ID: nht94-8.5

DATE: February 22, 1994

FROM: Robin L. Fennimore, Spectrum Engineering Group

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: School Bus Safety Standards Our File: 94057

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/28/94 from John Womack to Spectrum Engineering Group (A42; STD 206; FMVSS 217)

TEXT: We are currently reconstructing a motor vehicle accident involving a 16-passenger, mini school bus. As a result of this investigation, several questions have risen concerning design modifications performed on the right front entrance door of the vehicle; specifically, whether they are controlled by and in compliance with any and all applicable FMVSS. We would appreciate your assistance in resolving these concerns.

A 1988 Ford Econoline Cargo Van was purchased as an incomplete vehicle and later fitted with a school bus body by Midbus of Lima, Ohio. A copy of the van's I.D. plate and a Mid Bus brochure is enclosed for your reference. This vehicle was outfitted with a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism, although maintained the original Ford van door. The O.E.M Ford latch/hinge mechanism was disabled by removing the striker plate.

On January 13, 1989, the operator of the bus lost control of the vehicle, striking both a tree and a utility pole. The collision allegedly caused the operator to be ejected from the vehicle through the right front passenger door.

Given this information, would you please respond to the following questions:

1) Would this vehicle be classified as a "multi-purpose passenger vehicle", a "bus" or a "school bus"?

5

2) Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?

3) Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door, (particularly its loading requirements)? Can you provide copies of the versions of these documents effective in 1988?

4) Can you please provide copies of the 1988 FMVSS 206 and 217?

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (203) 272-1111.

If there are any fees associated with this request, we will be happy to reimburse your office.

ID: nht76-5.37

DATE: 03/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hogan & Hartson

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of December 5, 1975, and your subsequent conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning a vehicle manufacturer's duty to provide consumer information pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards.

Your letter included a sample information sheet for the model 240D with Dunlop 185 SR 14 tires. For that model equipped with those tires, the format of the sheet would meet the requirements of @ 575.104(d)(1)(iii) for information to be furnished to the first purchaser of a new motor vehicle. Similarly, if the vehicle is offered for sale only with those tires, the format would meet the requirements of @ 575.104(d)(1)(iii) for information to be furnished to prospective purchasers.

Please note that the stay of this regulation, issued last August by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, is still in effect.

ID: nht94-1.96

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: Marvin A. Leach -- Regional Program Manager, Region VIII, NHTSA

TO: Robert Hellmuth -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Robert L. Montgomery (A42; Std. 108; VSA Sec 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

3/24/94 LETTER FROM REGION VIII MANAGER MARVIN A. LEACH TO ROBERT HELLMUTH:

Dear Mr. Hellmuth:

Please find enclosed a request for information related to the conspicuity rule, from a local business in Denver. Since they are requesting an opinion, it is beyond the scope of our office to assist. They have forwarded considerable detail and I hope yo u will be able to be of assistance.

We have had a number of requests for information on the rule, and in most instances sending a copy has sufficed.

I know your assistance will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Marvin A. Leach, D.Ed.

3/24/94 LETTER FROM REGION VIII MANAGER MARVIN LEACH TO ROBERT MONTGOMERY:

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

It will not be possible to answer your "conspicuity" question from our office here in Denver. I have forwarded your letter and pictures to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance in Washington, and asked them to respond to your request.

I hope this will provide the information your need and thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Sincerely,

Marvin A. Leach, D.Ed.

3/9/94 LETTER FROM ROBERT MONTGOMERY TO MIKE BAKER:Mr. Mike Baker, State Director Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 555 Zang St

Lakewood, CO 80228

REF: 49 CFR Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment

Dear Mr. Baker:

I am enclosing two photos. Photo number one depicts the conspicuity stripes as they come from the manufacturer. They are mounted on the Doors at a height of 56 inches which is approximately 6 inches higher than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated. As you can see, it is necessary to offset the rear red and orange logo striping so that the stripes no longer make an even continuous line around the trailer.

Photo number two depicts the rear of an identical trailer where the reflectorized material was installed between and in line with the taillight assemblies. This installation is 46 inches which is 4 inches less than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated. The material DOES NOT extend form the extreme edges of the trailer as in photo number one.

S5.6.1.4.1 allows for "as close as practical" to both height and width.

We would, of course, prefer to equip the rear of our trailers as depicted in photo number two: 1) To avoid the need to offset our red and orange reflectorized striping and 2) to bring the conspicuity striping down more to eye level and in line with the r ear lamps.

The diagram provided in the register does show the reflectorized striping from edge-to-edge but the artist failed to consider the bumper bar area and the light assemblies that are actually on a van and which basically interferes with proper height and wi dth placement on most trailers.

Would it be possible to obtain a written interpretation as to the legality of compliance with the regulation as to the installation of the reflectorized striping shown in photo number two, in a prompt and timely manner.

Thank you. Sincerely,

Robert L. Montgomery, Safety Manager Leprino Transportation Division

ATTACHMENT:

58414 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 238 / Thursday, 12-10-92 / Rules and Regulations. (Text omitted.)

ID: nht69-2.41

DATE: 04/23/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: IFFISA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We regret the delay in replying to your letter of January 15, 1969, to Dr. William Haddon, Jr., concerning regulations applicable to replicas of antique automobiles which you manufacture.

As a general rule, motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in order to be imported into the United States. Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) requires that manufacturers permanently affix a tag or label to the motor vehicle certifying that the motor vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) established under authority of Section 103 of the Act. Your vehicles would properly be classified as passenger cars. Thus the FMVSS applicable to this classification would apply. The above standards are currently applicable only to motor vehicles over 1,000 pounds curb weight. Curb weight includes a full bad of engine fuel, oil, and coolant as defined in 49 CFR 371.3. In accordance with a proposed rule making published in 32 FR, page 14282, October 14, 1967, the Administrator is considering adding new standards applicable to motor vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight, and revising certain of the initial standards to extend their applicability to these motor vehicles. Comments have been received from industry and a discussion paper on the subject prepared. This discussion paper will be mailed to industry in the near furture, together with a notice of a meeting to be held on the subject. Your name is being added to the mailing list for this information.

19 CFR 12.80, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment, was jointly issued and published by the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Treasury in implementation of Section 108(b)(3) of the Act. This regulation makes provision for importation of certain motor vehicles not conforming to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, subject to specific conditions.

An amendment to the Act has granted authority to the Secretary of Transportation, based upon certain specified findings, to exempt temporarily, a limited production motor vehicle from any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. A limited production motor vehicle is defined as a motor vehicle produced by a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production, as determined by the Secretary, does not exceed 500 annually. It is to be noted, however, that exemptions are granted to the person actually producing the motor vehicle, not to the importer or distributor of such motor vehicle. Regulations for petitioning for an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 355.5.

In the United States, motor vehicles are licensed for operation by each of the states and the District of Columbia. A letter addressed to the State Department of Motor Vehicles in the capitol city of the states in which you intend marketing your product, should reach an individual who can provide you with information regarding state licensing requirements.

While you did not inquire about Federal regulations concerning control of anti-pollution emission devices, this is another area of possible effect in your situation. These regulations are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation but of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. By copy of this letter, Mr. William H. Megonnell, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Compliance, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, BCT, 801 North Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22203, is being requested to forward such information as he deems appropriate.

Publications of the Socity of Automotive Engineers (SAE), including copies of SAE Standards, may be obtained by writing to: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 2 Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York, 1001.

For your information and guidance, enclosed are copies of the Act, as amended; the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, (49 CFR 351, 353, 355 and 371); 19 CFR 12.80, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment; Declaration Form HS-7, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the proposed rule making, Docket 5-1.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht93-6.21

DATE: August 19, 1993

FROM: Richard A. Wennerberg -- Vice President, Marketing Services, American Gas Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Rich Kolodziej -- A.G.A.; Paul Duvall -- Brunswick

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Richard A. Wennerberg (A41; Std. 303)

TEXT:

On behalf of the American Gas Association (A.G.A), I would like to express our appreciation to the persons at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) responsible for convening the recent meeting to discuss the status of the compressed natural gas cylinder rulemaking. We are hopeful that the meeting and the planned follow-up actions will result in the speedy resolution of this issue. The implementation of a final rule will serve to allay some of the concerns that currently are impeding the marketability of natural gas vehicles.

As stated at the meeting on Monday, the lack of standards is a problem for vendors and manufacturers that are seeking to use or sell natural gas cylinders. Some state and local officials are hesitant at this time to commit to natural gas vehicles due to the lack of acceptable federal standards. There appears to a perception by some state officials that the existing Department of Transportation regulations (those adopted by the Research Special Programs Administration) apply to (Vehicular cylinders i.e., cylinders designed to store a vehicle's supply of fuel. Many state planning agencies and federal authorities are in the process of finalizing or implementing alternative fuel programs. As a result, equipment manufacturers are working aggressively to meet the expected demand for alternative fuel vehicles. We are concerned that officials will overlook the attractive advantages of natural gas vehicles due to the misperception that our products do not meet existing standards.

With regard to this misperception, A.G.A. would like to request that your office write a short letter clarifying this issue. One of our staff attorneys has spoken with Mr. Woodford regarding our concerns. Mr. Woodford recommended that we should forward our request to your office. Such a clarification could simply explain that the existing standards were not designed with vehicles in mind and that NHTSA is currently in the process of developing federal standards for compressed natural gas cylinders.

If the agency feels more comfortable sending the letter to state officials instead of to myself, A.G.A. would be happy to supply NHTSA with the relevant names and addresses. We would ask that A.G.A. be copied on any such letter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: 18559.ztv

Mr. Robert M. Currie
Senior Vice President
Fiber Light Solutions, LLC
1408 One Hancock Plaza
Gulfport, MS 39501-1980

Dear Mr. Currie:

This is in reply to your letter of August 12, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, seeking an opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statutes, regulations, and standards, regarding the legality of "FATBOYZ," a product of your company.

You reference a letter from this Office dated January 31, 1997, in which we informed you that we considered an earlier version of this product to be a supplementary side marker lamp, and advised you that the color of the supplementary lamp must not conflict with the color required for original equipment side marker lamps by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

FATBOYZ may be wired to illuminate either red or amber "so as to agree with the vehicle Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) side marker lamp color." On trailers whose overall length is 30 feet or more, "the forward half will be amber, and the rear half red." There is a "color cruiser" version which is "not capable of flashing," available in either amber or red, "to be installed matching the OEM color of the vehicle side marker lamps."

As you have described FATBOYZ, the new system appears to be consistent with the advice we have given you previously. It appears permissible as original or aftermarket supplementary lighting equipment under Standard No. 108 and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety. As a supplementary side marker lamp, it may flash with the turn signal lamps, but it is not required to. The color must be red for FATBOYZ mounted on the side of the box of pickup trucks, and, on trailers, amber up to the midpoint of the trailer, and red to the rear of the midpoint. This is required regardless of the overall length of the trailer.

If you have further questions, you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.9/22/98

ID: 2409y

Mr. Larry F. Wort, Chief
Bureau of Safety Programs
Division of Traffic Safety
Illinois Department of Transportation
2300 South Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, Illinois 62764

Dear Mr. Wort:

This is in reply to your letter of March 27, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to Federal requirements for front side marker lamps on trucks. The Ford C-CT Series Cab is equipped with a reflex reflector (apparently mounted on the door, to judge by the Exhibit A that you enclosed), but does not have a separate front side marker lamp. Ford states that it uses "the roof mounted corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements", and that they satisfy photometry and all other Federal requirements. You have asked whether "the top of the cab clearance light [may] be used to fulfill the requirements for front side market lights. . . on cab over engine vehicles."

The answer is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not prohibit combining the front side marker lamp with any other lamp, and prohibits a front clearance lamp only from being optically combined with a front identification lamp (section S5.4, formerly S4.4). Although, under Table II of Standard No. l08, Location of Required Equipment, a front side marker reflector may not be mounted higher than 60 inches from the road surface, there is no corresponding limitation on the mounting height of front side marker lamps, which would preclude it from being located on top of the cab. The marker lamp must be located "as far to the front as practicable", and the agency generally defers to the manufacturer's discretion in determining whether a location is practicable, unless it is clearly erroneous. Judging by the location of the combination clearance-side marker lamp shown in Exhibit A that you enclosed, we have no reason to question Ford's decision to locate the lamp there.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref: 108 d:4/25/90

ID: 14309.ztv

Mr. Kiyoshi Narabu
General Manager
Technical Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado, Isehara-City
Kanagawa, 259-11 Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1997, with reference to paragraph S7.7(e) of Standard No. 108 requiring permanent markings of ballasts used in high intensity discharge headlamps.

You have enclosed samples of labels to be stuck to ballasts and a sample of a plate to which the label is affixed, and ask whether these are "permanent" markings within the meaning of the standard.

We were able to peel back and remove in an undamaged condition the label on the sample plate that you enclosed. Therefore, it does not meet the requirement of paragraph S7.7(e) that the markings be permanent. We regard marking by labels as "permanent" if the labels cannot be removed without their destruction.

We note that the marking itself is in the Japanese language. We are unable to tell whether the marking conforms with the warning and other information required on ballast markings by the remainder of paragraph S7.7(e). Thus, the label must also be in the English language to comply fully with the requirements of this paragraph.

If you have further questions about this letter, you may FAX them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:5/22/97

ID: nht76-3.50

DATE: 03/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lufkin Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 6, 1976, questions whether Lufkin Industries may, as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, build "incomplete chassis trailers" that do not have brakes installed that comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and whether Lufkin may tow the "incomplete chassis trailers" over the highway to the final-stage manufacturer without brakes that conform to Standard No. 121.

Lufkin's activities are regulated by Part 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if the "incomplete chassis trailers" qualify as "incomplete vehicles." A copy is enclosed for your information. Part 568 does not require the incomplete vehicle to meet all applicable safety standards, but @ 568.4 does require a statement of the status of an incomplete vehicle's conformity with all applicable standards.

In answer to your second question, the NHTSA permits the use of an incomplete vehicle on the public highways for the purpose of transit between the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and subsequent manufacturers, but for no other purpose, until such time as the vehicle complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it as completed. This ruling by the NHTSA does not relieve the manufacturer or shipper from any applicable requirement imposed on the incomplete vehicle by other Federal, State, or local authority.

SINCERELY,

February 6, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

We would like to have your legal opinion on the following two questions:

1. We, as an original equipment manufacturer, have an order to build incomplete chassis trailers for another manufacturer who is qualified to complete and certify. He has requested we do not install the air brake system to meet S121 regulations. We would not certify these vehicles but would furnish the necessary documents prescribed for an incomplete vehicle.

Our question is: Can we legally build these incomplete vehicles with brakes that do not meet S121 regulation?

2. Provided we can legally build these vehicles, we would like to have your opinion on the following question:

Can the final stage manufacturer transport these incomplete vehicles over public highways pulling one vehicle with two like vehicles loaded on top? The supporting documents will accompany these vehicles.

Thank you for an early reply.

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC. Trailer Division

A. G. Colburn Director of Trailer Design

ID: CA_HMMV

Ms. Leah Kelly
California Department
of Motor Vehicles
2415 First Avenue M/S D196
Sacramento, CA 95818

Dear Ms. Kelly:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry in which you ask if California may refuse to register surplus military vehicles that might not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) and that do not have vehicle identification numbers. You state that the California Department of Motor Vehicles has:

encountered a number of customers requesting to register US Military surplus Humvees, manufactured approximately 1983 to the present. These vehicles do not have 17 character vehicle identification numbers, US Emission labels, nor US Safety labels. In addition, they have no year model designation.

You indicate that some Humvees have already been registered in California, and you are attempting to determine if California has legal authority to cancel existing registrations and to refuse any new registration requests for lack of compliance with the Federal safety standards.

In our opinion, Californias refusal to register these vehicles is not prohibited by this agency.

By way of background, the FMVSSs apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. 30112). The express preemption of State standards by the FMVSSs is established by 49 U.S.C. 30103(b):

When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter [49 U.S.C. Sections 30101 et seq.], a State or a 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 ....

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), California could not establish a standard that applied to the manufacture or sale of new vehicles in California on an aspect of performance regulated by an FMVSS unless the State standard is identical to the FMVSS.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the states. A state is not required to impose operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on state operational requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State.

In the situation you present, there was no FMVSS that applied to the vehicles in question. Having recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, the agency established a limited exemption for military vehicles. Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles manufactured pursuant to military specifications and sold directly to the US military are exempted from the requirement to comply with the FMVSSs. This exclusion was based on a determination that compliance with safety standards could affect the capability of a vehicle to fulfill its military mission. In establishing this exemption, the agency also anticipated that surplus military vehicles would not be sold to civilians. While NHTSA has no authority over the disposal of surplus military vehicles, we have advised the Department of Defense against the sale of surplus military vehicles, including the Humvee, to civilians. ^[1]

Since there was no FMVSS applicable to the vehicles in question, there is no conflict between the FMVSSs and a California requirement that the vehicles meet safety standards. As such, a state would not be preempted from requiring surplus military vehicles sold to civilians to meet FMVSS requirements as a condition of state registration.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.7
d.1/23/04