ID: nht90-2.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1990

FROM: Tekonsha Engineering Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter from F. Berndt to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 11-30-81 from F. Berndt to K.G. Moyer (A23; Redbook 3; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to L.F. Henneberger (A36; VSA Sec. 103 (d); Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 6-22-90 from L.F. Henneberger to P.J. Rice (OCC 4927); Also attached to Ford Bulletin Number 10, signed by R.R. Chestnut, dated 1 2-15- 89

TEXT:

By law vehicles towing trailers large enough to have a braking system must be equipped with a brake control device. Tekonsha Engineering is a major manufacturer of such a device.

The following is a brief overview of the use of the Commander Electronic Brake Control when the service brakes (foot) are applied initiating a stopping action the brake control activates both electrical braking systems simultaneously, illuminating the br ake lights and prompting a smooth stop. It is our understanding that it is a common practice to use the brake control's manual override (hand) to help control a swaying trailer. The brake lights do not illuminate while in this mode, thus eliminating fa lse braking signals.

We take pride in the fact that we make a diligent effort to engineer a product compatible with the ever changing vehicle electrical systems. The technological development of the Commander Electronic Brake Control was based on an extensive compatibility s afety study. We found that we could avoid the potential danger of interfering with the towing vehicles' electronically activated systems such as, the cruise control, the anti- lock brake system and the over-drive system by circumventing the electrical a ctivation of our device via the stop light switch. The enclosed Ford QVM Bulletin substantiates our efforts.

We feel the Commander's electrical non-interference factor to be a strong positive safety feature.

ID: nht90-2.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/08/90

FROM: JOSEPH R. WHEELER -- CORNELIUS AND COLLINS

TO: KEN WEINSTEIN -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/14/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH R. WHEELER; A35, STANDARD 208

TEXT: As we discussed this morning, I have made an inquiry with your agency concerning action by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49 CFR @ 571.208 S4.1.5.1 (1987). As you know, under this provision, automobile manufacturers would have three options with regard to passenger restraint systems if the Secretary of Transportation determined, by not later than April 1, 1989, that 2/3 of the total U.S. population was subject to mandatory state usage laws.

As I told you, the original version of Tennessee's MUL contained a self-nullifying provision, Tenn. Code Ann. @ 55-9-609, a copy of which is attached for your information.

As you told me, the Secretary of Transportation never made the determination provided for in S4.1.5.1. I would like a brief statement from your agency which simply confirms that this action was never taken by the Secretary of Transportation, and that , therefore, Tennessee's population was never counted. I am not requesting any opinion from your office concerning the effect of this statutory provision, or the legal effect of the fact that the Secretary never made the determination in question.

As we discussed, this letter is needed for a filing which must be made no later than June 15, 1990. Therefore, I would request that you send your original reply federal express or overnight mail to me early in the week. We will be more than happy to reimburse your agency for the overnight mail expenses, and I certainly appreciate your prompt attention and assistance with this response.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Wheeler [TENNESSEE PROVISION CODE]

55-9-609. Legislative intent [Repealed effective June 30, 1990]. -- (a) It is the legislative intent that the passage of Acts 1986, ch. 866 shall include the population of this state towards the required percentage of persons necessary to avoid fede ral regulations mandating the imposition of any federally imposed safety device or regulation pertaining thereto.

(b) The provisions of @@ 55-9-603 -- 55-9-610 shall be null and void if the United States secretary of transportation does not include Tennessee within the population necessary to prevent the requirement that air bags be required in motor vehicles pur suant to federal regulations. [Acts 1986, ch. 866, @@ 9, 14.]

Compiler's Notes. For repeal of this section on June 30, 1990, see @ 55-9-610.

For codification of Acts 1986, ch. 866, see the Session Law Disposition Tables.

ID: nht90-2.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/90

FROM: RALPH H. SHEPPARD -- ADDUCI, MASTRIANI, MEEKS & SCHILL

TO: TAYLOR VINSON; PAUL JACKSON RICE, ESQ. -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: IMPORTATION OF A NON-CONFORMING VOLVO CAB CHASSIS INTENDED FOR RE-EXPORT TO SWEDEN OUR FILE: BAF-001

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/22/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO RALPH H. SHEPPARD; A35, PART 591

TEXT: This letter follows my telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson, Esq., of your office, regarding the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements with regard to importation of a non-conforming Volvo truck cab chassis manufactured in Belgium pursuant to Swedish environmental and safety standards. As discussed with Mr. Vinson, the vehicle would be presented to the U.S. Customs Service as a temporary importation under bond (TIB) entry at the time of its arrival.

Once the vehicle is in the United States, our client, BAF Communications Corporation, or Peabody, Massachusetts (hereafter "BAF") will install a passenger and equipment box on the rear of the cab chassis, and then install various telecommunications eq uipment in order to equip the vehicle as a mobile television transmission facility. Upon completion, anticipated within 90 days of importation, the vehicle will be re-exported to Sweden, for use there by our clients' customer, Comvik Skyport of Sollentun a, Sweden.

As I indicated in my telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson, we request your priority consideration of the appropriate DOT Waiver criteria for this transaction, which involves pending importation. Based on our review of the regulations, and their sta tutory intent, we believe that a waiver of DOT requirements for this vehicle is warranted under any one of four different waiver options itemized on DOT Form HS-7. First, under item 4, since this vehicle is intended solely for re-export after the additi on of the box and telecommunications equipment, and all applicable shipping documents and entry documents will so indicate, we believe waiver is warranted under Section 591.5(c) of your regulations. Second, the president of the Swedish company, the ulti mate purchaser of the completed vehicle, and a non-resident of the United States, is prepared to certify that the vehicle would be imported solely for the purpose of the addition of the various equipment, that it will not be sold during its time here, an d that it will be exported within the time provided in the regulation, and therefore is entitled to a waiver under regulation section 591.5(d).

Third, under item 8, the vehicle would be eligible for a waiver under that provision as well since the vehicle is not manufactured primarily for use on the U.S. public roads and therefore is not a motor vehicle subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Bumper and Theft Protection Standards. Finally, pursuant to item 9 of the form HS-7, "the vehicle requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended functions", and will be exported after the further manufacturing operations are accomplis hed.

Since the above-described vehicle is not intended for permanent use in the United States, we believe that the letter and spirit of the various laws enforced by the Department of Transportation support waiver of those provisions with regard to vehicles such as this which are imported for customizing work, and solely intended for re-exportation. Needless to say, such operations benefit the United States, by permitting U.S. businesses to contract for work on such vehicles, bringing in valuable funds re lated to the services and equipment provided, thus helping improve the U.S. trade deficit. We do not believe that the regulations should be enforced in a way which has a chilling effect on the ability of U.S. businesses to remain competitive with foreig n companies performing similar customizing operations.

Accordingly, we request that you clarify the Department of Transportation requirements with regard to the above-described transaction, and confirm that the vehicle would be permitted entry, subject to subsequent re-exportation under one of the four wa iver criteria outlined above.

We look forward to your expedited consideration of this matter, and ask that you immediately contact us at (212) 949-7120 if there are any questions regarding our request. Further, upon formulating a response to our letter, please transmit that respo nse by facsimile to (212) 949-7271, rather than relying on normal mail delivery.

ID: nht90-2.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 11, 1990

FROM: Tony Llama -- President, Davenport Enterprises

TO: Steven P. Wood, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 to T. Llama from P. J. Rice; (A35; Part 591); and letter dated 6-12-90 to T. Llama from D. Sander

TEXT:

Our customer in Panama, Motores Internacionales, S.A., is the distributor for Latin America and the Caribbean of vehicles manufactured in the USSR, and we supply the air conditioners for the vehicles which they sell.

Recently they received a new vehicle, which is a van similar to the ones manufactured in Japan. This type of van can also be converted into an ambulance, and they have asked us to design and develop an a/c unit for this vehicle.

In order to do so, we must bring one into the U.S.A. for a period of at least 90 days. Once we have built and installed the a/c unit on this vehicle, it will be returned to Panama for evaluation and testing.

Since this is a non-compliant vehicle, we would like to request from you permission to enter it into the United States through the Port of Houston, Texas, where it will be transferred on a platform to our factory in Dallas, Texas, until we finish develop ing the air conditioning unit. Then it will be returned to Panama in the same manner.

Please let us know your requirements so that we may advise our customer and be able to proceed with this project.

P.S. Please address your response to our export office in Coral Gables, Florida.

ID: nht90-2.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 11, 1990

FROM: Samson Helfgott -- Helfgott & Karas, P.C.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Our File No.: CAIN 8877 Automotive Warning and Brake Light Arrangement

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Helfgott (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

My client, Harold A. Caine, and the Safety Autodrivers Foundation for Education (S.A.F.E.) of Freeport, New York, had previously submitted an inquiry and received a response from your office on March 30, 1989. Their previous inquiry related to the use o f an amber lamp adjacent to the center high-mounted stop lamp, in a separate housing and wholly independent thereof, which would be activated when the ignition is turned on and deactivated when the stop lamps are illuminated.

My client is presently interested in the possibility of providing an "amber triangular array" on the rear of the car comprising the amber center high-mounted lamp of the previous inquiry in conjunction with the existing amber directional signals. This " amber triangle" would be present both day and night, and would turn on when the ignition is turned on and would be deactivated when the stop lamps are illuminated. A driver looking ahead to a leading vehicle would, therefore, always see an "amber triang ular array" until the brake lights are put on whereupon he then sees a "red triangular array". Enclosed is a single sheet effectively describing this concept.

We believe that this "amber triangular array" would have numerous benefits. Firstly, the amber color is already associated with a "warning" situation and, accordingly, trailing drivers seeing the "amber triangle" would be in a state of warning and would react more positively to the sudden turning on of the red triangle during a braking condition.

Secondly, the present existence of the constant red lights on the back of the vehicle which intensifies upon application of brakes, is more confusing than a situation where a color change occurs between non-braking and braking.

Thirdly, we believe that the amber light is a more suited color for continuous illumination. Specifically, a far-sighted driver would see a green light clearest while a near-sighted driver would see a red light clearest. The amber light is less effecte d by the driver's retroactive error than either red or green.

Fourthly, amber is preferable because of the chromeostereopsis effect. (The perception of colors at different distances due to chromatic aberration and slight optical element misalignments in the eye and/or due to prism incorporated in spectacle lenses). For about half the population, green will be seen closer than amber, while for the remainder of the population, green will be seen farther away. Since the average

illumination at night is yellowish, an amber light will not be subject to chromeostereopsis errors in distant judgement by any part of the driving population, whereas green, or other colors, could be subject to significant error in judgement of distance.

I believe that in order for us to determine the possibility of utilizing the "amber triangle" a number of areas must be addressed, and I would appreciate your addressing each of these:

1. The possibility of utilizing the amber turn signals as tail lights, instead of the red tail lamps. This is the same as is now in effect on the front of all vehicles.

2. The possibility of supplementing existing tail lamps with the presence of the amber lamps.

3. The possibility of using the amber lamps as daytime running lamps on the rear of a vehicle.

4. The possibility of utilizing the "amber triangular array" as described above.

In addition to any advisory opinion that you may be able to provide for us, if there is any technical information that your technical staff may have available in connection with this inquiry, we would appreciate your sending it to us. At the same time, should your technical staff not have yet considered the possibility of the "amber triangle" as described above, or the use of daytime running lights on the rear of a vehicle, perhaps you can forward this letter to them for their consideration of these as pects.

I do look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

ID: nht90-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FREDERICK H. DAMBACH -- PRESIDENT, EXECULINE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-2-89 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM FREDERICK H. DAMBACH ATTACHED; (OCC-3790) TEXT:

This is in response to your letter requesting that I reconsider my conclusion in a July 26, 1989, letter to you interpreting emergency exit requirements contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in responding. As is explained below, after reconsideration, I must still conclude that exits located in the roof of a bus do not satisfy the requirement contained in S5.2 of Standard 217, that 40 percent of the required emergency e xit space on a transit bus must be located on each side of the bus.

Your August letter argues that roof exits must be counted in determining compliance with S5.2 because the standard does not specifically state that a side is that part of a bus that is perpendicular to the floor. Instead, relying upon provisions of the F ederal Highway Administration's (FHWA) regulations at 49 CFR Part 393, you assert that the side of a bus is any part to the left or right of the roof centerline. While this may be true under the FHWA regulations, those regulations are being used in a co mpletely different context than Standard No. 217, and concern lighting and marker requirements and specifications for towing for motor carriers. Standard 217, on the other hand, specifies requirements for the operating forces, opening dimensions, and ma rkings for emergency exits in buses to ensure readily accessible emergency egress from these vehicles. Because of the different purpose and context of standard 217 and the FHWA regulations, the definition of the word "side" is not necessarily the same f or those regulations. In fact, as I explained in detail in my previous letter to you, the structure and purpose of Standard 217 show that the word "side" has a different meaning in Standard 217 than it does when used by the FHWA in Part 393.

Moreover, and contrary to the assertion in your letter, Standard 217 is not a subpart of Part 393. Standard 217 is found in 49 CFR Part 571. The Standard is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), administered by NHTSA. Under Federal law, thes e standards are applicable to manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles. On the other hand, Part 393, administered by the FHWA, is a part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which are applicable to motor carriers. Although NHTSA and FHWA coordinate with each other to avoid conflicts in our respective regulatory programs, the FHWA does not have authority over motor vehicle manufacturers. Likewise, NHTSA does not have authority over motor carriers.

This agency has statutory authority to regulate the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of new motor vehicles and new items

of motor vehicle equipment. Additionally, our statute prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Howe ver, this agency has no authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. Hence, NHTSA cannot require the vehicles used in your company's fleet to comply with Standard 217 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, the individual States are free to regulate the operation and use of vehicles within their borders, provided that those regulations do not contravene any Federal laws or regulations. In this case, the State of New Jersey has chosen to adopt the provisions of Standard 217 and make it applicable to vehicles operated within New Jersey. This choice by the State of New Jersey does not contravene any of this agency's statutes or regulations. Thus, while I appreciate that New Jersey's decision to ap ply Standard 217 to vehicles operated in the State may have caused you difficulties, the wisdom and fairness of that decision is a matter to be decided by the State of New Jersey, not this agency.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht90-2.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 11, 1990

FROM: Terry Rowe -- President, Show Trucks U.S.A., Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Terry Rowe (A37; VSA 114, Part 567)

TEXT:

I would like an opinion letter from your office as to the status of our activities here at Show Trucks U.S.A., Inc. The information contained in 49 CFR 567 "Certification" is a little vague as to whether we are vehicle alters or not.

I have enclosed a copy of the different upfitting packages that we do for your consideration.

Thank you for your time, if you need any further information please call me at 1-800-552-9127. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

ID: nht90-2.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 11, 1990

FROM: Ron Marion -- Sales Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-11-77 from James Tydings to Roger Tilton; Also attached to letter dated 12-21-77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to James Tydings; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ron Marion (A37; VSA 102(14) Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from Frank Berndt (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Martin V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 5-12-81 from Frank Berndt to Doris Perlmutter

TEXT:

This letter is in reference to a recent telephone conversation between Mr. Morris Adams of Thomas Built Buses and Ms. Dee Fujita of your office.

We at Thomas Built Buses would like to request a ruling on an issue which continues to surface in the school bus industry.

With an increasing number of families in which both parents work full-time jobs, more and more children are being placed in privately owned and operated pre-primary school type facilities.

As referenced in the attached letter, the NHTSA has determined that buses purchased to transport pre-primary Headstart children to and from school and related events should be "School Buses" (within the scope of the bus definition . . . designed for carr ying more than 10 persons).

My question is, does this same ruling also apply to the privately owned and operated pre-primary facilities?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht90-2.82

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 12, 1990

FROM: Derek Sander, Motores Internacionales, S.A.

TO: Tony Llama, DAVENPORT ENTERPRISES

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 to T. Llama from P. J. Rice; (A35; Part 591); and letter dated 6-11-90 to S. P. Wood from T. Llama; (OCC 4894)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that, according to our conversation, we have decided to ship to your company a "RAF" Van, built in the Soviet Union. Its respective numbers of chassis and engine will be forwarded to you shortly.

As we discussed, we would like to have you design and install a dual air conditioning unit for this van. This is a new type of vehicle and there is not one available anywhere in the market.

Please let us know the requirements, as well as, the most convenient Port of Entry into the United States.

ID: nht90-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/13/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PRESIDENT, PANDA TECHNIK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/19/90 FROM MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PANDA TECHNIK TO NHTSA; OCC 4689

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1990, enclosing a sample of a motor vehicle reflector, expressing your concern that "no laws or regulations are violated in the use" of it.

It is contemplated that the reflector will be distributed in the United States to enhance nighttime and adverse weather visibility of slow moving/stationery vehicles. The reflective efficiency is represented to be up to ten times that of conventional re flectors, such as those "required by law" on motor vehicles. The photograph you enclosed shows the reflectors mounted on a large, wide truck or trailer. The reflector "can be installed with simple hand tools", on either the front or rear of the vehicle.

It is apparent from your letter that Panda intends the reflector to be an aftermarket device, and one that is capable of installation by the vehicle owner. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the reflector as an aftermarket device, and there is no Federal prohibition applicable to installation of the reflector by a vehicle owner.

There is a general prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which modifications may not be performed to vehicles in use, by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, if they result in renderi ng inoperable, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Should the reflective efficiency and mounting location of your reflector result in a reduced ability of drivers of o ther vehicles to perceive the turn and stop signals of the vehicle on which the reflector is mounted, we would regard the turn and stop signals to have been rendered inoperable in part within the meaning of the prohibition. Thus, you should ensure that the device would not have this effect.

Supplementary lighting devices are also subject to the laws of the States in which they are sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Bouleva rd, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

We are returning your sample.