ID: nht93-8.23

DATE: November 19, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ronald L. Signorino -- Director, Health, Safety & Regulatory Affairs, Universal Maritime Service Corp.

COPYEE: James Z. Peepas

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/93 from Ronald L. Signorino to John Womack

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of November 3, 1993, with respect to the trailer conspicuity specifications of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

First, we regret the confusion that has been caused by our letter of October 20, 1993, to James Peepas of Selecto-Flash, Inc., which modified our earlier interpretation dated July 26, 1993. Mr. Peepas has made a number of calls to this Office seeking an understanding of the conspicuity requirements on Maersk's behalf, and, in our view, has pursued the matter with diligence.

You have presented three "Facts" and ask whether each is right or wrong.

"Fact: With particular reference to Maersk Line's prospective order for forty-foot gooseneck chassis (drawing accompanies this fax) your October 20 letter makes clear that calculable conspicuity treatments must not be obscured by trailer cargo."

If calculable means "required", this is a correct statement. Our letter of October 20 refers to the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) that "at the location chosen, the strip (of sheeting) shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo."

"Fact: In calculating the area of conspicuity treatment for such chassis, the gooseneck section, as it is often hidden from view by mounted intermodal containers (trailer cargo), cannot properly be considered an appropriate site; and"

The length of the gooseneck is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of calculating the half length that must be covered by the conspicuity treatment (which, of course, would be greater than half the length behind the gooseneck). There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes the application of auxiliary retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, any conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered.

"Fact: In determining the fifty percent of side surface area to receive conspicuity treatment on such chassis, the length of the chassis, from its rear bolster to its point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus, is solely relevant."

This assertion is wrong, and the correct requirement is most clearly illustrated by the following example. Let us say that the overall length of the trailer is 40 feet, including an 8-foot gooseneck. The amount of the side to be covered is not less than 20 feet. The area to be covered is the 32 feet between the rear bolster to the point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus. Thus, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: 9279

Ronald L. Signorino, Director
Health, Safety & Regulatory Affairs
Universal Maritime Service Corp.
Suite 1600
10 Exchange Place
Jersey City, NJ 07302

Dear Mr. Signorino:

We have received your FAX of November 3, 1993, with respect to the trailer conspicuity specifications of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

First, we regret the confusion that has been caused by our letter of October 20, 1993, to James Peepas of Selecto-Flash, Inc., which modified our earlier interpretation dated July 26, 1993. Mr. Peepas has made a number of calls to this Office seeking an understanding of the conspicuity requirements on Maersk's behalf, and, in our view, has pursued the matter with diligence.

You have presented three "Facts" and ask whether each is right or wrong.

"Fact: With particular reference to Maersk Line's prospective order for forty-foot gooseneck chassis (drawing accompanies this fax) your October 20 letter makes clear that calculable conspicuity treatments must not be obscured by trailer cargo."

If calculable means "required", this is a correct statement. Our letter of October 20 refers to the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) that "at the location chosen, the strip [of sheeting] shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo."

"Fact: In calculating the area of conspicuity treatment for such chassis, the gooseneck section, as it is often hidden from view by mounted intermodal containers (trailer cargo), cannot properly be considered an appropriate site; and"

The length of the gooseneck is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of calculating the half length that must be covered by the conspicuity treatment (which, of course, would be greater than half the length behind the gooseneck). There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes the application of auxiliary retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, any conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered.

"Fact: In determining the fifty percent of side surface area to receive conspicuity treatment on such chassis, the length of the chassis, from its rear bolster to its point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus, is solely relevant."

This assertion is wrong, and the correct requirement is most clearly illustrated by the following example. Let us say that the overall length of the trailer is 40 feet, including an 8- foot gooseneck. The amount of the side to be covered is not less than 20 feet. The area to be covered is the 32 feet between the rear bolster to the point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus. Thus, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: James Z. Peepas ref:108 d:11/19/93

ID: aiam0731

Dear Mr. Kurre: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1972, in which you aske whether a bus passenger seat to which you plan to attach seat belts would be required to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.; The seat would not be required to conform to either standard. Eac expressly exempts bus passenger seats from compliance with its requirements. It is our opinion that if a manufacturer provides a safety device which the applicable standards do not require him to provide, he is not bound to conform to the performance requirements of those standards.; Even though no standard is presently applicable, the agency i considering rulemaking action that will establish a standard for bus seating and we strongly urge you to provide the safest possible installation.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0732

Dear Mr. Kurre: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1972, in which you aske whether a bus passenger seat to which you plan to attach seat belts would be required to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.; The seat would not be required to conform to either standard. Eac expressly exempts bus passenger seats from compliance with its requirements. It is our opinion that if a manufacturer provides a safety device which the applicable standards do not require him to provide, he is not bound to conform to the performance requirements of those standards.; Even though no standard is presently applicable, the agency i considering rulemaking action that will establish a standard for bus seating and we strongly urge you to provide the safest possible installation.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3314

Dear Mr. Jones:#This responds to the questions you raised with Stephe Oesch of my office on May 1, 1980, concerning Standard No. 101-80, 'Controls and Displays*.#You asked if the clearance lamp system symbol shown in Table I of the standard can be used on a rotary switch to identify a position that activates only the parking and side marker lights. You also asked whether the low beam symbol can be used to indicate the headlamp position on the same rotary lighting switch. Such a use of the clearance lamp symbol and low beam symbol is permissible.#Under S5.2.1 and footnote 2 to Table I, the switch which controls not only the headlamps, but also the clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps must have the Table I symbol for headlamps and tail lamps either on or adjacent to it. It appears from the drawing you left with us that the required headlamp and tail lamp symbol would indeed be adjacent to the switch. S5.2.1 also provides that a manufacturer may use additional symbols for the purpose of clarity. Since the additional symbols you contemplate using would inform the driver about the particular lights which are operated by the different positions of the switch, they would serve the purpose of added clarity.#If you have any further questions, please let me know.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3316

Dear Mr. Jones:#This responds to the questions you raised with Stephe Oesch of my office on May 1, 1980, concerning Standard No. 101-80, 'Controls and Displays*.#You asked if the clearance lamp system symbol shown in Table I of the standard can be used on a rotary switch to identify a position that activates only the parking and side marker lights. You also asked whether the low beam symbol can be used to indicate the headlamp position on the same rotary lighting switch. Such a use of the clearance lamp symbol and low beam symbol is permissible.#Under S5.2.1 and footnote 2 to Table I, the switch which controls not only the headlamps, but also the clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps must have the Table I symbol for headlamps and tail lamps either on or adjacent to it. It appears from the drawing you left with us that the required headlamp and tail lamp symbol would indeed be adjacent to the switch. S5.2.1 also provides that a manufacturer may use additional symbols for the purpose of clarity. Since the additional symbols you contemplate using would inform the driver about the particular lights which are operated by the different positions of the switch, they would serve the purpose of added clarity.#If you have any further questions, please let me know.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: nht75-2.27

DATE: 03/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Joseph Lucas North America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1975, in which you ask whether the control lever/throttle arm of diesel fuel injection equipment is considered part of the pump mechanism or part of the "linkage," i.e. the accelerator control system, within the meaning of Standard No. 124.

The control lever/throttle is similar to the throttle lever referred to in Docket 69-20, Notice 5 (copy attached). In that notice, we established that the throttle lever is not part of the "driver-operated accelerator control system", but rather part of the fuel metering device and therefore does not fall within the ambit of Standard No. 124.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

February 7, 1975

Fred Schwartz -- Attorney Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

FMVSS 124 - Accelerator Control Systems

Joseph Lucas North America Inc. is a subsidiary of Joseph Lucas (Industries) Ltd. of England. Two other subsidiaries, CAV Limited and Simms Motor Units Limited manufacture diesel fuel injection equipment, some of which is exported to the United States fitted to engines, or as sold by Joseph Lucas North America Inc.

A question has arisen concerning the control lever/throttle arm on these pumps. Is this lever/arm part of the pump or it is part of the linkage?

Enclosed are two publications:

1. Publication No. 2067/4 - CAV DPA Distributor Type Fuel Injection Pump with Mechanical or Hydraulic Governor. The Green arrows on pages 2, 66, 67, 68, and 69 point out the item in question.

2. Publication P29E - Simms Mechanical Fuel Injection Pump. The green arrows on pages 2 and 3 point out the item in question.

We feel that this lever/arm is part of the injection pump, and not the linkage. Would you please confirm that our interpretation is correct?

Any help which you could give us in correctly interpreting the definition of such a pump mounted lever/arm would be appreciated, so that we may correctly appraise the arrangements on other such pumps.

Yours truly, JOSEPH LUCAS NORTH AMERICA INC. -- A. J. Burgess, Vice President (Technical)

Enclosures

ID: 21594.drn

The Honorable John E. Baldacci
Member, United States House
of Representatives
445 Main Street
Presque Isle, ME 04769

Dear Congressman Baldacci:

Thank you for your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), on behalf of your constituent, Mr. David W. Keaton of Frenchville. Mr. Keaton, Director of the St. John Valley Technology Center, needs transportation for high school students who are participating in work-study programs at locations off the school campus. The students are transported by school bus from their high schools to the Center. Mr. Keaton is concerned about being able to provide transportation for students to go from the Center to various work sites. Because Maine's school transportation funds are limited, Mr. Keaton seeks to provide transportation by vans carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) rather than by school bus. Mr. Keaton therefore seeks your assistance in:

1. Allowing public school systems to operate any van without bus markings.
2. Encouraging, through financial assistance, states to enable local educational units to use vans when transporting small numbers of students.
3. Simplifying the school student transportation regulations to allow the transportation of school students in vans during the day.

At the outset, let me note that there is no federal regulation or statute that regulates how children must be transported. Requirements regulating how persons must be transported are determined by state law. However, NHTSA regulates which new buses dealers may sell or lease if the bus is used to regularly transport school children to or from school or school-related activities.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." Persons selling or leasing new 15-person vans for such use must sell or lease a van that meets our school bus standards.

It is my understanding that the high school students under Mr. Keaton's charge receive credits towards high school diplomas for participating in the work projects. Under these circumstances, we would consider the real-life work that students perform to be "school," and the transportation provided to the work site as school-related transportation. Therefore, when the students are being transported to the work sites in buses, we would recommend that they be provided school bus transportation.

Federal law also requires that any dealer that sells a new bus to the St. John Valley Technology Center that will significantly be used to take high school students to work sites, must sell a bus that meets NHTSA's school bus standards. Federal law supersedes any contrary state law that presumes to permit dealers to sell new non-school buses that will significantly be used to transport students to or from school or school-related activities. (See 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Preemption.)

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit schools from using large vans to transport school children, even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, if Mr. Keaton wishes to change regulations or procedures for the use of Maine school vehicles, he must look to Maine state law. One person Mr. Keaton should consult is Maine's State Director of Pupil Transportation, Mr. Harvey Boatman, who can be reached at (207) 287-5321.

Mr. Keaton's first point is that public school systems should be permitted to operate any van without bus markings. Bus marking requirements are addressed by state law. Mr. Keaton's second point (encouraging, through financial assistance, states to enable local educational units to use vans when transporting small numbers of students) and third point (simplifying the school student transportation regulations to allow the transportation of school students in vans during the day) also ask for changes in state vehicle use requirements, and must therefore be reviewed by Maine state officials. However, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. John Womack, Senior Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571.3#VSA
d.6/5/00

ID: aiam4568

"Dear Mr. Kegg: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. You were uncertain about section S4.3.1's requirements related to the inflation pressure for spare tires specified on vehicle placards. You asked whether a vehicle manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire's sidewall. As you know, FMVSS 110 sets forth requirements related to vehicle placards in passenger cars. Section S4.3 requires that the placard be 'permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location' and display the vehicle capacity weight, the designated seating capacity, the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for maximum loaded weight and, subject to the limitations of S4.3.1, for any other manufacturer-specified vehicle loading condition, and the vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation. FMVSS 110 does not have any provision requiring the inclusion of information on the placard related to spare tires or air pressure related to spare tires. Accordingly, a passenger car manufacturer may, but is not required to, specify information related to spare tires on the placard. In response to your question whether a passenger car manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the spare tire's sidewall, section S4.3.1 of FMVSS 110 states that the vehicle placard must not specify an 'inflation pressure other than the maximum permissible inflation pressure' required to be molded on the tire itself by section S4.3 of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, unless the alternative inflation pressure satisfies the three conditions set forth in S4.3.1. The first condition requires that the alternative inflation pressure be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. The second condition requires that the vehicle loading condition be specified for the alternative reduced pressure. The third condition requires that the tire load rating be specified by an individual manufacturer for the tire size at that inflation pressure that is not less than the vehicle load on the tire for that vehicle loading condition. Accordingly, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify on its placard an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum permissible inflation pressure. I am enclosing a December 13, 1984 letter to Mr. Alberto Negro of Fiat, which explains the agency's position concerning a manufacturer's specification on the placard of an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire. As that letter indicates, a manufacturer would have to meet each of the conditions specified in section S4.3.1, including that the alternative inflation pressure must be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. Because spare tires are subject to these requirements like any other pneumatic tire, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on that tire. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam2384

Dear Mr. Hurlbutt: This is in response to your letter of August 13, 1976, asking whethe Federal regulations prohibit the installation, by a dealer, of a rear seat in a 1976 Chevrolet Blazer.; Federal regulations do not prohibit such installation by a dealer. If dealer installs a seat prior to first purchase of the vehicle, the seat must comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, 49 CFR 571.207.; In this case, you have already taken possession of your vehicle an desire that the dealer now install the seat. Section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1381, et seq.) provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This does not prohibit a dealer from installing seats in a vehicle that has already been purchased. It simply means that such installation cannot destroy the vehicle's compliance with any motor vehicle safety standard.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel