ID: 20479.ztv

Mr. Wayne J. Highley
1701 Pontiac Road
Fairview Heights, IL 62208-1432

Dear Mr. Highley:

This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions about motor vehicle lighting.

You are "inquiring into the legitimacy of testing a supplemental rear lighting system which would be in addition to and placed to the sides or proximity of the third brake light." This system consists of amber lights that are energized when the accelerator pedal is released "and would be non-operational and over-ridden by red lights when the brakes are applied."

The possibility of advance brake warning systems is one that has intrigued the public and which has concerned us for many years. In response to these concerns, we published a policy statement of November 4, 1998, setting forth our position on evaluation of new signaling ideas (63 FR 59482-92). I enclose a copy for your information. The discussion on p. 59489 explains the process that we follow.

We first ask whether a new signal lighting idea requires a change in the standardized operation of appearance of a required lamp or piece of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. The answer in your case is no; you would provide a supplementary lighting system. Because S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 allows auxiliary lighting equipment provided there is no impairment of the effectiveness of lamps and reflectors required by the standard, our next question is whether your system would have an impairing effect, e.g., by masking the operation of required lighting or introducing ambiguity into the meaning of required lighting. Because the lamps in your system operate only when the accelerator is released and are extinguished when the brake pedal is applied, there would be no impairing effect. This means that installation and use of your system, as you have described it, would not violate a Federal regulation.

You have asked whether we are aware of any current or pending fleet studies that would utilize the system you describe. We know of no such studies.

You have also asked whether you might begin such a study, and what criteria would we suggest to insure the validity and integrity of such a fleet study. You may begin such a study, but the opinions of this office are legal in nature and we are not in a position to advise you as to how to conduct the study. We suggest that you review our policy statement for some guidance.

Finally, you have asked whether there is any funding available for such an item or such a study. There is no funding available; the agency funds only its own research lighting projects.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.11/5/99

ID: 20504.ztv

Mr. Don Thompson
Traffic Manager
Al-Jon, Inc.
14599 2^nd Avenue
Ottumwa, IA 52501-9281

Dear Mr. Thompson:

This is in reply to your letters of August 11 and August 12, 1999, regarding the Al-Jon Impact 5 Car Crusher and Al-Jon 400 Baler. Transport Canada has informed you that these vehicles are trailers, must comply with the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for trailers, and must demonstrate compliance before they can be imported into Canada.

You explained to Taylor Vinson of this Office on August 16 that, until recently, Al-Jon has had no problems exporting its car crusher and baler to Canada without the need to comply with Canadian standards. As Mr. Vinson explained to you, Canada is free to adopt whatever regulatory posture it deems appropriate regarding these vehicles, and is not bound by our views in this matter.

However, we will discuss the status of these vehicles under the laws that we administer. You state that these vehicles are "car crushers" and "balers," and not "trailers." We have no definitions for "car crushers" and "balers." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates "motor vehicles." In part, a "motor vehicle" is statutorily defined as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). A "trailer" is defined as a "motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

The type of equipment you produce is not easily categorized under our statutory definition of "motor vehicle." On the one hand, you state that your car crusher was made portable "to allow the scrap dealer to go on location" to crush discarded cars, and that the baler is also portable. Your literature also calls your car crusher "road legal." Both items of equipment therefore appear to be designed to be used on the highways, in the sense of being drawn by another vehicle while moving from site to site. On the other hand, the items of equipment perform their functions off the public roads.

Whether we would consider your equipment to be motor vehicles depends on their use. For example, we interpret our statutory definition not to encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the statute we administer, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Similarly, if your items of equipment typically spend extended periods at a job site, and only use the public roads infrequently to move between job sites, we would not consider them to be motor vehicles under our statute. We would instead consider the use of your devices on the public roads to be incidental and not their primary purpose. However, if your items of equipment used the roads more than on an incidental basis, they would be considered motor vehicles and subject to our standards that apply to trailers.

We note that our interpretation of the statutory definition of motor vehicle is partly based on judicial decisions. In the past, we interpreted the term more broadly.

Recently, Transport Canada informed us that the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act, in pertinent part, defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle that is capable of being driven or drawn on roads by any means other than muscular power exclusively. . . ." This definition differs from ours in that it applies to all trailers, not just those manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. This statutory difference in definitions explains why Canada may regulate vehicles under its law that we do not regulate under our Federal motor vehicle safety law.

You may phone Taylor Vinson again if you have questions (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.11/5/99

ID: 20513.ztv

Mr. Gary D. Weintraub
185 East 85^th St.
New York, NY 10028

Dear Mr. Weintraub:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1999, asking about the legality of front "brake" lamp systems.

I enclose copies of two notices that we published in the Federal Register in December 1996, (61 FR 65510) and November 1998 (63 FR 59482) on supplementary vehicle lighting systems, including, specifically, front "brake" lamp systems (see discussions at 65515, and 59484 and 59486).

In response to our December 1996, request for comments, Volvo commented that we should not prohibit front "brake" lamps. As we explained in the November 1998 response to the comments (at 59484), front "brake" lamps are prohibited only if they impair the effectiveness of front lighting equipment required under Federal law, and that "assuming front 'brake' lamps were implemented so as not to interfere with the effectiveness of required front lighting equipment, front brake lamps are permitted to be installed on vehicles now, without any changes to the [U.S. Federal motor vehicle lighting standard]."

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.10/21/99

ID: 20550.drn

Ms. Pat Murrell
Director of Child Development
Louisville Central Community Centers, Inc.
1025 Chestnut St.
Louisville, KY 40203

Dear Ms. Murrell:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of a child development center's responsibilities when it considers the type of vehicle it should use to transport children. Our answer is provided below.

Although your letter mentions pre-school, you do not specify the ages of the children under your Centers' care. I will therefore assume that the Centers care for both school age children and pre-school children.

Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( 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."

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit child development centers facilities from using their 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, so you should also check Kentucky law to see if there are regulations about how you must transport your children.

NHTSA distinguishes between facilities that provide educational programs and those that are strictly custodial. We do not consider child care programs that are custodial in nature to be "schools." However, in recent interpretations (see the attached July 23, 1998 letter to Mr. Don Cote) we have stressed that it is the purpose for which the bus is used, not the identity of the purchaser, that determines whether a dealer must sell a school bus or may sell another type of bus. Thus, if a custodial center were purchasing the bus to use significantly to transport students to or from school or school-related events, a dealer knowing of this purpose is required to sell a school bus.

In fully addressing the type of vehicle that should be used to transport your children, I am asking that you take the following into consideration. At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating in 1998 and 1999, four crashes in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

In conclusion, 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. As you requested, I am enclosing copies of 49 U.S.C. Sections 30112 and 30125. In lieu of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than "conventional vans." Please be advised that there are small school buses (under 10,000 lb gross vehicle weight rating) available that seat 15 children. Because it would not be cost effective to do so, we do not recommend retrofitting 15-passenger vans to meet school bus standards.

You also expressed concern about the costs of using school buses (such as higher vehicle costs and higher insurance, maintenance and fuel costs) rather than vans. NHTSA has recently examined this issue. Our inquiries to the vehicle manufacturers indicate that while school buses are somewhat more expensive than large vans, the difference is not so large that it would prevent child care centers from acquiring school buses. The cost range for 15-passenger school buses is approximately $30-32,000, compared to $25-28,000 for 15-passenger vans. The longer service life for school buses will offset a part of this difference.

I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." This guideline establishes NHTSA's recommendations for how pre-school age children should be transported in school buses.

If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Information about NTSB's nonconforming bus report is available from the NTSB's Public Affairs Office at (202) 314-6100.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.10/15/99

ID: 20551.drn

Father Joseph Rinaldo, S.C.
Administrator
St. Louis Center
16195 Old U.S. 12
Chelsea, MI 48118-9646

Dear Father Rinaldo:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether your institution for developmentally disabled children must use school buses to transport the children. Your letter states that the Saint Louis Center provides "only therapeutic and social services" for the children and that your "residents are bused to the public school" by the local school district in school buses. Because we regulate the manufacture and sale of new school buses and not their use, whether you must use school buses is determined by Michigan State law. As to whether you must be sold a school bus when you purchase a new bus, we believe the answer to that question is no.

Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( 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."

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit institutions like the St. Louis Center that care for children from using their 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, so you should also check Michigan law to see if there are regulations about how you must transport your children.

As to whether a "school bus" must be sold to a facility when the facility wishes to purchase a new bus, the answer depends partly on whether the facility provides educational programs (and thus is a "school") or is strictly custodial (and thus is not considered by us to be a school). However, in recent interpretations (see the attached July 23, 1998 letter to Mr. Don Cote) we have stressed that the answer also depends on the purpose for which the bus is used. If a custodial center were purchasing a new bus to use significantly to transport students to or from a school or school-related events, a dealer knowing of this purpose is required to sell a school bus. In the situation you present, it does not appear that the St. Louis Center is providing "significant" transportation for the children to or from school or for school-related events. Thus, we believe that a dealer is not obligated to sell you a school bus.

In fully addressing the type of vehicle that should be used to transport your children, I ask that you take the following into consideration. At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating in 1998 and 1999, four crashes in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

In conclusion, 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. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses."

If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Information about NTSB's nonconforming bus report is available from the NTSB's Public Affairs Office at (202) 314-6100.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/29/99

ID: 20563.ztv

Lance W. Shinder, Esq.
Barket & Shinder, P.A.
Biscayne Bldg., Suite 112
19 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130

Dear Mr. Shinder:

This is in reply to your letter of August 23, 1999, asking for an opinion.

You write that your client "is desirous of importing vehicles, displaying them on a car lot to purchasers, then my client will be exporting the vehicles." You ask whether that practice would be in compliance with the laws that we administer.

We assume that the vehicles to which you refer have not been manufactured and certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) (because the practice you contemplate would be legal if they had been so manufactured and certified). Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), no person shall (among other things), sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless it complies and is certified as complying with the FMVSS. However, an exception is made for importation of a motor vehicle "intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle . . .and on the outside of any container of the vehicle . . . and exported." (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(3)).

The export provision is intended to allow manufacturers in the United States to ship nonconforming vehicles to ports for export to destinations where the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply. It also facilitates transshipment of nonconforming vehicles through the U.S. for destinations elsewhere. Under the practice you describe, your client would not be importing vehicles "intended only for export," they would be intended for display before export. Thus the condition of Sec. 30112(b)(3) would not be met and your client would be in violation of Sec. 30112(a). Your use of the word purchasers also raises an inference that the nonconforming vehicles could be offered for sale, even if later exported, and such an offer would also violate Sec. 30112(a).

You have also asked "is it proper to have the cars exported to either Puerto Rico, Guam, and/or the Virgin Islands?" The answer is no. The statute that I have cited applies within the United States. Under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10), "State" means a state of the United States, "the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands."

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.9/21/99

ID: 20570revised

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030





Dear Mr. Turner:





This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether the plastic wire trim parts that Blue Bird is considering using in school buses are parts of body panel joints which must meet the fastener spacing and joint strength requirements of the standard.

Manufacturers are permitted two alternatives in meeting Standard No. 221. Until May 5, 2001, they may certify school buses manufactured on or after November 5, 1998 as meeting either: (a) requirements that have been in effect prior to a November 5, 1998 final rule (63 FR 59732); or (b) requirements adopted by the November 5, 1998 final rule (see also 65 FR 11751, delaying the mandatory compliance date of the final rule until May 5, 2001).

Alternative No. 1
Under the requirements of Standard No. 221 that have been in effect prior to the November 1998 final rule, plastic wire trim parts are not expressly excluded from the standard's joint strength requirements. However, maintenance access panels are excluded from the definition of a "body panel joint," and until May 5, 2001, do not have to meet the standard's joint strength requirements. You state that the plastic wire trim has qualified for the maintenance access panel exclusion and thus has not been subject to the requirements. Assuming your assessment is correct, the parts are excluded as maintenance access panels until May 5, 2001, for buses certified to this alternative.

Alternative No. 2
Under the November 5, 1998 final rule, ⁽¹⁾ the maintenance access panel exclusion will be narrowed ⁽²⁾ for school buses manufactured on or after May 5, 2001. Nonetheless, the final rule excludes certain school bus body panels and parts from the joint strength requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of the standard. The excluded parts include:

Trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the joint, support members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, doors and windows, ventilation panels, and engine access covers. (S5.2.1(b))

In the November 5, 1998 final rule, the agency explained why trim parts were excluded:

Small and complex joints, as well as trim, decorative parts, floor coverings, and molding strips will not be tested. The agency has no data indicating that any injuries have been caused by failure of these small and complex joints or components, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes that the potential cost of trying to test them would far outweigh any potential safety benefits.

Blue Bird believes that the plastic wire trim parts in question are "trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the joint" and therefore are excluded from the fastener spacing and joint strength requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2. In support of your position, you provided Figure Two, illustrating how you will redesign the area above the passenger side window to meet the new requirements. You also provided the following description of the wire trim parts:

The headlining panels are being lengthened and flanges are being added to the side window headers to create overlapping longitudinal joints between these components. These joints will be designed and manufactured to comply with the fastener spacing and joint strength requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2. The wire molding panels are being eliminated and replaced with smaller, non-metallic, non-hostile, plastic wire trim. This wire trim will be in short sections and will cover the wiring harnesses behind them as well as the Federal motor vehicle safety standard 221 complying joints between the headlining panels and the side window headers.

We have reviewed Blue Bird's description of the plastic wire trim parts and the figures provided with the letter. We agree that the plastic wire trim parts at issue do not contribute to the structural integrity or the joint strength of the bus. As such, they would be excluded from the requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2. This exclusion only applies to school buses that are manufactured on or after November 5, 1998, and certified as meeting this compliance alternative, i.e., the requirements set forth in the November 5, 1998, final rule.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:221
d.8/31/00

---

1. In brief, Standard No. 221 requires: (a) body panels attached to each other to have no unattached segment at the joint longer than 203 mm (S5.1.1); and (b) each body panel joint to hold each body panel to the component to which it is joined when subjected to a force that equates to 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel (S5.1.2).

2. The requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 do not apply to any interior maintenance access panel which lies forward of the passenger compartment, or which is less than 305 mm when measured across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening (S5.2.1(a)).

ID: 20576.ztv

Mr. Michael Lafon
Fleet Manager
Lincoln County Fleet Services
410 N.E. Harney Street
Newport, OR 97365

Dear Mr. Lafon:

This is in reply to your FAX of August 27, 1999, asking for an interpretation of the rear lighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the drawing you enclosed of a dump body.

This drawing depicts, first, two red clearance lamps (not identification lamps as you stated) mounted on the sides and at the top of the dump body. This aspect of your lighting scheme meets the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be mounted so as to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and as near the top as practicable.

We note also that the three red identification lamps are mounted below the dump body, on 12-inch centers. You relate that the requirement that identification lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle (as required by Table II) "has been a tough one for dump trucks to fully meet because of no practical place to mount these lamps up high," and that "to meet the highest practicable point of the requirement, these lamps have been traditionally mounted on the truck's rear frame cross member." You are correct that this is an acceptable location for the three identification lamps for trucks having dump bodies with rear full width/full height dumb gates.

You may be aware that we issued an interpretive rule on identification/clearance lamp location in April of this year, but it was addressed to trucks and trailers with rear doors and headers abovethem. Because your dump body has no header above the rear gate, this interpretive rule is not applicable to it. Further, the 12-inch spacing of your vehicle's identification lamps is in accordance with the requirements of Table II.

Below the clearance lamps, on each side, are two identical lamps mounted one over the other. These, plus the outer lamps of the identification lamp cluster mounted beneath the dump body, are intended to comprise the tail and turn signal lamp system. In addition, the three identification lamps would be activated when the brakes were applied. This would provide a six-lamp taillamp system, a system of three turn signals per side, and a seven-lamp stop lamp system. You point out that Standard No. 108 does not prohibit combining the identification lamp system with other lamps.

You are correct that S5.4 does not prohibit the lighting scheme you propose. However, in this instance the controlling authority is S5.1.3: "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Intuitively, it may seem to you that providing additional stop lamp, turn signal, and taillamp functions can only enhance motor vehicle safety. However, we are convinced that our current standardized approach to motor vehicle lighting has positive safety benefits by virtue of its broad public and international acceptance, and that lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108 for a specific purpose ought not to be used for a different purpose. A driver, when confronted with a signal, must not be confused and must react to it as quickly as possible. The use of the outer lamps of the identification lamp cluster as supplementary turn signals, carry the potential for confusion and hence impairment of the lamps that are intended as the turn signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 because they are closer to the vertical centerline of the dump body than its outermost edges where the turn signal lamps are properly located. We therefore believe that this aspect of your lighting scheme is precluded by S5.1.3.

We note that a similar distance separates the identification lamps from the primary stop lamps. We believe that the simultaneous activation of the four primary stop lamps located as far apart as practicable on the truck body, and the three low-mounted identification lamps mounted on the frame member under the truck body and used as supplementary stop lamps may have a similar distracting effect; the public is not used to seeing a change of intensity in identification lamps mounted in that location. Therefore, this aspect of your lighting scheme is also precluded by S5.1.3. However, we have permitted identification lamps mounted at or near the top of a wide vehicle to serve as auxiliary stop lamps on the theory that the public is now conditioned to seeing high-mounted stop lamp arrays on many narrower motor vehicles and would perceive an increase in intensity of identification lamps as indicating that the brakes had been applied.

We would also like to remind you that, in mounting lamps on the dump body, the stop, turn, and taillamps must be located within the height limit specified in Table II of Standard No. 108. You did not mention the two required rear facing red reflex reflectors required by Table I. These also must be located with the height and width requirements of Table II.

We appreciate your writing us. If you have questions, you may call Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/26/99

ID: 20585.ztv

Mr. Frank K. Lattimore
P.O. Box 08
Bovard, PA. 15619

Dear Mr. Lattimore:

This is in response to the petition you filed dated August 19, 1999, requesting the agency to allow cell-phone alert lamps to be mounted on the front and rear bumpers of automobiles to alert other drivers that the phone is in use.

You describe the system you wish to use as consisting of lamps not more "than 3 to 4 inches in diameter with a soft, purplish, slow quivering light bulb." Federal law (i.e., Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) permits a lamp emitting a soft, purplish light to be installed on a motor vehicle if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. We see no impairment here; as a matter of fact, many funeral directors use a purple lamp to indicate that a funeral procession is in progress. However, Standard No. 108 also requires that supplementary lamps such as you propose to use be steady burning. If you change the light to steady burning from "quivering," you may use your system without the need for rulemaking on our part. For this reason, we consider your petition to be moot.

We believe that some states may be moving to require purple lamps to be used to identify funeral processions. The Society of Automotive Engineers is currently developing an industry standard for the color and performance of purple funeral lamps. You should check with your local authorities to see whether use of a purple lamp to indicate cell phone use is acceptable under the laws of Pennsylvania.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/22/99

ID: 20588.ztv

Mr. Terry Vos
Tioga, Inc.
850 Florida Avenue South
Golden Valley, MN 55426

Dear Mr. Vos:

We are replying to your fax of August 17, 1999, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency, on trailer lighting.

You tell us that you manufacture "air heaters used by the construction industry." The assembled unit "is permanently mounted to an axle and hitch that is suitable for highway transport when necessary, to move from job to job." These units "are used at construction sites nationwide," and their rear lamps are easily broken. You have asked "since these are portable machines, rather than cargo trailers, do the same trailer lightings requirements apply . . . or are there some exceptions that may apply" which would permit you to use reflectors rather than lamps.

Under the laws that we administer, a "motor vehicle" must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, such as the one that specifies requirements for lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (Standard No. 108). For this purpose, a "motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)).

Whether we consider your trailer-mounted equipment to be a "motor vehicle" depends on its use. It is our position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered "motor vehicles" since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

If your equipment typically spends extended periods of time at a single job site and only uses the public road infrequently to move between job sites, it would not be considered a "motor vehicle" subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Assuming this is the case, you may equip the air heater with such lamps and reflectors as you deem appropriate. However, your productwould still be subject to local laws when used on the public roads. If your equipment uses the public roads on more than an incidental basis, it would be considered a "motor vehicle" subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.11/9/99