ID: nht95-7.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Standard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a determination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Enclosure

ACTION: Issuance of Federal Register Notice Granting Cantab's Petition for Temporary Exemption From Standards Nos. 208 and 214 John Womack (K. WEINSTEIN) Acting Chief Counsel

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards

Attached for your signature is a Federal Register notice granting the petition by Cantab Motors for a temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, and the side impact protection requirements of Standard No. 214. The basis of the grant is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to meet the standards.

Cantab imports shells of Morgan sports cars from England, and installs propane engines and drive trains in the US; for this reason, we consider Cantab rather than Morgan as the manufacturer. In the year preceding the filing of its exemption petition it produced only 9 such cars. It has cumulative net losses approaching $ 93,000 for the last three fiscal years. It has been working with Morgan to develop vehicles that will be equipped with airbags meeting Standard No. 208, and provide side impact protection meeting Standard No. 214.

Because the components that must be modified for conformance are under the control of Morgan rather than Cantab, the company is dependent upon Morgan's efforts. Cantab asked for only a 2-year exemption from Standard No. 208, indicating that it is optimistic that its cars will conform in less than the 3 years it could have asked for. However, it appears to require the full 3 years for Standard No. 214.

Any threat to safety that would be presented by an exempted vehicle would be minimal because they are few in number, and are represented as conforming to earlier versions of the two standards.

No comments were received on the application.

Attachment

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Docket No. 95-53; Notice 2

Cantab Motors, Ltd.

Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and 214

Cantab Motors, Ltd., of Round Hill, Va., applied for a temporary exemption of two years from paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, and for three years from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection. The basis of the application was that compliance will cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application was published on July 14, 1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 36328).

The make and type of passenger car for which exemption was requested is the Morgan open car or convertible. Morgan Motor Company ("Morgan"), the British manufacturer of the Morgan, has not offered its vehicle for sale in the United States since the early days of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the nine years it has been in business, the applicant has bought 35 incomplete Morgan cars from the British manufacturer, and imported them as motor vehicle equipment, completing manufacture by the addition of engine and fuel system components. They differ from their British counterparts, not only in equipment items and modifications necessary for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but also in their fuel system components and engines, which are propane fueled. As the party completing manufacture of the vehicle, Cantab certifies its conformance to all applicable Federal safety and bumper standards. The vehicle completed by Cantab in the U.S. is deemed sufficiently different from the one produced in Britain that NHTSA considers Cantab the manufacturer, not a converter, even though the brand names are the same.

Morgan itself produced 478 cars in 1994, while in the year preceding the filing of its petition in June 1995, the applicant produced 9 cars for sale in the United States. Since the granting of its original exemption in 1990, Cantab has invested $ 38,244 in research and development related to compliance with Federal safety and emissions standards. The applicant has experienced a net loss in each of its last three fiscal (calendar) years, with a cumulative net loss for this period of $ 92,594.

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 208

Cantab received NHTSA Exemption No. 90-3 from S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208, which expired May 1, 1993 (55 FR 21141). When this exemption was granted in 1990, the applicant had concluded that the most feasible way for it to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 was by means of an automatically deploying belt. In the period following the granting of the exemption, Morgan and the applicant created a mock-up of the Morgan passenger compartment with seat belt hardware and motor drive assemblies. In time, it was determined that the belt track was likely to deform, making it inoperable. The program was abandoned, and Morgan and Cantab embarked upon research leading to a dual airbag system.

According to the applicant, Morgan tried without success to obtain a suitable airbag system from Mazda, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and Lotus. As a result, Morgan is now developing its own system for its cars, and "[as] many as twelve different sensors, of both the impact and deceleration (sic) type, have been tested and the system currently utilizes a steering wheel from a Jaguar and the Land Rover Discovery steering column." Redesign of the passenger compartment is underway, involving knee bolstering, a supplementary seat belt system, antisubmarining devices, and the seats themselves. Morgan informed the applicant on May 2, 1995, that it had thus far completed 10 tests on the mechanical components involved "and are now carrying out a detailed assessment of air bag operating systems and columns before we will be in a position to undertake the full set of appropriate tests to approve the installation in our vehicles."

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 214

Concurrently, Morgan and the applicant have been working towards meeting the dynamic test and performance requirements for side impact protection, for which Standard No. 214 has established a phase-in schedule. Although Morgan fits its car with a dual roll bar system specified by Cantab, and Cantab installs door bars and strengthens the door latch receptacle and striker plate, the system does not yet conform to the new requirements of Standard No. 214, and the applicant has asked for an exemption of three years. It does, however, meet the previous side door strength requirements of the standard. Were the phase-in requirement of S8 applied to it, calculated on the basis of its limited production, only very few cars would be required to meet the standard.

Safety and Public Interest Arguments

Because of the small number of vehicles that the applicant produces and its belief that they are used for pleasure rather than daily for business commuting or on long trips, and because of the three-point restraints and side impact protection currently offered, the applicant argued that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with safety. It brought to the agency's attention two recent oblique front impact accidents at estimated speeds of 30 mph and 65 mph respectively in which the restrained occupants "emerged unscathed."

Further, the availability "of this unique vehicle . . . will help maintain the existing diversity of motor vehicles available to the U.S. consumer." Finally, "the distribution of [this] propane-fueled vehicle has contributed to the national interest by promoting the development of motor systems by using alternate fuels."

No comments were received on the application.

In adding only engine and fuel system components to incomplete vehicles, the applicant is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles in the conventional sense. It does not produce the front end structural components, instrument panel, or steering wheel, areas of the motor vehicle whose design is critical for compliance with the airbag requirements of Standard No. 208. These are manufactured by Morgan, and the applicant is necessarily dependent upon Morgan to devise designs that will enable conformance with Standard No. 208. The applicant has been monitoring Morgan's progress, and that company is engaging in testing and design activities necessary for eventual conformance. The fact that the applicant is requesting only a two-year exemption, rather than three, indicates its belief that complying operator and passenger airbags will at last be fitted to its cars by the end of this period.

Similarly, the applicant is dependent upon the structural design of its vehicle for compliance with Standard No. 214. As with Standard No. 208, Morgan and the applicant are working towards conformance, though apparently it will not be achieved within two years. In both instances, however, the applicant is conscious of the need to conform and has been taking steps to accomplish it. Although the company's total expenditure of $ 38,244 in the last five years to meet emission and safety requirements is low, the small number of cars produced for sale in the United States in the last year, nine, would not make available substantial funds to the company, and its cumulative net losses of $ 92,594 indicate an operation whose financial existence is precarious.

Applicant's cars are equipped with manual three-point restraint systems and comply with previous side impact intrusion requirements. Because applicant produces only one line of vehicles, it cannot take advantage of the phase-in requirement. Given the existing level of safety of the vehicles and the comparatively small exposure of the small number of them that would be produced under an exemption, there would appear to be an insignificant risk to traffic safety by providing an exemption. The public interest is served by maintaining the existence of small businesses and by creating awareness of alternative power sources.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that to require immediate compliance with Standards Nos. 208 and 214 would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has in good faith attempted to meet the standards, and that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, the applicant is hereby granted NHTSA Exemption No. 95-2, from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, expiring September 1, 1997, and from 49 CFR 571.214 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection, expiring September 1, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on SEP 7 1995

Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator

BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P

ID: nht95-7.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 24, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jonathan P. Reynolds, Esq., -- Cosco, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JONATHAN P. REYNOLDS TO DEIRDRE FUJITA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This responds to your letter asking us to confirm that we consider your submission, dated August 3, 1995, as a timely petition for reconsideration of a final rule published July 6, 1995 (Docket No. 74-09, Notice 42). You enclosed a copy of a Federal Express document to show that your submission was received by NHTSA within the time period provided for such petitions under 49 CFR @ 553.35.

The Federal Express document, which shows the signature of an agency employee, supports a finding that your submission was timely filed. NHTSA is processing your submission as a petition for reconsideration of the subject rule.

If you have any further questions about your petition, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Orlando Ferreira -- Orion Bus Industries Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/18/95 LETTER FROM ORLANDO FERREIRA TO J. MEDLIN (OCC 11221)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ferreira:

This responds to your FAX message to Mr. Jere Medlin of this agency, asking whether your "master switch" on a transit bus must be illuminated pursuant to Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. Your master switch has four controls, "engine stop," "run," "lights," and "park." In a telephone conversation with Mr. Medlin, you explained that your "run" control functions as an "engine start" control, and your "park" control functions as a "clearance lamps systems" control.

As explained below, Standard No. 101 specifies illumination for the "engine stop" and "park" controls, but not for the "run" and "light" controls. In addition, there are identification requirements for those controls.

Your drawing of the master switch shows that the switch resembles a tuning knob on a radio. Like a knob, the switch can be turned to each of the above four positions, one position at a time. Because turning the master switch knob to each position activates the described function, we would consider each position to be a separate control.

You write that the master switch will be placed on a "driver's side control panel," a location that subjects controls to Standard No. 101's illumination requirements. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 (referencing Tables 1 and 1(a) Identification and Illumination of Controls), specifies that if:

* a control is provided, * is listed in column 1 of either Table 1 or 1(a), * and is accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4, Illumination, of the table,

the "identification . . . of any control" shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated.

"Engine stop" control The identification of the "engine stop" control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. This is because in Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine stop" control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 of each table.

"Park" control Two issues are raised by your "park" control. The first relates to Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard, the control that regulates the parking lights is the "clearance lamps system" control, rather than the "park" control. Since your control regulates the parking lights, it must be identified as "Marker Lamps", "MK Lps" or (as you propose) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1. Labeling the control as "park" could confuse some persons into thinking "park" is a transmission park position.

The second issue is the illumination requirement. The identification of the control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. As noted above, your park control has to be identified as "Marker Lamps" or "MK Lps". In Table 1, the control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4. Thus, the control must be illuminated.

"Run" control The same two issues discussed in our answer directly above, pertain to this control. First is Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard the control that will start the engine must be identified as "engine start" (rather than "run") as described in both Tables 1 and 1(a), when it is separate from the key locking system (as is yours).

The control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine start" control (which is the correct identification of the control) is specified in column 1, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

"Lights" control The same two issues discussed above are relevant here. The illustration you enclosed with your letter shows that you use both the word "Lights" and an identifying symbol to identify your Lights control. We are not sure that you are correctly using the symbol. The symbol you use is listed in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 as that for the master lighting switch. A master lighting switch regulates all exterior vehicle lights. If your "lights" control only regulates headlamps and taillamps, and not all exterior vehicle lights, please designate the headlamps and taillamps as specified in column 3 of Table 1.

The "lights" control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "lights" control is specified in column 2, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht95-7.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hugh J. Bode, Esq. -- Reminger & Reminger

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM HUGH J. BODE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bode:

This responds to your letter concerning whether 49 U.S.C. @@ 30101 et seq. (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to ensure that its vehicle continues to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) after the first retail purchase of the vehicle.

You specifically ask about FMVSS No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems," and its application to a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck. It appears from the questions you ask that corrosion developed inside the carburetor of the pickup truck at some point during the life of the vehicle, such that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

You asked us to "confirm the accuracy" of a number of statements. Your first statement, concerning the application of the FMVSSs generally, is as follows:

As we understand it, former @ 108(a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former @ 108 (b) (1), 49 U.S.C. @ 30112 (b) (1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former @ 108(a) (2) (A), 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

Your general understanding is correct. However, a manufacturer has responsibilities in addition to those in @ 30112, that may bear upon on "continuing compliance" of its vehicle. Under @@ 30118-30122 of our statute, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge.

This is not to say that the development of the corrosion in the carburetor necessarily constitutes a safety-related defect. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility of such a finding in certain circumstances, such as where the corrosion developed unreasonably quickly in the vehicle and the problem was such that it could lead to crashes involving injuries or fatalities.

State law could also be relevant to this issue. For example, as part of its vehicle inspection requirements, a State could require that the accelerator control systems on vehicles "continue to comply" with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

With the above discussion in mind, I will now address your other four questions on Standard No. 124.

Question 1. We ask that NHTSA confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle.

As explained in our answer above, your understanding is correct with regard to our requirements (49 U.S.C. @ 30112). There may be State requirements that apply.

Question 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124.

Your understanding is essentially correct. As permitted by Federal law, Chrysler sold the truck based upon its own certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 124. That corrosion developed in the system may or may not be relevant with respect to the existence of a safety-related defect.

Question 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5.

While your understanding is essentially correct, note that Standard No. 124 and other motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards.

Question 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance.

Standard No. 124 does not specify a test for corrosion resistance. It is unclear what you mean by "durability." The requirements of the standard must be met when the engine "is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between - 40 degrees F. and + 125 degrees F. . ." (S5) In addition to the performance regulated by Standard No. 124, each manufacturer must ensure that its motor vehicle does not have a safety-related defect.

If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President of Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/6/95 LETTER FROM LARRY W. STRAWHORN AND EARL EISNHART TO JOHN G. WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock malfunction indicator requirements set forth at S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This provision explains the situations in which the trailer lamp malfunction indicator must remain activated. Section S5.2.3.3 reads as follows:

S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including a trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2006 shall be equipped with a lamp indicating a malfunction of a trailer's antilock brake system. Such a lamp shall remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system. The display shall be visible within the driver's forward field of view through the rearview mirror(s), and shall be visible once the malfunction is present and power is provided to the system. (Emphasis added.).

In particular, you request that the agency confirm your belief that the lamp activation pattern for trailers may be such that the bulb be ON when the antilock system is working properly and OFF when a malfunction exists, the antilock system is not getting electrical power, or the lamp bulb is burnt out. You contended that such an activation pattern provides a fail safe pattern i.e., it will signal an inoperative antilock system even when the system is not receiving electrical power or the lamp bulb is burnt out.

NHTSA disagrees with your suggested reading of the malfunction indicator requirements. Such a reading would be inconsistent with S5.2.3.3's language stating that the lamp must "remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system." As with other malfunction indicators, the agency intends the malfunction indicator to activate when a malfunction exists and not activate when the system is functioning properly. To require otherwise would be inconsistent with our requirements for other indicators and thus would create confusion. Please note that NHTSA provided a lengthy discussion about the issue of a malfunction indicator's activation protocol in the March 10, 1995 final rule. (60 FR 13216, 13246) The agency stated that in response to an ABS malfunction, a trailer or tractor indicator must activate and provide a continuous yellow signal. The agency explained that such a common indicator pattern standardizes the activation format, thus reducing ambiguity and confusion and expediting Federal and State inspections.

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: nht95-7.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James J. Gregorio

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9.23.95 letter from James J. Gregorio to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gregorio:

This responds to your letter of September 23, 1995, requesting" authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim." Your letter states:

Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviates a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand controls. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the car seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees.

You enclosed a letter from your physician stating that recovery could take several years.

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accomodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standart No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter does not provide any information regarding why the modification to your seat cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition.

However, in situations such as your where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1995

FROM: Jane Thornton Mastrucci -- Thornton, Mastrucci and Sinclair

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/26/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin (signed by John Womack) to Jane Thornton Mastrucci (A43; Part 571.3; VSA 102)

TEXT: We represent the Dade County School Board with respect to its vehicular litigation.

The Florida Legislature has just passed a new law, F.S. 234.02 (1)(a) which allows a School Board to use, in addition to passenger cars not exceeding eight students, any other motor vehicle designed to transport ten on fewer persons which meets all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars. Similarly, the Department of Education Rule 6A-3.017 (10)(c) allows the transportation of students, when necessary or practical, in multipurpose vehicles, providing the MPV meets all of the applicable passenger car federal motor vehicle safety standards, except the standard pertaining to window tinting. Copies of both of these statutes are attached.

Would you please advise which passenger vehicles which multipurpose vehicles meet all federal motor safety standards.

Thanking you for your courtesy and cooperation in advance, I remain,

Florida statutes are omitted.

ID: nht95-7.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 13, 1995

FROM: David T. Zelis -- Marketing Manager, Buyers Products Company

TO: Office Of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/22/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to David T. Zelis (A43; Part 581)

TEXT: Enclosed please find a copy of literature describing a new product from our company. The Pintle Mount Bumper basically is designed to take the place of a vehicle bumper and the receiver tube assembly on a light duty truck.

Would you please send a copy of NHTSA standards that may apply to the use or manufacture of this product. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, at (216) 974-8888.

Thank you for your assistance.

(Literature omitted.)

ID: nht95-7.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1995

FROM: Terence J. Kann

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/22/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Terence J. Kann (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: I am writing to you concerning Standard No. 108, which amended 49 CFR Part 571 to require application of retro-reflective sheeting or reflex reflectors to provide for greater conspicuity of the sides and rear of trailers. I have the following question. Section S3, Application (a) provides that the standard applies to ". . . trailers (except pole trailers) . . .". Section S5.7 provides that "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with GVWR over 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after 12/1/93, except a trailer designed exclusively for living or office use, shall be equipped with either retro-reflective sheeting . . . reflex reflectors . . . or a combination . . .".

My question is, are pole trailers such as those used in the logging industry, required to have retro-reflective sheeting, reflex reflectors, or a combination? If not, did the NHTSA issue any explanation for failing to extend the requirements to pole trailers? If yes, could you please provide a copy?

Thank you for your assistance. Please don't hesitate to call or write if you have any questions or comments regarding the above.

ID: nht95-7.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 15, 1995

FROM: Richard L. Russell

TO: Blane Laubis -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, US Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/22/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Richard L. Russell (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: I now have two DOT Approved headlights on my 1956 Jeep and I would like to add two additional Auxiliary Lights to supplement my highbeams. These lights would be wired into the highbeam switch, so that, they can only be used on highbeam and mounted on my bumper below my DOT Approved headlights (36.5" from the ground).

My question is . . . are my auxiliary lights required to be DOT approved? Are they required to be SAE approved? And is there any limitation to bulb wattage for auxiliary lights used to supplement the DOT approved headlights while they are on highbeam?

I understand that the State of California may have regulations to further define or restrict the use of auxiliary lights. I would appreciate your response to these questions at your earliest convenience.