ID: nht94-6.17

DATE: April 21, 1994

FROM: Fred Carr -- Engineer, Utilimaster

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/16/94 From John Womack To Fred Carr (A42; Std. 211)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

Please inform us as to whether Standard 571.211 applies to Motor Vehicle equipment relating to light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty trucks or truck manufacturers.

Respectfully yours,

ID: nht94-6.18

DATE: April 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary Klingaman -- Engineer, Inter Pipe, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 3/16/94 From Gary Klingaman To NHTSA Office Of Chief Counsel (OCC - 9833)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Klingaman:

This responds to your March 16, 1994, letter inquiring about the applicability of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to the alteration of used motor vehicles. You stated that your company manufactures water trucks and lube/fuel service trucks by adding water tanks and various other apparatus to incomplete vehicles. Your question is whether you are required to add a certification label (as required in 49 C.F.R. @ 571.115) even if you use a "pre-owned" (I assume you mean "used") truck chassis.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seg.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Whether Inter Pipe, Inc. would have to apply a certification label depends upon whether the vehicles your company modifies are new (that is, the vehicles have not yet been sold to the first retail purchaser) or used (vehicles that have already been sold to and used by the first retail purchaser). With respect to your company's modifications of new vehicles, your company would be a "final stage manufacturer" for the purposes of NHTSA's laws and regulations. 49 C.F.R. @ 568.6 requires a final stage manufacturer of a new vehicle to affix a certification label in accordance with 49 C.F.R. @ 567.5.

The requirements of 49 C.F.R. Parts 567-568 do not apply if you modify used vehicles. Hence, your company is not

2

required to affix a manufacturer's label to those used vehicles you convert into water trucks or fuel/lube trucks. However, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly "render inoperative," in whole or in part, any 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. Therefore, you must be careful when adding your equipment not to degrade the truck's ability to meet the safety standards.

For your information, I have enclosed a general information sheet for manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact our office at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-6.19

DATE: April 20, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Name Not Disclosed

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 29, 1993, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to your lighting device. You have requested confidential treatment of the matter but, in a telephone conversation of March 16, 1994, with Taylor Vinson of this office, you agreed to our practice in these matters to delete from the publicly available copy of this letter all information that would identify you, while disclosing the information necessary to render you an opinion.

You plan to create "signs, logos, emblems, accents, etc." which will be constructed of "sheet metal cut-outs of logos/company names," which "would be applied to large trucks and trailers." The color of the LEDs would "correspond to the safety color assigned to the panel of attachment (rear/ red, side/amber-yellow)." You note that LEDs provide a low level of illumination, for example, "100 LEDs would produce only 15 candelas of light." You believe the ideal height is 2 feet to 3 feet. You have asked for an interpretation that this would not be prohibited under S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S5.1.3 allows the installation on a new motor vehicle (i.e., one that has not been delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale) of motor vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. For trailers or trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or more, the required side lighting equipment consists of amber and red side marker lamps; trailers of this width are also required to have conspicuity striping of red/white segments (which is not required for narrower trailers) applied near the lower horizontal edge. We interpret impairment as something that interferes with the function of the required equipment. The function of marker lamps and conspicuity taping is to alert drivers of other vehicles to the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. We believe your device would not detract from this function since it also serves to call attention to the presence of a large vehicle.

When equipment of this nature is not prohibited under Federal law, its permissibility must be determined under the laws of the States where the vehicle is operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht94-6.2

DATE: May 5, 1994

FROM: J. L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/31/94 From John Womack To J.L. Steffy (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Taylor

An additional concern for another unit with respect to FMVSS 108:

This is a self contained seal unit that would allow for symetric design & lighting. It comprises a headlight with high and low beams and 2 symetrically flanking front auxillary lamps possessing low beam that augment the headlight. Can you please comment on this as it affects our immediately plans for U.S. importation.

Thank you for your assistance

ID: nht94-6.20

DATE: April 20, 1994

FROM: Doug Bereuter -- Member Of Congress, U.S. House Of Representatives

TO: Christopher Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/10/94 From Christopher Hart To Doug Bereuter (A42; Std. 303) And 1/1/94 (EST) Letter From Christopher Hart To Doug Bereuter

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

I recently received your response to my earlier letter regarding the long-delayed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rulemaking concerning compressed natural gas vehicle fuel systems and fuel containers. In your letter, you mention that the final rule is being prepared and will be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. I want to know as soon as the rule is sent to OMB so that I can impress upon them the importance of this matter. It is also critical that you inform OMB of the need for a prompt review. This rule cannot be allowed to languish on someone's desk while Brunswick and its employees continue to suffer due to the lack of a final rule.

ID: nht94-6.21

DATE: April 20, 1994

FROM: Guy Dorleans -- Valeo Vision

TO: Mike Perel-- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/6/94 From John Womack To Guy Dorleans (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT: inner R or L incorporate HB3 bulbs (High beam) outer R or L incorporate HB4 bulbs (low beam) When the driver switches the Low beam on, outer HB4s only [Illegible Word] energized. When the driver switches the High Beam on, all 4 bulbs are energized together.

We consider that outer unit must fulfill table 15a for Low Beam, an also that inner must fulfill with HB3 alone table 15a High beam.

Could you confirm my interpretation?

Best Regards.

Fax 8011 33149426161

ID: nht94-6.22

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Judith Jurin Semo, Esq. -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Judith Jurin Semo to John Womack (OCC 9287)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determination. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to buyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... (S)ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be

off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the trucks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. for modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR S591.5, the importer would file a declaration under S591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.23

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: S. Greiff -- PARS, Passive Ruckhaltesysteme GmbH

TO: Chief Counsel -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To S. Greiff (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Per Fax: 001/202-366-3820

Your "Laboratory Test Procedure For FMVSS 208/212/219/301"

Gentleman:

PARS is a company developing occupant restraint systems for the world wide automotive industry. One of our major topics is the development of airbag systems.

For development and validation of the restraint systems we own a Barrier Impact Test Facility which was built up in 1993 new.

Our runway is 80 m (260 feet's) long. The velocity tolerance up to 60 kph is +/- 0.1 kph.

In your Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS testing, a minimum runway length of 500 feet is requested.

We would like to ask you for an interpretation of your "500 feet requirement".

It would be much appreciated, if we could get an answer by fax.

Our fax no. is: 01149/6023/942-133

Thank you very much for your efforts in advance.

Sincerely yours

ID: nht94-6.24

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: Mike Parker -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives

TO: Christopher Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/31/94 from John Womack to Mike Parker (A42; Std. 222; Part 571.3), letter dated 1/31/94 from Steve Williams to William Moss, and letter dated 1/28/94 from Steve Williams to Terry L. Voy

TEXT:

I have been contacted by Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District who is seeking to install four nine inch television monitors in a school bus in order to air drug-free videos. The school district has already purchased the equipment but has been told by the state department of transportation that they must receive approval by the NHTSA. Please provide me suggestions and information which I can share with Mr. Duke to assist him with this endeavor.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht94-6.25

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: Fred Benford -- 100+ Motoring Accessories

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Russ Fuller; Everett Fuller; Cliff Cook

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/16/94 From John Womack To Fred Benford (A42; Std. 211)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womac:

The Chief Counsel of the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association (SEMA) reviewed all regulations covering wheel covers and suggested that we contact Mr. Truman Vincent. We explained our situation to Mr. Vincent who in turn, suggested that we address our request to your attention.

We are a manufacturer of Aluminum Wheel Covers. They are a standard type and do not have any protrusions (e.g., spinners, etc.). With the assistance of the Chief Counsel at SEMA, the current regulations were reviewed and it was determined that our Aluminum Wheel Covers are similar in design to the Steel and ABS plastic type and are not covered by any regulations, except for # 211 which prohibits protruding objects such as spinners, etc. Our wheel covers do not have any protruding objects.

At the current time, we are the only manufacturers of Aluminum Wheel Covers. Because they are made of a different material from the current steel and ABS models, a major retailer has asked us to confirm that aluminum, like the ABS and Steel wheel covers, do not violate any federal safety standards. Considering information from our SEMA counsel, and Mr. Truman Vincent, we do indeed not violate any federal safety standards. However, the major retailer (and possibly others) has requested a confirmation in writing from the Department of Transportation. We would appreciate a statement from you with wording to this effect to present to the retailer.

Thank you for your assistance. We would appreciate hearing from you quickly. If desired, you may fax your response to the phone listed below.

Sincerely,