ID: nht94-1.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 31, 1994

FROM: Steve Williams -- Director, Public Transportation, Mississippi Department of Education

TO: William Moss -- Superintendent, Jones County School District

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/31/94 from John Womack to Mike Parker (A42; Std. 222; Part 571.3), letter dated 4/18/94 from Mike Parker to Christopher Hart, and letter dated 1/28/94 from Steve Williams to Terry L. Voy

TEXT:

On January 24, 1994, Jon Harper and I met with James Green, Transportation Director, and George Dukes, Chapter I Coordinator from your district, to discuss the installation of VCR's and TV monitors on school buses. Pursuant to our visit, I have contacte d school bus engineers which advise against such installation due to liability concerns. In addition, I am requesting an interpretation and opinion from the National Standards for School Buses and Operations Interpretation Committee to determine if the national school bus standards prohibit such installation (copy attached). The interpretation will clarify this matter because Mississippi bus standards are modeled after and based upon the national standards. My discussion with a representative from tha t committee indicated that without official testing and standardization procedures, such installation would probably not be advisable.

Until such time that we can receive the opinion based on the National Standards for School Buses and Operations, we cannot support and would advise against installation of VCR's and TV monitors. It is my understanding that a school district in Arizona h as installed such equipment. Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon our office to ensure that there is no violation of safety standards regarding the school buses that transport students to and from school or related activities.

We will advise you of the Interpretation Committee's opinion as we receive it. If you have any questions, please let me know.

ID: nht94-1.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 1, 1994

FROM: R. Mark Willingham -- Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C.

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to R. Mark Willingham (A42; Part 575)

TEXT:

This correspondence is in reference to 49 CFR 575.105 and the interpretations of same. After phone conversations with Ken Weinstein and Walter Meyers of NHTSA, I have been advised to make a formal request of specific questions and/or interpretations of 49 CFR 575.105, to your attention, for NHTSA's formal opinions.

Please forward to my attention copies of any discussions, preambles, and/or supplements concerning the drafting and interpretations of 49 CFR 575.105. Additionally, please forward to my attention the following:

1) The definition and/or meaning of "permanent" as described in 49 CFR 575.105. 2) To whom is 49 CFR 575.105 directed (ie. Manufacturer, Distributor, Dealership), and whether it is extended to a seller of a used vehicle. I appreciate your cooperation and attention to this query. If any additional information is needed on my part, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above listed telephone number or 1-800-374-8574.

ID: nht94-1.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1994

FROM: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Marv Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/5/94 from John Womack to Scott Slaughter (A42; VSA 102)

TEXT:

Pitts Trailers, Inc. is a trailer manufacturer that specializes in trailers for the logging industry. One particular model we manufacture is called a knuckle boom loader trailer. I have enclosed copies of brochures as well as some advertisements, so th at you might better understand the use of this model. This trailer stays in the woods (off the highway) the majority of its lifetime. The knuckle boom operation must be moved from time to time to different site locations, at which times it will be on hig hways and may cross state lines. The gross vehicle weight of this trailer is 24,000 lbs.

I am writing this letter to request an official interpretation to determine if my trailer (the knuckle boom model only) is subject to the safety standards (FMVSS Standards) with particular attention to include such questions as conspicuity, auto slacks, brakes on all wheels and marker lights. We are particularly interested in your opinion as to whether brakes are required on all wheels. Also, please advise us if our trailers are defined as motor vehicles or are they merely mobile equipment which see v ery limited highway use, solely for the purpose of moving to a new job site.

I hope I have provided you with sufficient information for an official interpretation. If not, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for any light you can shed on this matter.

(Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht94-1.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James M. Keitges -- President, Native American Motorcycle Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/14/94 from James M. Keitges to John Womack (OCC-9089)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1994, in which you ask to be provided the statement "that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations, and standards, then the company has also complied with the State and Loca l requirements as applicable to NHTSA."

It is not possible to provide you with a statement in this form. We are unaware of any State and local requirements that are literally "applicable to NHTSA." However, there may be state and local laws that require compliance with the Federal motor vehi cle safety standards, issued by NHTSA, in order for vehicles to be sold or registered for use on state and local roads. We believe it likely that this is your concern, and we will take this opportunity to explain the relationship between Federal and Sta te or local requirements.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), in effect, allows a State or a political subdivision of a State to enact a safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a NHTSA Federal motor vehicle s afety standard if it is identical to the NHTSA standard. A State or local standard cannot impose a higher level of performance than a NHTSA standard, except for vehicles procured for use by the State or the political subdivision. Further, a State or a subdivision is specifically permitted to enforce its own identical safety standard. Finally, State or local standards are permitted in areas of performance where there is no NHTSA standard, such as horns and fog lamps.

Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each motor vehicle to bear its manufacturer's permanently affixed certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification raises the presumption that the vehicle, in fact, conforms with those standards. If a State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards as a condition of vehicle sale or registration, then the manufacturer's certification should be accepted as fulfilling this State or local requirement. We believe, however, that in spite of the certification, a vehicle could be rejected as not in conformance with Federal requirements within the meaning of State or local law if the nonconformanc e was manifest on its face (e.g., failure of a new passenger car to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp) in spite of the facts that a State cannot enforce a Federal standard, and that neither the manufacturer nor NHTSA may have made a formal determination of noncompliance.

If the State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all

State or local requirements as a condition of sale or registration, the manufacturer's certification may be accepted as indicating compliance with all identical State or local requirements if the governing authority so chooses, but obviously the certific ation could not cover compliance with State or local requirements in areas not covered by the Federal safety standards.

We hope that this explanation is useful to you, and will be glad to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: nht94-1.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Maine E. Peace -- Supervising Revenue Officer, State of Washington, Department of Revenue

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 8/3/93 from Maine E. Peace to Robert Hellmuth (OCC-8957)

TEXT:

This is in response to your FAX of August 3, 1993, to Robert Hellmuth, Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to the disposition of Canadian vehicles seized in the State of Washington for violations of Washington law regarding the possession and transportation of illegal cigarettes. I apologize for the delay in our response. You have requested that we "provide authority for the department of Revenue to sell the vehicles locally even tho (sic) they were manufactured in Canada , providing of course the vehicles meet most if not all the standards regulated by your agency regarding vehicle safety."

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides, among other things, that no person shall import into the United States any motor vehicle that does not comply with U.S. safety s tandards. When a vehicle that doesn't meet the U.S. safety standards crosses the border from Canada into the United States, its driver is regarded as the importer, and, unless the driver or circumstances indicate otherwise, we view the importation as a temporary one by a non-resident for his or her personal use, and hence, permissible.

However, if the State of Washington were to seize the vehicle and sell it locally, the action of the State would have the effect of converting the temporary importation of a non-conforming vehicle into a permanent one. We believe that such action would b e inconsistent with the Safety Act's requirement that no person import into the United States any motor vehicle that doesn't meet U.S. safety standards.

Non-conforming Canadian vehicles are admitted into the United States on the condition that they will be exported back to Canada within one year. We believe that the most appropriate way for the State of Washington to dispose of the vehicles would be to e xport them back to Canada.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

ID: nht94-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Luis Carricaburu -- South Steering Specialists

TO: Mary L. Versailles -- Office Of The Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/5/94 From John Womack To Luis Carricaburu (A42; Std. 208; VSA S108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: I WISH TO THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ADRESS MY QUESTION.

IS IT ILLEGAL TO BUY OR SELL A SALVAGED AIR BAG FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPAIRING A OTHER PERSONS AUTOMOVILE?

DEFINITION OF SALVAGED AIR BAG AS IT IS INTENDED IN ABOVE QUESTION.

A AIR BAG FROM A VEHICLE THAT HAS FOR ONE REASON OR A OTHER MADE. ITS WAY TO A AUTOMOTIVE RECYCLING YARD BUTT IS STILL INTACT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

ID: nht94-1.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 4, 1994

FROM: John Moore -- Maintenance, Ferrucci Nurseries

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to John Moore (A42; Std. 207)

TEXT:

I am seeking verification of information regarding the installation of passenger seats in a van used for farm transportation. I have been instructed by George Shifflet that as long as we're in compliance with safety regulations, we are permitted to make the installation. Please verify this information in writing, and either fax to me at (609) 697-4241, or mail to me at:

Ferrucci Nurseries Rd 1, Box 299 Piney Hollow Rd. Newfield, NJ 08344

Should you need to discuss this request further, please contact me at any time.

Thank you for your cooperation.

ID: nht94-1.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cheryl Graham -- District Manager, Northeast Region, ARI

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/10/93 from Cheryl Graham to Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA (OCC-9345)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

by way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole res traint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design in stalled on...a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design," then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by y our letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three-lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in p reventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe.

The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the tail lamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array.

We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the

permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its add ress is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

ID: nht94-1.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Don Vierimaa -- Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 1/11/94 from Don Vierimaa to Pat Boyd (OCC-9595)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of January 11, 1994, to Pat Boyd of this agency requesting an interpretation of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108. In the future, please address your requests for interpretations to the Chief Counsel.

You have asked "may a manufacturer install a 4 inch (100 mm) wide retroreflective sheeting instead of 2 inch (50 mm) sheeting on the side of new trailers?"

Paragraph S5.7.1.3(d) of Standard No. 108 states that retroreflective sheeting shall have a width of 50 mm (Grade DOT-C2), 75 mm (Grade DOT-C3), or 100 mm (Grade DOT-C4). Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a), as amended on October 6, 1993 (58 FR 52021 at 52026), set s forth the requirements for application of retroreflective sheeting to the side of trailers. Without elaboration, it simply identifies it as "a strip of sheeting." This means that the manufacturer of the trailer is permitted his choice of Grade DOT-C2 , -C3, or -C4 material. Therefore, a manufacturer may install sheeting that has a width of 100 mm on the side of a trailer.

ID: nht94-1.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturing Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack (OCC-9050)

TEXT:

We have reviewed your letter of September 2, 1993, asking for three interpretations of S5.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions that relate to heavy trailer conspicuity.

You have set forth the metric dimensions specified in S5.7, together with corresponding values under the headings "English (actual)," and "English (nominal)." The latter is a rounding off of the values of "English (actual)." Your first question is whet her you may consider the English (nominal) dimensions equivalent for the purpose of compliance with Standard No. 108.

We assume that you would like to provide measurements in the conventional manner to your members who may not be familiar with the metric system, as a means of assisting them to comply with the conspicuity requirements that become effective December 1, 19 93. However, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not expressed in equivalents, but in precise values, whether metric or conventional, and there can be no rounded "equivalences" for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. SAE J1322 JUN8 5 "Preferred Conversion Values for Dimensions in Lighting" which you reference has not been incorporated into Standard No. 108. In implementation of Departmental and national policy, NHTSA has begun to specify the requirements of the Federal motor vehic le safety standards using metric system values, and manufacturers are expected to learn and to comply with them.

We would also like to correct a misimpression indicated in your letter. You have placed a single asterisk by certain metric values reflecting your assumption that these are minimum values. This is incorrect; the standard expresses these values as fixed values rather than minimum ones. However, you are correct in your identification as minimum of those values that are not designated by an asterisk.

Your second question concerns the location of rear and side sheeting. You point out that cargo tank trailers may have a "vertical surface" only at their "belt line" which may be as high as 2.3 m above the ground. You ask whether retroreflective sheetin g may be located higher that 1.25 m if there is no vertical surface lower than this height "without installing structure just for the sheeting." As adopted, Standard No. 108 specified a mounting height as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a n otice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for consp icuity treatment that is outside the specified

range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance as mounted on a vehicle in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers are expected to mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers. In the case of your hypothetical tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at the belt line, whether 2.3 m or higher, would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper s pecification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frames, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

Your third question presents five Figures and asks with respect to each whether the vertical and horizontal sheeting for the upper right and left contours, as specified by S5.7.1.4.1(b), may be of the dimensions and locations shown. This section require s application of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair consisting of strips 300 mm long, applied "vertically" and "horizontally" to the contours "as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable." With respect to Figures 1 a nd 2 (van trailers), we shall assume that the horizontal strips are mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable. Figure 1 depicts two separate strips at right angles to each other, each 300 mm in length. This design is not in accordance w ith Standard No. 108. The side strip does not appear mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable, and the top strips do not appear to be mounted as far apart as practicable. While the presence of door hinges may necessitate designs simila r to Figure 1, this design, as drawn on an unobstructed surface, does not comply. To effect compliance, either the side strips should be moved upwards, or the top strips should be moved closer to the outside corners.

Figure 2 depicts two strips joined at the corners to make an inverted "L." Each leg of the "L" is 300 mm in length when measured from the outside, top to bottom, or side to side. This configuration is in accordance with S5.7.1.4.1(b).

Figures 3 and 4 present alternative conspicuity treatments for liquid tank trailers where the body is curved rather than rectangular. In Figure 3, two strips 30 mm in length intersect at an angle greater than 90 degrees. In Figure 4, a curved strip 600 mm in length follows the contour of the body. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(b) of Standard No. 108 requires marking the upper outer contours of the body with strips "applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body ...." Howe ver, the rear contours of a tank body are rounded rather than vertical and horizontal. In view of this fact, the agency accepts the treatment shown in your Figure 3 as meeting the requirement for horizontal and vertical application. The design of Figur e 4 does not differ in any significant way, and we consider that it is equivalent.

Finally, Figure 5 depicts a dry bulk trailer with a 300 mm strip centered horizontally at the top of a round body, and two strips of the same length placed lower, at an angle slightly off of vertical, but far from the edges of the body contour. We under stand that the body of the trailer tapers to a blunt end represented by the circle upon which the horizontal conspicuity treatment is laced. As the approximately vertical strips cannot be placed on the tapering trailer body, they should be located as fa r apart as practicable, and the depicted location appears to represent that placement. Similarly, if two horizontal strips cannot be placed on the trailer body, NHTSA will not question the compliance of the vehicle based on the provision of a single, cen ter strip of retroreflective material.