ID: nht94-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: Robin Liu -- President, Introbusy

TO: Stephen Wood -- Transportation Department, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/6/94 From John Womack To Robin Liu (A42; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)A)

TEXT: DEAR MR. WOOD:

WE ARE GOING TO IMPORT A MERCHANDISE OF STOPPING LAMP FOR AUTOMOBILES. ITS FEATURE AND USAGE ARE AS PER THE ATTACHED SHEETS/PHOTOS.

WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER IT MEETS THE REGULATION OF YOUR DEPARTMENT BEFORE WE PLACE ORDERS FOR IMPORTATION.

DO WE NEED TO GET ANY OFFICIAL APPROVAL OR TO APPLY ANY LICENSE TO ENSURE THAT INSTALLING THIS PRODUCT IN MOTOR VEHICLE WILL NOT VIOLATE THE REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT?

SHOULD YOU NEED FURTHER DETAILS OR CLARIFICATION, PLEASE EITHER WRITE TO US AT THE ADDRESS UNDERNEATH OR CALL/FAX TO US AT (415) 468-3831.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU SOON.

SINCERELY YOURS

ID: nht94-2.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: John Collins -- Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, American Trucking Associations (Alexandria, VA)

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/2/94 from John Womack to John Collins (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of the test procedure specified in paragraph S5.8.2, "Supply line retention", of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, "Air Brake Systems". The last sentence in this paragraph states:

"A trailer shall meet the above supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pressurized to 100 psi, and the regulator o f the test rig set at 100 psi."

Our interpretation of test conditions specified in this sentence and Figure 1 (copy attached) is that:

1. The test rig remains connected to the shop air, as shown in Figure 1, for the duration of the test.

2. The shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test.

3. The pressure in the test rig's 1000 cu in. reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test.

The basis for our interpretation are:

a. S5.8.2 does not say that the test rig is to be separated from the shop air supply for the test.

b. S5.8.2 does not say to turn the shut-off valve to the "off" position for the tests. The valve is considered to be normally "open" for tests since it is "open" during the tests for which the test rig was originally designed (brake apply a nd releasing timing tests in paragraphs S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of FMVSS 121) and these paragraphs do not say to have the shut-off valve "open" the tests.

c. There would be no reason for S5.8.2 to specify setting the regulator valve at 100 psi if air was not flowing through the regulator valve. Air can only flow through the valve in this test when air is coming from the shop air supply and go ing out through the shut-off valve.

d. When a combination vehicle is moving, the vehicle's air compressor is operating to maintain the air system pressure within a specified range.

Whenever the trailer supply line pressure is less than the tractor reservoir pressure, air is flowing through the supply line.

We would very much appreciate an early answer to this request as The Maintenance Council of the American Trucking Associations is planning tractor- trailer air systems tests during the first week of May. The objective of these tests is to develop inform ation which will help manufacturers and owners build/modify equipment in such a way as to effectively live with the requirements of S5.8.2 as we interpret the.

Attachment

Figure 1. - Trailer Test Rig. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht94-2.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

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 determinatio n. 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 b uyers 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 standar ds."

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 answer ed 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 u nderground 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 sp eed 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 tru cks 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 conve rting 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. f or 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 standar ds, 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: nht94-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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: nht94-2.5

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J.L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 3/9/94 from J.L. Steffy to Dave Elias (OCC 9753)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of model year designations specified in 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a 1994 model year vehicle may use the symbol "P" to designate model year. The answer is no.

You stated that Triumph wishes to use, in its VIN, a letter code designating the year of vehicle manufacture. Triumph marks the letter "P" in the VIN of a vehicle manufactured in November 1993. Triumph considers this a MY 1994 vehicle.

The format for VIN content information is specified in part 565. Table VI of part 565 specifies that MY 1993 is designated by the letter "P" and MY 1994 is designated by the letter "R." Designating a MY 1994 vehicle with the letter "P," as you wish to do, could engender confusion since it would represent that the vehicle is a MY 1993 vehicle. Such confusion could hinder the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.

You also asked if Triumph may be permitted a modification of the part 565 model year designations and designate its MY 1994 vehicles as "P." The answer is no. NHTSA has no procedures to permit manufacturers to modify or waive any of part 565.

We note that Triumph could use the letter "P" to designate the vehicle as a 1993 MY vehicle. Section 565.3(h) defines "model year" as:

the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.

Assuming the actual production period of the vehicle is less than two calendar years, a vehicle manufactured in November 1993 could be a MY 1993 vehicle, identified by the letter "P."

I hope 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: nht94-2.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

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 M arch 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 o pinion.

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 assi gned 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 eq uipment 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 stripin g 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 t he American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht94-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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 th e 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 infor m 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: nht94-2.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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: nht94-2.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frank Williams -- President, Safety Brake Set

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 10/8/93 To NHTSA From Frank Williams (OCC-9219)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Williams:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements related to a product that "sets the brakes on an air brake vehicle when the driver exits the cab." I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that your "device doe s not hook into the brake system but pops the parking button out if the driver is off the seat and the door is open. The brake then must be manually disengaged." You requested confirmation that the agency will neither support nor oppose the aftermarket installation of such a device.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufa cturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about a product such as your device. However, since this device is related to a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard appli es to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If your system is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. ( See 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part

2

567). If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR @ 567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingl y 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. 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A). In parti cular, these entities should ensure that the installation of your device does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the parking brake requirements set forth in S5.6.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin-Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-2.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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,