Standard No. 208 to give manufacturers of certain light trucks and vans the option of installing non-dynamically tested manual safety belts instead of complying with the dynamic testing requirements. However, the agency is aware that you and others who need to purchase a new vehicle need more immediate relief than a rulemaking can offer. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the agency has stated that it will not conduct any dynamic testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. If you need to have the swivel base added to a front seat, this should allow you to find a converter to make this modification while this decision is pending.

I hope you find this information helpful. 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

ref:207#208#209#210 d:11/25/92

ID: 7919

Mr. Wolfgang W. Klamp
8105 Chehalis Road
Blaine, Washington 98230

Dear Mr. Klamp:

This responds to your letter of October 28, 1992, with respect to problems encountered by your wife in her use of a 1992 Canadian Ford Tempo passenger car.

Your letter indicates that your wife works in Canada, and uses the Ford, a company car owned by her employer, to travel to and from her home in the United States. Because the vehicle is not certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, she has been informed by U.S. Customs officials at the border that it may not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. You have asked for our consideration of this matter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation into the United States of motor vehicles that do not conform, and that are not certified by their manufacturers to conform, to all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a legal matter, each time the Ford crosses the border from British Columbia to Washington, it is being imported into this country. It has been the policy of this agency for many years to regard Canadian and Mexican-registered vehicles engaged in daily cross-border traffic as subject to the importation prohibitions of the Act, and to require their compliance with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This is the reason why your wife is encountering difficulties at the border.

We have several suggestions. If the Ford is equipped with automatic occupant protection such as an air bag or automatic belts, it may, in fact, comply with all the U.S. standards. If this is the case, then Ford of Canada may be willing to provide your wife with a letter certifying its compliance to the U.S. standards which she could present at the border. Customs should honor such a letter, and allow the vehicle to proceed with no further delay. If this is not the case, perhaps her employer could provide her with a Canadian- manufactured car that does meet, and is certified as meeting, the U.S. standards. Otherwise, your wife may have to use a U.S.-registered and certified vehicle and seek reimbursement for travel expenses from her Canadian employer.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:591 d:11/16/92

ID: 7922

Ms. Janet Taylor
Marketing and Sales Manager
A-PEX International Co., Ltd.
2900 Lakeside Drive
Suite 101
Santa Clara, CA 95054-2812

Dear Ms. Taylor:

This responds to your letter seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device called the "Tap Root Equipment Stand." The equipment stand consists of a base plate which is bolted to the floor of a vehicle, a vertical tube which attaches to the base plate, and a rotating shelf at the top of the tube. The stand is intended to be used for portable equipment such as laptop computers, facsimile machines, and car phones.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering equipment stands. However, it is possible that the installation of an equipment stand could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an equipment stand is installed in a certified vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if an equipment stand is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

In order to determine how installation of the Tap Root Equipment Stand could affect the compliance of vehicles with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those addressing occupant crash protection and occupant protection in interior impact. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

By way of example, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires, among other things, that passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less meet specified performance requirements in a crash test. In particular, test dummies occupying the front outboard seating positions must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. Nothing in the testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of an equipment stand in the interior of vehicles. However, the Tap Root Equipment Stand appears to have hard surfaces and sharp edges, especially as compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the test dummy may contact in a crash. It may not be possible for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if the equipment stand was installed in an area contacted by the test dummy, or if the stand interfered with the deployment of air bags.

Individual vehicle owners may modify their own vehicles without being subject to the federal safety standards. If the equipment stand is to be installed by such individual owners, however, I urge them to take potential safety hazards, such as those previously listed, into account before attempting to install the equipment stand. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are also subject to the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If data indicated that a device such as an equipment stand exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as from sharp edges resulting in injuries during crashes, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall.

I also note that, apart from the issue of whether the equipment stand itself posed any safety risk to vehicle occupants, it is possible that the means of installation could create problems. The manufacturer should ensure that the recommended means of installation would not result in such things as the seepage of vehicle exhaust gases into the passenger compartment or weakening of the metal floor pan.

I hope this information is helpful to you and your client. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d.12/28/92

ID: 7923

Mr. J. Leslie Dobson
Owner
McKinney Vehicle Services
8400 East Slauson Avenue
Pico Rivera, CA 90660

Dear Mr. Dobson:

This responds to your letter dated October 27, 1992, in which you asked how your company would go about lowering the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) assigned to some "Bobtail" trucks. Your letter explained that your company is a truck rental company that owns about 50 Bobtail trucks with a GVWR of approximately 28,000 pounds each. According to your letter, your company's rental business has decreased dramatically since the State of California's requirement for a commercial driver's license to operate vehicles with a GVWR of greater than 26,000 pounds took effect. You would now like to lower the GVWR of your trucks to 26,000 pounds so that the trucks would no longer be subject to the commercial driver's licensing requirements.

In a March 19, 1991, letter to Mr. Jerry Tassan, the owner of a truck rental company in San Francisco, I explained that the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the vehicle's original manufacturer, a final stage manufacturer, or an alterer. In a July 1, 1992, letter to Mr. Gene Fouts, I explained that modifications to an assigned GVWR should be made only when the manufacturer had made an error regarding the originally assigned GVWR, not for reasons related to the GVWR threshold of the commercial driver's license program. I have enclosed copies of both these letters for your information. Accordingly, I do not believe there is any way whereby your leasing company could lower the GVWR assigned to your Bobtail trucks.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567 d:11/20/92

ID: 7930

Mr. Kenneth W. Webster II
Project Engineer
Transportation Research Center Inc.
East Liberty, OH 43319-0367

Dear Mr. Webster:

This responds to your letter of October 26, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). More specifically, your letter requested clarification of the correct test procedure for S5 of Standard No. 124 under a specific condition.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a vehicle or product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations.

Section S5 of Standard No. 124 requires vehicles to comply with certain requirements "when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40 F. and +125 F. after 12 hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range." (Emphasis added.) For purposes of the safety standards, the term any "means generally the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." (49 CFR 571.4) Therefore, vehicles must meet Standard No. 124's requirements at all temperatures within the specified range.

Your letter states that some vehicles are impossible to start after conditioning for 12 hours at -40 F. You asked which of the following procedures would be correct when testing a vehicle which will not start:

Alternative (1): Test with engine not running at the -40 F. test condition.

Alternative (2): Raise temperature until engine will start. Record test temperature and perform test.

In conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would follow the procedures set forth in Standard No. 124. The agency would not follow the Alternative (1) test procedure since the standard specifies requirements that must be met "when the engine is running."

The agency could conduct a compliance test at any temperature or temperatures within the specified -40 F. to +125 F. range. I note that S5.3 specifies that the performance requirement for maximum time to return to idle position varies depending on whether the vehicle is "exposed to ambient air at 0 F to -40 F. during the test or for any portion of the 12- hour conditioning period." This language makes it clear that the ambient air does not need to be held at a single temperature during the conditioning period or during the test.

If NHTSA chose to conduct a compliance test at -40 F. and the vehicle would not start because of the extreme cold, the agency would most likely either use a standard engine heater to assist in starting the vehicle or warm the entire vehicle to a temperature where it would start. I note, however, that if the agency did warm the vehicle to assist in starting, it might lower the temperature back down to -40 for purposes of conducting the test.

I hope you find this information helpful. 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

ref:124 d.12/24/92

ID: 7935

The Honorable Connie Mack
United States Senate
1342 Colonial Boulevard, Suite 27
Fort Myers, FL 33907

Dear Senator Mack:

Thank you for your letter of December 12, 1994, addressed to the Intergovernmental & Consumer Affairs office of this Department. You forwarded to us a letter from your constituent, Mr. Howard J. Levy, Vice- President, Used Tire International, of Deerfield Beach, Florida.

Mr. Levy expressed concern in his letters to you and this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), about a proposed bill in the Puerto Rico Senate which would require that used tires imported into Puerto Rico have not less than 5/32 inch tread depth and which would impose a tax of $10 per tire on such imports. Mr. Levy is concerned that the proposed bill would mean the end of the used tire industry on the island. In his letter to this agency, he asked, "Does NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested our help in this matter.

We have carefully evaluated Mr. Levy's concerns. As discussed in our enclosed response to Mr. Levy, however, we have concluded that the laws and regulations that we administer will not be of help to him. Since our opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have suggested to Mr. Levy that he may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to his concerns.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:109 d:1/17/95

ID: 7964

Form DOT F 1320.65 (Rev. 5/83)
Supersedes previous editionOFFICIAL FILE COPYCONCURRENCESRTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE

Mr. Ron Noirfalise Director of Pupil Transportation Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Post Office Box 480 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480

Dear Mr. Noirfalise:

This follows up your telephone conversation of November 10, 1992, with Walter Myers of my staff regarding a newly- effective statute in Missouri which revises state requirements on transportation of school children. You also stated that you were told by your counterpart in the State of Washington that Federal law prohibits transportation of school children in vehicles with a passenger capacity of less than ten people.

As discussed in your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers, I have enclosed four recent letters explaining Federal law and pertinent regulations applicable to school buses and transportation of school children. These four are a November 3, 1992 letter to Mr. G. Thomas Owens, a July 7, 1992 letter to Senator Jim Sasser, a May 27, 1992 letter to Mr. Gerald A. Guertain, and a January 15, 1991 letter to Ms. Carol C. Verenea. These letters cover a variety of issues that, I think, will clarify your understanding of the issues with which you are concerned. Also enclosed is a copy of a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, revised June 1989, and an information sheet issued by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

In addition, I am enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines that states may refer to in developing their highway safety programs. Guideline 17 was jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Among other things, Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed to carry more than ten persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

I hope the enclosed information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-1992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571 d:11/20/92