ID: nht95-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/23/95 LETTER FROM YOSHIAKI MATSUI TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 11017)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Matsui:

This responds to your letter of June 23, 1995, asking questions about neon high mounted stop lamps.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration answered these questions in the preamble to a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published on June 19, 1995. We assume that you had not received it by the 23rd, and enclose a copy for your informati on.

You will see (center column, page 31940) that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 allows neon tubes as light sources for the center highmounted lamp. Under our interpretation of paragraph S5.1.1.16, FMVSS No. 108 also allows testing of a neon lamp with or without its ballast, in accordance with the directions of that paragraph.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

ID: nht95-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: John Renock -- Director of Operations, Central New York Regional Transport Authority

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM M. JUDSON BROWN TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10992)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Renock:

Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for your Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Tran sit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years.

The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With rega rd to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you.

NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel contai ner integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS N o. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1995

FROM: Thomas A. Placey -- Senior Assistant District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney, Cumberland County

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Commonwealth v. One 1994 GMC Jimmy 95-258 Miscellaneous Term; VIN: 1GKDT13WR2508404 (true); 1GKDT13W4R2511523 (altered); PSP ID: X4-15565

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/11/95 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD AND JOHN WOMACK (TO THOMA A. PLACEY (A43; PART 591)

TEXT: Sir/Madame:

Corporal James Drenning, of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), has referred me to you for information on a case currently within my jurisdiction.

The nutshell facts are as follows: Auto thief steals a Canadian owned GMC Jimmy in Canada. Thief, without any import or export license, delivers GMC Jimmy to conspirator in Pennsylvania. Conspirator alters VIN and sells to buyer. Police in both cou ntries break auto theft ring. PSP, pursuant to state law, seize vehicle from buyer. Buyer wants GMC Jimmy back and files with local state court for return.

The issue, on the federal level, is can this vehicle ever be properly registered in the United States. What are the specific federal laws or regulations that govern such situations.

My hearing on the state issue is in September. I know the judge will ask about federal ramifications. It would be extremely helpful if you could point me in the right direction so I may answer the judge's question with specific law or regulation.

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter.

ID: nht95-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ron Hooker -- Missouri Department of Agriculture

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/9/95 LETTER FROM RON HOOKER TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10906)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hooker:

This responds to your question about whether the State of Missouri has authority to promulgate regulations relating to the safety of motor vehicles powered by alternative fuels, particularly compressed natural gas (CNG). The short answer is that while M issouri is generally preempted in this area, it could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles.

Federal law will preempt a State law if (1) there is a Federal safety standard in effect, (2) the State law covers the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard, and (3) the State law is not identical to the Federal standard. Specifically, sec tion 30103(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code states that

(b) Preemption - (1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equip ment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.

State safety standards applicable to CNG fuel system integrity are generally preempted by Federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles. (59 FR 19659, April 25, 1994, copy enclosed). The Standard specifies frontal barrier and rear barrier crash tests conducted at 30 mph and a lateral moving barrier crash test conducted at 20 mph. The Standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less and use CNG as a motor fuel. It also applies to school buses regardless of weight that use CNG as a motor fuel. Th e Standard takes effect September 1, 1995. Accordingly, after September 1, 1995, Missouri could only issue its own safety standard applicable to CNG vehicle fuel system integrity if the State safety standard is identical to FMVSS No. 303. The one excep tion to requiring such identical standards is that Missouri could prescribe a standard for motor vehicles obtained for its own use, provided the State law imposed a higher performance requirement than the level of performance prescribed by FMVSS No. 303. Thus, Missouri could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles.

NHTSA further notes that Missouri is free to issue safety standards applicable to the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by other alternative fuels (e.g., liquid propane, hydrogen), since the agency has not issued any FMVSS applicable to other alt ernative fuels.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1995

FROM: Heather Paul -- Executive Director, National Safe Kids Campaign

TO: Patricia Breslin, Ph.D. -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/5/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ANGELA MICKALIDE (REDBOOK 2; STD. 213; A43)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Breslin:

As you know, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and its partners, the National Safety Council, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association, will be distributing approximately 38,00 0 child safety seats to families in need over the next few months.

This presents an ideal opportunity for research on the effectiveness of the child safety seat distribution process. The Campaign is submitting a written request to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an interpretation of the Federal M otor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVqSS) 213. Specifically, the Campaign is interested in modifying the uniform child restraint registration card to collect information about recipient families' sociodemographic profile, the type of cars in which the child safety seats would typically be installed in order to address incompatibility issues, and the comprehensiveness of the educational outreach at the distribution sites (see enclosed draft).

The Campaign would require the distribution site coordinators to complete the modified child [Illegible Word] registration card with the recipient family prior to distributing the child safety seat. This would yield almost a 100% child safety seat regis tration response rate which would allow NHTSA and the manufacturer to more readily notify families about recalls. Distribution site coordinators would mail the cards directly to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for the Campaign's evalu ation research purposes.

Please call me or Dr. Angela Mickalide, Program Director, as soon as possible in order to resolve this important child safety matter. Thank you in advance for your timely response to the Campaign's request for an interpretation of FMVSS 213.

(Enclosure omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 24, 1995

FROM: Doug Burnett -- (Office Of Chuck Chvala)

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- DOT

TITLE: Re: School bus definition language

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO CHUCK CHVALA (REDBOOK 2; PART 571)

TEXT: The budget language is reproduced below. The plus marks indicate new language and the minus marks indicate deleted language. Our current definition is not statutory, and I was mistaken when I told you that it is in Administrative Rule. Our only referen ces to the definition of a school bus are modified in the language below.

I have also attached a copy of the motion which was included in the budget, including a brief analysis of it by the Legislature's budget office. There is also a 1993 memo from our state DOT which discusses some of the issues involved here.

Thanks for your help on this and give me a call if you have any questions.

347.40 (2) No person shall operate on a highway any school bus having a passenger-carrying capacity of [- 10 -] [+ 16 +] or more persons [- including -] [+ in addition to +] the operator unless such bus is equipped with at least one mirror which is 7 inches in diameter so located as to enable the operator to see a reflection of the road from the entire front bumper forward to a point where direct observation is possible.

121.555 (2) (a) Insurance. If the vehicle is owned or leased by a school or a school bus contractor, or is a vehicle authorized under sub. (1) (b), it shall comply with s. 121.53. If the vehicle is transporting [- 9 -] [+ 15 +] or less persons in ad dition to the operator and is not owned or leased by a school or by a school bus contractor, it shall be insured by a policy providing property damage coverage with a limit of not less than $ 10,000 and bodily injury liability coverage with limits of not less than $ 25,000 for each person, and, subject to the limit for each person, a total limit of not less than $ 50,000 for each accident.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Definition of School Bus

Motion:

Move to modify the current definition of school bus as follows:

1. Define a school bus as a motor vehicle which carries 16 or more passengers (in addition to the operator).

2. Provide that a school district can use, as an alternative method of transportation, a motor vehicle transporting 15 or less passengers (in addition to the operator).

Note:

Under current law, a school bus is defined as a motor vehicle which carries 10 or more passengers (in addition to the operator) for the purpose of transporting private and public school pupils to or from school, curricular or extracurricular activitie s, religious instruction (on days when school is in session). If a school board uses a school bus to transport pupils through a contract or the use of its own motor vehicles, the operation of the bus is subject to certain requirements regarding bus oper ator licensure and physical examinations, vehicle insurance, school bus painting and traffic safety rules. A school board can use, as an alternative, a motor vehicle transporting 9 or less passengers (in addition to the operator): in such cases, the scho ol district is not subject to the same requirements applicable to the operation of a school bus.

[Change to Governor: None]

LETTER

Ricardo Martinez Administrator, NHTSA Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Martinez,

I have been contacted by Wisconsin State Senator Chuck Chvala regarding a provision recently passed in the Wisconsin Legislature's biennial budget. The language included in the legislation changes the state definition of school buses in a manner that is inconsistent with the definition established by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Senator Chvala has inquired as to whether this change in state law and subsequent state regulations would violate any federal laws or regulations with respect to the definition of school buses.

I would appreciate a prompt reply to Senator Chvala's inquiry. Please direct your response to:

Chuck Chvala Wisconsin State Senator State Capitol P.O. Box 7882 Madison, WI 53707-7882

Russell D. Feingold United States Senator

cc: Ms. Carmen Rivera, Legislative Liaison, NHTSA

ID: nht95-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive And Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Department of the Army

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Overbay:

This letter follows up a telephone conversation between Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff and Mr. John Hretz of the U.S. Department of the Army in which Mr. Hretz requested a clarification of a February 17, 1995, letter that we sent to you. In that letter, w e discussed the testing of air braked vehicles under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. We explained that, as a result of a court decision, the emergency stopping test requirements, set forth in S5.7.1 of the standa rd, are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers.

As Mr. Glancy explained, subsequent to that letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule reinstating emergency stopping tests in FMVSS No. 121. The amendments reinstating these tests take effect on March 1, 1997 , for truck tractors and March 1, 1998, for other medium and heavy vehicles that are equipped with air brakes. Once these amendments take effect, the provisions in S5.7.1 will again be applicable to air braked vehicles.

Mr. Hretz asked whether, in conducting the emergency stopping distance tests, removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test. Your question is addressed below.

Section S5.7.1 states that

When stopped six times for each combination of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1, except for a loaded truck tractor with an unbraked control trailer, on a road surface having a PFC of 0.9, with a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake chamber housing), the vehicle shall stop at least once in not more than the distance specified in Column 5 of Table II.

In describing the failure conditions for which stopping distance requirements must be met, S5.7.1 broadly specifies "a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid," except for certain listed part s. It is our opinion that the failure mode Mr. Hretz described in which one disconnects the service air signal line at the rear service air relay comes within this language. Therefore, a vehicle would not comply with FMVSS No. 121 if it did not meet th e specified stopping distance requirements after disconnection of the service air signal line at the rear service air relay.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David A. Lowell -- Engineering Manager, Bankhead Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/8/95 LETTER FROM DAVID A. LOWELL TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10978)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lowell:

This responds to your letter of June 8, 1995, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Specifically, your company manufactures "stinger steered automobile transport trailers" as defined by 23 CFR 658.5, paragraphs (k) Tractor or Truck Tractor, (m) Automobile Transporters, and (n) Single-steered combination. Your company currently mounts ta illamps, turn signal lamps, and clearance lamps on the back of the truck tractor. It is your understanding of paragraphs S5.1.1.1 and S5.1.1.2 of Standard No. 108 that "these items do not seem to be necessary."

For purposes of Standard No. 108, types of motor vehicles are defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b), a regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, rather than 23 CFR 658.5, a regulation of the Federal Highway Administration. Under 571.3(b), th e towing portion of your combination vehicle is a "truck", rather than a "truck tractor." A "truck" is defined, in pertinent part, as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property." A "truck tractor" is a "truck designed primaril y for drawing other motor vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn." The photographs you enclosed show that the towing portion of Bankhead's combination vehicle is designed to carry motor vehicles, and may do so without the attachment of the trailer, hence it is a "truck." It is constructed to carry a load other than a part of the trailer, hence it is not a "truck tractor."

Accordingly, Bankhead's towing vehicle may not avail itself of the truck tractor lighting options of paragraphs S5.1.1.1 and S5.1.1.2 of Standard No. 108.

Your understanding of these sections as they relate to truck tractors meeting the definition of 571.3(b) is generally accurate. However, no provision of Standard No. 108 permits either the elimination or the relocation of taillamps from truck tractors.

Because Bankhead's product is operated in interstate commerce, it must also conform to the safety regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (49 CFR part 393). This is to advise you that the Office of Motor Carrier Standards has reviewed this let ter and concurs in it.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senator

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/4/95 LETTER FROM PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE TO REGINA SULLIVAN

TEXT: Dear Senator Wellstone:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Kris Solberg, concerning our requirements for school buses. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA admin isters the Federal regulations for school buses.

Ms. Solberg, principal of Grace Christian School, asks that our "school bus" definition be narrowed so that it only encompasses vehicles carrying more than 15 passengers. Ms. Solberg believes that, at NHTSA's urging, Minnesota recently amended its schoo l bus definition to include vehicles carrying 15 passengers. She states that, as a result of this change, schools cannot use conventional 15-passenger vans to transport students to school events, even though the vans are "safe enough."

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. The short answer to Ms. Solberg's question is that NHTSA cannot narrow the "school bus" definition as she requests because the definition was set by Congress. Further, for safety rea sons, we do not agree that the definition should be changed.

As Ms. Solberg's letter suggests, school bus regulations exist on the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level are NHTSA's school bus regulations. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles by issuing Federal motor vehicle safe ty standards (FMVSSs) that each new vehicle must meet when sold. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Congr ess also defined a "school bus" as a passenger motor vehicle "designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (Emphasis added.) Since the school bus definition was set by Congress, NHTSA is unable to revise it to exclude 15-passenger vans.

Further, we do not agree that the definition should be narrowed to exclude vehicles. School bus-type vans have more safety features providing occupant crash protection than do conventional full-size vans. Narrowing the definition could result in school children being transported in vehicles that are not as safe as the vehicles used today. NHTSA believes that, while school bus vans are slightly more expensive than conventional 15-passenger vans, the increased level of safety justifies the higher costs . Thus, we recommend against changing the Federal definition of a "school bus." While the Federal government regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the States regulate the use of vehicles. According to Ms. Solberg's letter, Minnesota has decided to adopt NHTSA's "school bus" definition into its regulations. In d oing so, under Minnesota law, if a school wishes to use a 15-passenger van to carry students, the van must meet school bus safety standards.

NHTSA does not require States to adopt our "school bus" definition. However, we strongly support any decision by a State to do so. This agency attaches the utmost importance to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. While s chool buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John N. Quinata -- Customs And Quarantine Agency, Government Of Guam

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN M. QUINATA TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Quinata:

This responds to your letter asking whether used Nissan Truck Crane Lorries from Japan are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in our response, but we had difficulty contacting Nissan for some informa tion we needed to answer your question. From your letter, I assume that Sanko Bussan Guam has imported this vehicle for use in the dock area, and that your agency is holding the vehicle pending this interpretation because the vehicle is not certified as complying with the FMVSS.

The short answer to your question is that the truck crane is a motor vehicle, subject to the FMVSS. I will outline the applicable law and point out some of our regulations that you should consider.

The issue you raise is whether the truck crane is a "motor vehicle," since the regulations you ask about apply only to motor vehicles. Title 49 of the U.S. Code, section 30102(a)(6), defines a motor vehicle as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical po wer and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . ." Work-related vehicles generally are "motor vehicles" for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site fo r only a limited time.

We believe the truck crane is a motor vehicle. Nissan Diesel North America informs us that this truck crane is a general purpose medium-duty crane that can be used for short-duty jobs and driven from site to site on the public roads. The photographs you enclosed show the crane mounted on what appears to be a conventional truck chassis. The vehicle appears to be manufactured for use on the highways, and is thus a motor vehicle. The vehicle is a "truck" under our regulations, and must meet the FMVSSs f or trucks that were in effect on the vehicle's date of manufacture.

As you know, NHTSA has regulations related to the importation of vehicles. They appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), at parts 591 to 593. In particular, note the declarations in 49 CFR 591.5 that are required for importation. Since your le tter says that you enforce the FMVSSs in 49 CFR Part 571, I assume you have a copy of Parts 591-593. If you do not, we can send one to you.

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