ID: nht75-4.18

DATE: 10/23/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Coach and Equipment Sales Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, to Mr. Schwartz of this office, seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

FMVSS No. 205 requires that the prime glazing manufacturer certify each piece of glazing covered by the standard by marking it with the letters DOT, the manufacturers code mark assigned by the Department of Transportation and the markings required by section 6 of A.N.S.Z-26. The latter markings are the "AS" number, the model number and the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. The distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which the standard applies is required to mark the material in accordance with section 6 of A.N.S.Z-26. Thus, each of the rectangular lites should be marked with the manufacturer's model number and trademark in addition to the AS number, but not with the letters DOT or the prime glazing manufacturer's DOT number.

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 requires that you, as the vehicle manufacturer, certify that your product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This would, of course, include FMVSS No. 205.

I hope I have fully answered your questions. If you have any further need for information please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

COACH AND EQUIPMENT SALES CORPORATION

July 30, 1975

Fred Schwartz -- Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

To further clarify the questions asked on the telephone and also that I may have the answers/opinions in writing, I am addressing this correspondence to you.

Our questions perhaps boil down to only two. Regarding interpretation of FMVSS 205, in particular the identification markings on glazing material.

As explained to you on the phone our company makes a small vehicle for school bus use primarily by converting a van vehicle to conform to Federal and State standards for use in transporting school pupils. (Brochure enclosed) Thus, our first question. Are we required to have the glazing material, namely laminated glass, we install to be marked with the "DOT" symbol, a manufacturer's code mark, and the "M" number?

Our second question is of course heavily dependent on the answer/ opinion to the first question. To clarify our second question it is necessary to point out that our volume of production is not large, and we have found over the years that we have been serviced better by the distributor's of glazing material rather than the prime manufacturer. In which case, the distributor orders from his manufacturer glazing material to be cut to size and shape from a common sheet size. (Ex: Six (6) rectangular lites - 10 1/2" x 23 3/8" from a large 48" x 62" sheet) It should be noted that the 48" x 62" sheet is marked in only one place. To satisfy various State standards, we require a marking on each lite showing the "AS" number.

Because of the correspondence between your office and Commander Heath of California, we are now finding the prime manufacturer with-holding the right of the distributor to mark with the trademark the individual lites the distributor has cut. In our interpretation of 56.4 of FMVSS 205, the distributor can mark the individual lites. Are we correct in this interpretation? Phrasing the question another way for maximum clarification to us would be as follows. Can the prime manufacturer with-hold the ability of the distributor to mark the individual lites?

We assure you that the answer/opinion to these questions are important and critical to us and respectfully request a reply as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Richard L. Kreutaiger -- Vice President

ID: Weiler.1.wpd

Mr. Heinz-Gerd Weiler
Siemens Restraint Systems GmbH
Carl-Zeiss-Str. 9
D-63755 Alzenau
Germany

Dear Mr. Weiler:

This responds to your March 24, 2004, e-mail to Roger Saul, in which you seek clarification regarding the effective date for new or modified test requirements when various Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are amended. You are concerned because your firm is involved in engineering and vehicle crash testing. Specifically, you ask whether, after a vehicle is already in production or the certification test program for such a vehicle is underway, it is necessary to repeat the relevant tests using the new test methods (or whether the original testing remains valid). If new testing is required, you ask at what point such testing must commence (e.g., within a specified time limit after the effective date of the changes or at the start of the next model year) in order for the vehicle to be sold in the U.S.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). Each vehicle must be so certified.

Periodically, the agency may amend FMVSSs. In some instances, amendment of a standard may involve modification of existing test procedures. Each final rule amending a standard is published in the Federal Register and specifies an effective date for the changes to the standard. For motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment produced on or after that effective date, manufacturers are required to certify compliance with the standard as modified, including any new testing requirements.

As further clarification, we note that each of this agencys safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA follows the test procedures and conditions in effect at the time of vehicle certification when conducting its compliance testing.

Manufacturers are not required to test their products in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all applicable standards. A manufacturer may choose any valid means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard and to provide a basis for its certification of compliance.

If the agency has reason to believe that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard(s). If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer.

In addition, the manufacturer will be subject to civil penalties, unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standard(s) (49 U.S.C. 30115(a) and 30165). This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.5/10/04

ID: 77-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 31, 1977, letter asking whether a New York state requirement mandating the installation of both side emergency doors and rear emergency doors in school buses would mean that both emergency doors would be required to comply with the school bus exit specifications in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

The NHTSA has determined previously that only those exists required by S5.2.3 must meet the requirements specified for school bus emergency exists in Standard No. 217. Paragraph S5.2.3 requires either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push out window. The side emergency door to which you refer is installed in addition to a rear emergency door. The presence of the rear emergency door, alone, satisfies the requirements of S5.2.3. Therefore, a side emergency door is not required by the standard and need not meet the specifications for school bus emergency exists. Emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 must comply with regulations applicable to emergency exists in buses other than school buses. These requirements are also detailed in Standard No. 217.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 31, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton Subject: FMVSS - 217, Specific to Emergency Doors - Relating to New York State School Bus Regulations - New York State Department of Transportation.

We respectfully request a decision of the legality of the seat placement in the case of side emergency door(s) as noted in S5.4.2.1(b), when you also have a rear emergency door that complies with S5.2.3.1.

Our request speaks only to school buses, and vehicles of 10,000 pounds or greater. New York State required the following emergency doors. Passengers Doors Location 17-30 1 Rear Center 31-48 2 (1) Rear Center (1) Left Side 49-66 2 Same as 31-48 67 or more 3 (1) Rear Center (1) Left Side (1) Right Side

As can be seen by the chart the State of New York exceeds the F.M.V.S.S.-217 Section S5.2.3.1(a) by the addition of one or two extra doors.

Our request is that we be permitted to place a seat in the side door opening (Ref. 5.4.2.1(b). In other words, the last sentence of this section "A vertical Transverse, etc. . . . . . ." be declared null and void, yet the placement of the seat in relation to the door and for seat to the rear would not prevent the door to be used as an emergency exit.

To qualify as an emergency exit, seat placement and the door opening would permit the passage of the ellipsoid as specified in S5.2.2(b).

Should you desire additional information, kindly contact the writer.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: Silverman1

Howard A. Silverman, Esq.
General Motors Corporation
Legal Staff
Mail Code: 482-C24-D24
300 GM Renaissance Center
Detroit, MI 48265-3000




Dear Mr. Silverman:

This responds to your letter of January 7, 2005, asking us to reconsider our February 4, 2003 letter of interpretation to Ms. Erika Z. Jones regarding the definition of the term "Model Year" in 49 C.F.R. Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements (VIN). In our letter to Ms. Jones, we addressed whether 49 C.F.R. 565.6(d)(1) permits a manufacturer to designate vehicles as belonging to a single Model Year, where the production period for such vehicles falls within three different calendar years, but runs for less than 24 months in total. In our letter, we said the answer was no. We interpreted "Model Year," as defined in 49 C.F.R. 565.3(j), as a production period of less than two calendar years (i.e. , a time period limited by year designation rather than a maximum number of days). For the reasons that follow, we have decided to rescind our earlier letter and instead to interpret "Model Year" as a period not to exceed 24 months.

In your letter, you explained how our February 2003 interpretation of the term "Model Year" for VIN recordation purposes was contrary to actual, long-standing industry practices, and discussed the substantive impacts of the interpretation. According to your letter, it had been the industrys understanding that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has granted vehicle manufacturers flexibility in determining when to start production for a given Model Year, provided that such period may not exceed 24 months, and manufacturers scheduled their production in a manner consistent with this timeframe.

As discussed in our earlier letter, the VIN requirements were originally contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115, until the agency promulgated a final rule shifting such requirements to a new regulatory section at Part 565 (48 FR 22567, May 19, 1983). The exact definition of "Model Year" did change slightly in its migration from FMVSS No. 115 to Part 565, adding the word "calendar" to the requirement that the actual period of production be "less than two calendar years. "However, the final rule stated that "[t]he basic substantive requirements of Standard 115 are unchanged by this action". 48 FR 22567, 22567. It also stated, "The new Part 565 would not have any requirements not in FMVSS 115 prior to today". Id. at 22569. That is, it was not the agencys intention to change the substantive requirements of the VIN regulation or to alter existing industry practices.

When drafting the letter to Ms. Jones, we did not fully appreciate the impacts that our interpretation would have on vehicle manufacturers production processes. These impacts suggest that our February 2003 interpretation would result in substantive changes to the VIN requirements, the type of changes that, according to the 1983 notice, were not intended to result from the addition of the word "calendar" to the regulation. Substantive changes to our regulations are conducted through the rulemaking process, with an opportunity for public notice and comments.

Accordingly, we have decided to rescind our earlier interpretation of the definition of "Model Year" contained within Section 565.3(j), and instead, we will interpret that term as any 24-month period from the starting point determined by the manufacturer, thereby permitting a full two-year period for all such manufacturer designations. To do otherwise would change the substance of the VIN requirement and could result in widely disparate treatment of different vehicles in terms of VIN requirements related to Model Year designation, depending upon when the manufacturer begins production, and would unnecessarily restrict manufacturers discretion in setting their own production schedules.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc: Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
ref:565
d.2/15/05

ID: 19832.ztv

Mr. Jonathan Ward
CEO and President
TLC, Inc.
14743 Oxnard Street
Van Nuys, CA 91411

Dear Mr. Ward:

This is in response to your letter to Coleman Sachs of this Office which we received on April 8, 1999. You asked for an opinion on your plan "to sell restored pre-1974 Toyota Land Cruisers comprised of new and used parts."

You intend to begin with "an assemblage of new motor vehicle equipment including body, frame, steering, suspension, brake, axle, differential, glazing, interior and trim assemblies

. . . ." The equipment taken from the "U.S. spec. pre-1974 donor vehicle" includes "the front and rear driveshaft assemblies including yokes and flanges, complete rear drive gear assembly, front right frame extension, vin plates and title." You believe that "pursuant to 49 CFR 571.7(E) and 15 U.S.C. 1391(3)" you "would satisfy DOT's standards of minimum donor vehicle parts content and definition of assemblage of motor vehicle equipment." You then comment that "the restored vehicle will meet or exceed DOT standards of the donor vehicle's year of manufacture," and ask whether you "can legally sell the vehicle complete with drivetrain or do we have to sell it as a kit and have the customer pay a separate corporation to supply and install the drivetrain?" You conclude by saying that "if we must, our third step would be that a separate corporation will be contracted by the customer to install an EPA and CARB compliant drivertrain. The vehicle will then be offered for sale by TLC Inc."

The Toyota Land Cruiser for 1974 and previous years appears to be a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for purposes of compliance with 49 CFR Part 571, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in pertinent part as one that "is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." (Sec. 571.3(b)). You cited 49 CFR "571.7(E)." The provisions of Sec. 571.7(e) Combining new and used components apply only to trucks, not to multipurpose passenger vehicles that may be built on a truck chassis. This section was adopted in 1975 to accommodate the use of glider kits in the reconstruction of trucks (40 FR 49340). This section is not applicable to other types of motor vehicles. We do not understand your citation of 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). That section (now recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)) is simply the statutory definition of "motor vehicle."

The vehicle you describe cannot, in our opinion, be termed a "restored" 1974 Land Cruiser, even though you intend the completed vehicle to carry the VIN and title of one. The original Land Cruiser will be disassembled to the point that it is no longer a motor vehicle. Only the original "front and rear driveshaft assemblies including yokes and flanges, complete rear drive assembly, [and] front right front frame extension" will be used again. As we understand your letter, the rest of the vehicle, including its body and frame, is new. Under these circumstances, when the vehicle is assembled it will be a motor vehicle manufactured as of the assembly date and one that has not been delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. That is to say, the vehicle will be a new motor vehicle to which current Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations apply. As a new vehicle, we believe it cannot carry the VIN of an earlier vehicle, but must be equipped with a new VIN meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. We are not conversant with state titling practices, and cannot provide information about them.

Our interpretation means that the vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer (TLC or the "separate corporation") as conforming to current Federal safety standards as required by 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567. You should contact EPA and CARB for information about their regulations. The certifying manufacturer must also file an identification statement with this agency pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.5/21/99

ID: 77-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: United Brake & Clutch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to United Brake and Clutch's June 1, 1977, request for confirmation that use of a brake chamber equipped with separate diaphrams for application of service brake air pressure and isolated air pressure, along with a mechanical device that automatically holds the brakes in the applied position once they have been applied by means of the protected source of air, would comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The relevant provision of the standard states:

S5.6.3 Application and holding. The parking brakes shall be applied by an energy source that is not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system. Once applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unable to "approve" system designs for compliance with a standard in advance, because there is no way to establish that a vehicle so equipped actually meets the requirements until it has been manufactured.

From your description, it appears that the design would not violate any provision of the parking brake requirement. Our understanding is that the protected source of air pressure is connected separately to the brake chamber, that it is designed to operate even with failure of the service brake chamber diaphram, and that the mechanical holding device operates automatically whenever air pressure in the trailer supply line is at atmospheric pressure. We assume also, that the braking force developed by the protected source of air pressure and maintained by the mechanical device would comply with the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

UNITED BRAKE & CLUTCH

JUNE 1, 1977

JOE LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL

RE: PARKLOCK BRAKING DEVICE

DEAR MR. LEVIN: IN DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. TED HERLIKY AND MR. DUANE PERRIN, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE CONTACT YOUR OFFICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A DEFINITION AS TO THE COMPLIANCE TO SS 121 OF OUR DEVICE.

THE PARKLOCK BRAKING DEVICE FUNCTIONS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE BENDIX WESTINGHOUSE'S DD 3. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, FUNCTIONALLY. THE SAME PLUMBING ARRANGEMENT IS UTILIZED, THE BRAKE IS HELD IN APPLIED POSITION BY MECHANICAL MEANS. THE UNIT IS A DOUBLE DIAPHRAM UNIT, ONE FOR SERVICE AND THE OTHER FOR EMERGENCY OR PARKING. THE SOURCE OF ENERGY IN THE EMERGENCY OR PARKING APPLICATIONS, LIKE THE DD 3, IS A SEPARATE ISOLATED AIR SOURCE FROM THE SERVICE.

IF YOU CAN TELL ME IF THE UNIT I HAVE DESCRIBED WOULD COMPLY TO THE SS 121 LAW, FOR BOTH TRUCKS AND TRAILERS, IT WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL.

ENCLOSED YOU WILL FIND A DESCRIPTIVE BROCHURE ALONG WITH A BLOW UP OF YOUR PRODUCT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND YOUR EXPEDIENT ATTENTION WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

YOURS TRULY,

RICHARD P. SEIB, PRES.

[Enc. Omitted]

ID: aiam4822

Dear Mr. Kaaria: Our Denver Regional Office has forwarded your lette of January 3, l99l, to this Office for reply. You are 'the designer of the taillights placed near the rear window of passenger cars.' In attempting to negotiate a settlement with vehicle manufacturers, you have been informed that because 'elevated brake lights' are required by our agency, the government 'should negotiate with me for l% of replacement cost of these taillights.' You have asked that we clarify our position in this matter. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that every passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985, be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp, mounted on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle. The only requirement relating to design is that the lens have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, but the standard does not specify the shape of the lens. Within these parameters, manufacturers have located their lamps both inside and outside of the car, from the roof to the deck, and have equipped them with circular and rectangular lenses of varying sizes. Our standards are generally expressed in performance terms so that manufacturers have the freedom to design their vehicles in the manner most suited to them to meet the performance requirements, and so that a specification that appears to favor a proprietary device (e.g., mandating a specific design solution to a standard's requirements) is avoided. Because of the latitude in design that Standard No. 108 affords, we do not regard the lamp as having any single inventor or designer. While it is possible that you have designed a lamp with some proprietary elements, your search for recovery is properly directed towards lamp and vehicle manufacturers. You have been ill-advised to seek recovery from the government, for you have no legal basis to do so. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: nht95-3.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John N. Quinata -- Customs And Quarantine Agency, Government Of Guam

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN M. QUINATA TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Quinata:

This responds to your letter asking whether used Nissan Truck Crane Lorries from Japan are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in our response, but we had difficulty contacting Nissan for some informa tion we needed to answer your question. From your letter, I assume that Sanko Bussan Guam has imported this vehicle for use in the dock area, and that your agency is holding the vehicle pending this interpretation because the vehicle is not certified as complying with the FMVSS.

The short answer to your question is that the truck crane is a motor vehicle, subject to the FMVSS. I will outline the applicable law and point out some of our regulations that you should consider.

The issue you raise is whether the truck crane is a "motor vehicle," since the regulations you ask about apply only to motor vehicles. Title 49 of the U.S. Code, section 30102(a)(6), defines a motor vehicle as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical po wer and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . ." Work-related vehicles generally are "motor vehicles" for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site fo r only a limited time.

We believe the truck crane is a motor vehicle. Nissan Diesel North America informs us that this truck crane is a general purpose medium-duty crane that can be used for short-duty jobs and driven from site to site on the public roads. The photographs you enclosed show the crane mounted on what appears to be a conventional truck chassis. The vehicle appears to be manufactured for use on the highways, and is thus a motor vehicle. The vehicle is a "truck" under our regulations, and must meet the FMVSSs f or trucks that were in effect on the vehicle's date of manufacture.

As you know, NHTSA has regulations related to the importation of vehicles. They appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), at parts 591 to 593. In particular, note the declarations in 49 CFR 591.5 that are required for importation. Since your le tter says that you enforce the FMVSSs in 49 CFR Part 571, I assume you have a copy of Parts 591-593. If you do not, we can send one to you.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John N. Quinata -- Customs And Quarantine Agency, Government Of Guam

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN M. QUINATA TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Quinata:

This responds to your letter asking whether used Nissan Truck Crane Lorries from Japan are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in our response, but we had difficulty contacting Nissan for some information we needed to answer your question. From your letter, I assume that Sanko Bussan Guam has imported this vehicle for use in the dock area, and that your agency is holding the vehicle pending this interpretation because the vehicle is not certified as complying with the FMVSS.

The short answer to your question is that the truck crane is a motor vehicle, subject to the FMVSS. I will outline the applicable law and point out some of our regulations that you should consider.

The issue you raise is whether the truck crane is a "motor vehicle," since the regulations you ask about apply only to motor vehicles. Title 49 of the U.S. Code, section 30102(a)(6), defines a motor vehicle as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . ." Work-related vehicles generally are "motor vehicles" for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site for only a limited time.

We believe the truck crane is a motor vehicle. Nissan Diesel North America informs us that this truck crane is a general purpose medium-duty crane that can be used for short-duty jobs and driven from site to site on the public roads. The photographs you enclosed show the crane mounted on what appears to be a conventional truck chassis. The vehicle appears to be manufactured for use on the highways, and is thus a motor vehicle. The vehicle is a "truck" under our regulations, and must meet the FMVSSs for trucks that were in effect on the vehicle's date of manufacture.

As you know, NHTSA has regulations related to the importation of vehicles. They appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), at parts 591 to 593. In particular, note the declarations in 49 CFR 591.5 that are required for importation. Since your letter says that you enforce the FMVSSs in 49 CFR Part 571, I assume you have a copy of Parts 591-593. If you do not, we can send one to you.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1994

FROM: Recht, R. Philip -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larson, Victor P. E. -- Cryenco, Inc. (COLORADO)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 5/17/94 From Victor Larson To John Womack (OCC 9984)

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of May 17, 1994, with reference to the application of conspicuity material to the sides of cryogenic tank trailers.

You point out that the only side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road is at the center of the tank, approximately 90 inches above the road surface. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that conspicuity material can be placed at this location "if that is the only available mounting area" and that it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface.

We confirm your understanding. Standard No. 108 specified an original mounting height for conspicuity material as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicab le 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 conspicuity 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 in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers should mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers, in order to achieve the full conspicu ity benefits of the material. In the case of your tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at a belt line that is 90 inches above the road surface would be considered to have been mounted as c lose as practicable to the upper specification 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 frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

You inform us that some trailers have rear and midship cabinets that could be used, in conjunction with the belt line location, to provide a location for striping, although this would result in a non-aligned striping pattern. With respect to trailers eq uipped with cabinets, you asked whether compliance would be satisfied if only the belt-line location is used. The answer is yes, provided that the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) is met, i.e., which provides that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." Since the strip need not be continuous, this would allow discontinuities in a strip mounted at 90 inches in which the cabinet s were not used.

Your final question is the required orientation of striping for conspicuity; some of your customers have requested placement of material at a downward angle of approximately 30 degrees to accommodate their graphics better. The standard does not explicit ly address the issue of orientation. However, as noted in response to your first question, trailer manufacturers should mount conspicuity material in a vertical plane, or as nearly thereto as the trailer shape allows, so that the full conspicuity benefi ts of the material may be realized. If there is no available vertical surface on which the material can be mounted, we urge that a wider stripe of conspicuity material be used to provide the minimum required performance at the installed downward angle. The manufacturer of the conspicuity material which you use should be able to determine whether an increase in the width of the striping would allow the material mounted at or near the downward angle that your customer prefers to provide performance comp arable to a narrower strip mounted in a vertical plane.