ID: aiam2751

Dear Mr. Mrak: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1978, to Ms. Joa Claybrook, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the seat belts in your Cougar automobile.; Your original letter of December 12, 1977, to Secretary Brock Adams complaining about the seat belts in your automobile has been answered. A copy of our reply is enclosed to this letter and is still relevant to your problem.; As long as the lap-shoulder belt intersection is not less than 6 inche from the vertical centerline of the driver, any other location that is comfortable and easy to use is allowable. We suggest that you again contact your dealer to determine if the belt arrangement can be modified to be better suited to your condition and yet have the belt configuration remain within the NHTSA requirements.; Sincerely, Elwood T. Driver, Acting Associate Administrator fo Rulemaking;

ID: GF004598

Mr. John L'Espoir
Enid Drill Systems, Inc.
4510 East Market Street
Enid, OK 73701-9686

Dear Mr. L'Espoir:

This responds to your facsimile of June 16 and your July 8 phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff, regarding certain water well drilling equipment that your company produces. In your letter, you ask whether the water well drilling equipment incorporating a tandem axle trailer design is subject to the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS No. 121). You requested and received our interpretation on a similar issue in 1999. Based on the previously submitted informational materials and your recent conversation with George Feygin, our answer is no, provided that the equipment you now intend to manufacture is indeed similar to the equipment for which you sought our earlier interpretation.

In your previous submission, you stated that your equipment is used off-road to drill water wells, and that some of your designs incorporate tandem axle and triple axle semi-trailers equipped with air brakes. During a recent phone conversation, you indicated that the drilling equipment now in question will be substantially similar in design and function to the equipment subject to the previous interpretation. Please note that our present interpretation extends only to the type of drilling equipment previously described in your 1999 interpretation request.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In reviewing the information you have previously provided, it is our opinion that the water well drilling equipment is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. The water well drilling equipment is designed to be used primarily at off-road job sites and, although capable of being transported on-road from one job site to another, its on-road use is only incidental to the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. This contrasts with instances in which vehicles such as cement mixer trucks and dump trucks frequently use the public roads going to and from off-road job sites, but remain there for only a limited period of time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act because their on-road use is more than merely incidental.

In view of the above discussion, your water well drilling equipment is not a motor vehicle and is therefore not required to comply with the FMVSSs, including the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121.

We note that our interpretations in this area are based in part on a court decision issued in 1978, addressing mobile construction equipment. Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.10/20/03

ID: nht71-1.5

DATE: MAY 28, 1971

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Boise Cascade Recreational Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 14, 1971, on the subject of the effective date of the requirements for seat belts and seat belt anchorages in multipurpose passenger vehicles.

You have been correctly informed by RVI that the seat belt installation standard (No. 208), and the seat belt anchorage standard (No. 210) are effective July 1, 1971, with respect to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. The amendment to Standard No. 208 issued September 30, 1970, required seat belts effective July 1, 1971. That standard will be superseded by the new occupant crash protection standard on January 1, 1972, but it is in full effect from July 1, 1971, to January 1, 1972. We regret any confusion that may have arisen as the result of the issuance of the occupant crash protection standard.

The requirements for seat belt anchorages have not been affected in any way by the occupant crash protection rule and it is therefore suprising to find that the effective date of the anchorage standard has also been misunderstood. We would hope that the changes in procurement schedule to which you refer would not result in inability to conform to the standard by July 1, 1971.

On the basis of the information presently available to us there does not appear to be sufficient cause to postpone the effective dates of Standards No. 208 and 210.

ID: nht73-5.33

DATE: 10/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: L.E. Haight, Esq., Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1973, concerning your desire to disconnect the interlock system on your new car.

The dealer who sold you the car was required to have the interlock working at the time of sale, pursuant to section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)). However, section 108(b)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b)(1)), provides that the requirements of 108(a)(1) do not apply after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. As a purchased who intends to use the vehicle, you are therefore not subject to the requirements of the Act and may disconnect the interlock.

Despite the absence of legal sanctions for disconnecting the interlock, we would hope that you could find a way to adjust the belt so that it could be worn without aggravating your bursitis. The physical sanctions for an unbelted person in a crash can be serious indeed.

SINCERELY,

LLOYD E. HAIGHT

ATTORNEY AT LAW

September 21, 1973

National Highway & Traffic Administration

Attention: Bobby A. Boaz

I am writing to you regarding the automobile interlocking seat belt device which has been installed pursuant to your instructions under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966 and regulations issued thereunder.

For several years, I have suffered with bursitis in my hip joints and I have found that my physical problem is greatly aggravated by being held into an automobile seat by a belt. It seems that the imperceptible vibration of an automobile seat is transmitted into my hip joints to a much greater extend by reason of being locked into a seat by a seat belt. Because of this, I must have periodic treatments from an orthopedic physician.

My purpose in writing to you is to inquire whether or not it is possible, upon presentation of a medical certificate, to obtain an exception to your regulations as to the new seat belt interlocking arrangement. I have just purchased a 1974 automobile and unless I can obtain a release from your agency, I feel I will not do much traveling by automobile.

Your early response would be appreciated.

L. E. Haight

ID: nht79-4.44

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Montgomery Tire Service Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1979, with respect to your wish to import used truck tire casings for the purposes of recapping. You have been advised in a telephone conversation with our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that there are two ways to do this: the casings must bear DOT markings, or be accompanied by some proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975, the effective date of the truck tire standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. You believe that this is impossible and have requested our advice.

There is an additional solution whose feasibility we will leave to your determination. While Section 108(a)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as we interpret it, prohibits the importation of used truck tires that do not comply with Standard No. 119, Section 108(b)(3) (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)) allows their importation under bond "to insure that any such [tire] will be brought into conformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard" (The corresponding provision of the importation regulation is 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(3)). Since the agency presently has no standard that applies to the retreading of truck tires, the applicable standard would be that in effect when the tire was new - Standard No. 119. Thus, if Montgomery Tire Service can demonstrate that its retreaded truck tires conform to Standard No. 119, and are willing to affix a DOT symbol to each tire as certification of that fact, your casings may enter the country under bond as provided for in 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(3), releasable when upon an affirmation of compliance to Standard No. 119.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Montgomery Tire Service, Inc.

April 26, 1979

National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

Chief Counsel

Subject: Interpretation of existing ruling on importing worn (used) truck tire casings.

Sirs:

Having recently imported from England a shipment of used truck tire casings (tires worn smooth) for the purposes of recapping, we are now told we cannot use these casings.

This was brought to light by John S. Conner, Inc. of Baltimore, acting as brokers for this incoming shipment. It was brought to their attention by newly installed D.O.T. form #HS-7 which they were not familiar with prior to this time.

Having personal knowledge of these casings having been entering this country and having been recapped by other retreaders throughout the U. S. for quite a lengthy period of time we ask your indulgence in our first venture of this nature. As a point of information; I might say that the quality of these casings is much superior to their American made counterpart.

In phone conversation with Mr. George Shifflett of your Department, Mr. Shifflett informed me that the casings have to fall in either one of two categories; that is, (#1) having to have D.O.T. markings, or (#2) information to the fact that they were manufactured prior to March 1, 1975, the date Standard #119 took effect. This is nigh onto impossible.

Needless to say, we would appreciate your indulgence in clarifying this matter; as we have quite an investment involved, and I'm sure customs have time limits before penalties are imposed.

Assuring you of our proper intent, and not choosing to interpret a ruling of which we have no knowledge, we are holding these casing in our warehouse awaiting an interpretive ruling from yourselves concerning our using and recapping said casings.

Awaiting your reply, I remain,

Sincerely,

Raymond L. Smallwood Retread Plant Manager

C.C.: ORION YOUNG -- John S. Conner, Inc.;

Ref. #111755

ID: nht87-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald J. Audia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Audia:

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking about the permissibility of manufacturing an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp utilizing the colors yellow and orange, in addition to red, to signify "t he varying stages of a stopping car."

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment only the color red is permitted for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps, and for those aftermarket lamps manufactured to replace them. The se lamps are generally found on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. Your planned device could not be manufactured and sold for this segment of the aftermarket since it does not conform to Standard No. 108. Further, a dealer, distr ibutor, or motor vehicle repair business could not legally remove an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp and install your device. However, there is no Federal restriction on sale and installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. The device would then be subject to the laws of any State where it would be sold or used. We regret that we are unable to advise you on these laws.

If you have any further questions we would be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 12, 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson Legal Dept. N.H.T.S.A. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

My point of reference concerns the "third light" or High-Mounted Stop Lamps. I would like your opinion or your advice with regard to the aforementioned device. Specifically, am I permitted to utilize three different colors, (i.e. yellow, orange, red) to signify, if you will, the varying stages of a stopping car?

I will attempt to infiltrate the "after market" and not try to change or enact any new versions unless my innovation is accepted universally.

I ask that you please respond at your earliest convenience. Your response will enable me to continue my research and development.

Enclosed please find my interpretation of the High-Mounted Stop Lamp. Thank you sincerely for your time and consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald J. Audia

ID: nht67-1.27

DATE: 06/13/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Texas Department of Public Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Arnold Wise has asked that I answer your letter of April 14, 1967, concerning a clarification of several requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207, 208, and 209.

I am enclosing copies of the Federal Register of August 31, 1966, and February 3, 1967, which provide all of the information which you require. You will note that Standard No. 207 is concerned with the anchorage of the seats - not seat belts. Standard No. 208 requires seat belts in all passenger cars manufactured after January 1, 1968. In a regular size, four door, sedan-type vehicle with regular undivided seats, six lap belts would be required and, in addition, upper torso restraints would be required in the front outboard seats if the windshield header is in the head impact area.

The installation of seat belts in other than passenger cars is not required by the initial standards. However, any seat belts that are manufactured after March 1, 1967, must conform to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

Your interest in the traffic safety program of this Bureau is appreciated.

ID: nht88-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: REQUEST FOR EVALUATION/INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION: "SUDDEN STOP FLASHER (SSF)"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STO P FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LET TER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: The Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF) would work in conjunction with standard automobile brake lights. During routine decelerations, the brake lights would function normally. However, at unusual or "unexpectedly" high deceleration rates, such as when a driver suddenly sees a dog on the road or an accident ahead, the SSF would utilize a pendulum-type accelerometer in conjunction with a special high-speed flasher to rapidly flash the brake lights automatically (such as drivers sometime attempt to do themselves to warn the driver behind but only when they have time).

To make the effective flash rate even higher, the high-mount light would flash in rapid sequence with the two lower brake lights, the two lower lights flashing simultaneously.

I believe this concept would be especially effective in preventing high-speed crashes such as on Interstate highways when separation intervals are greater and when rapid deceleration may be completely unexpected. These crashes too frequently result i n ruptured gas tanks and fatalities.

The SSF would be especially applicable, I believe, to automobiles equipped with anti-skid brakes. Ironically, cars with anti-skid brakes may become involved in accidents because of their superior braking performance when the car behind them crashes i nto them because the car behind is not equipped with anti-skid brakes and therefore cannot match the braking performance. The SSF could provide the extra 2-or 3- second warning which could be the difference between a controlled stop and a disastrous cra sh.

A special feature would be the "Crash Lock-Up Mode." This feature would cause the system to "lock-up" in the rapid warning flash sequence mode whenever an "impact-level" (i.e., an actual crash) is encountered. When drivers have an accident, they are often confused and disoriented and consequently fail to take measures to warn other drivers - such as turn on the hazard warning flashers. The Crash Lock-Up feature would automatically send out a continuous warning when an actual crash occurs, thus possi bly preventing yet another crash. The Crash Lock-Up would remain actuated until the ignition switch is recycled. This feature would be especially helpful if a crash occurred on a foggy night or when the visibility is otherwise poor.

The actual point or g-level at which the SSF would actuate would be determined by testing and the units would be preset and sealed at the factory. I do not believe any compensation would be necessary for up-grades or down-grades. The system would act uate somewhat later on an upgrade and somewhat earlier on a downgrade, which would be inherently appropriate. Likewise, I do not believe any compensation would be necessary for the size of the automobile because the deceleration level would be the criti cal factor, regardless of the size or weight of the automobile.

ID: 86-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent Ms. Kimberly Hallenbeck of Fairbanks Alaska concerning our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. since we are responsible for Federal regulations on school bus safety.

Your constituent asked whether our requirements for safety belts apply to the used school buses purchased by her company. As explained below. the answer is no.

We contacted Ms. Hallenbeck's company. Wilbur & Son. on February 13 to obtain more information about her inquiry. Wilbur & Son explained that it purchased two used 1984 large school buses for its shuttle service which had been certified by their manufacturer as meeting our school bus safety standards. The company has been requested to install safety belts in those vehicles. but believes this is unnecessary. The company requested us to clarify our requirements for safety belts on large school buses (i.e.. school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds). We appreciate this opportunity to do so.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles, including school buses. NHTSA does not require safety belts in large new school buses because we issued a safety standard in 1977 (Standard No. 222. School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection) to require those buses to provide improved crash protection to passengers through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that school children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs. additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.

Although we have determined that a safety standard requiring safety belts in those buses is not warranted at this time. NHTSA has tentatively determined that an amendment to Standard No. 222 might be necessary to set performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on large new school buses. We recently issued such a proposal. If it is adopted. we would require manufacturers to ensure that safety belts voluntarily installed on new school buses meet performance criteria established by our safety standards. We emphasize that such a requirement would apply to the manufacture of new school buses only, and would not apply to persons retrofitting safety belts on large school buses already in use. A copy of our rulemaking notice is enclosed.

We are enclosing a copy of a report issued by NHTSA entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses" (June 1985). Which might be of interest to your constituents. In addition, we are providing your constituents with a copy of Safety Standard No. 222, and information sheets which describe our motor vehicle safety standards generally and how to obtain copies of individual safety standards or regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact my office if he can be of further assistance.

Sincerely.

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 21, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear David:

I've been contacted by Ms. Kimberly Hallenbeck of Fairbanks, Alaska regarding federal regulations for seat belts on school buses.

Ms. Hallenbeck works for Wilbur & Son, the company which runs a bus shuttle service at Fort Wainwright for military personnel and civilians. The buses used are school buses which have been repainted for use by Wilbur & Son.

Ms. Hallenbeck would like to know what type of federal regulations on seat belts would apply to these buses. I'd appreciate your supplying this information.

Thanks for your help.

With best wishes, Cordially,

TED STEVENS

ID: nht71-4.29

DATE: 10/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

COPYEE: MR. HITCHCOCK; MR. WOMACK; MR. DYSON; DT

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1971, in which you posed two related questions concerning the use of passive seat belt systems to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208.

The passive seat belt section S4.5.3, was added by the notice of July 8, 1971, "to make it clear that redundant active belts need not be used if passive belts are used to meet any option requiring Type 1 or Type 2 belts." If you choose to install a passive belt system, you do not have to provide a separate active system.

In response to your second question, S4.5.3 expressly provides that a passive seat belt assembly may be used in place of a seat belt assembly that conforms to the warning system requirements of S7.3. If a passive seat belt conforming to S4.5.3 is used to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.2, it must comply with paragraph (b) of S4.1.2.2 but need not comply with paragraph (a), (c), or (d).

Please advise us if your questions have not been adequately answered.