ID: 8935

Air Mail

Mr. Reuven Koter Director Baran Advanced Technologies Ltd. P.O. Box 3153 Beer Sheva 84131 Israel

Dear Mr. Koter:

We are replying to your FAX of July 21, 1993, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, and are enclosing a copy of SAE J590b as you requested.

You have asked us to identify the U.S. regulations pertaining to turn signal and hazard warning signal lights including tell-tales. The applicable regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference many SAE materials, including those regarding flashers. In addition to SAE J590b (turn signal flasher, with the exceptions noted in S5.1.1.19 and S5.1.1.20 of Standard No. 108) Standard No. 108 incorporates SAE J589 (turn signal operating unit, with the exception noted in S5.1.1.13), SAE J588 (turn signal lamps for vehicles less than 2032 mm in overall width and J1395 for wider vehicles), J910 (vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit) and J945 (vehicular hazard warning signal flasher). The turn signal pilot indicator specifications are at paragraph 5.4.3 in SAE J588 and J1395. NHTSA is not contemplating rulemaking concerning any of these requirements.

We understand from Mr. Van Iderstine that you are contemplating manufacturing a device that senses the sudden release of the accelerator pedal and activates the hazard warning lamp system. Under Standard No. 108, this device is permissible as original vehicle equipment (i.e. installed at the factory, or by the dealer before sale) if it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. We assume that the device would be automatically deactivated when the brake pedal is applied and that manual deactivation is not required. We further assume that the device is not activated under normal stopping conditions.

Finally, we assume that manual activation of the turn signals will override the device should it be operating at the time the turn signal control is activated. Under these assumptions, we do not believe that the device would impair the effectiveness of the stop, tail, and turn signal lamps required by Standard No. 108. However, the judgment of impairment is one made by the person installing the device who must certify (or ensure that the certification remains valid) that the vehicle incorporating the device complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that judgment is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it.

Mr. Van Iderstine advises that no further details are currently available on ECE agenda item "Regulation No. 48."

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108 d:9/7/93

ID: 8940

Mr. Sam C. Nigro
Bus Product Manager
Webasto Thermosystems
1598 E. Lincoln
Madison Heights, MI 48071

Dear Mr. Nigro:

This responds to your letter about auxiliary heaters fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid natural gas (LNG) for installation on buses using those alternative fuels. You stated that your company currently manufactures auxiliary heaters for diesel fueled buses, and is interested in developing heaters that would "burn CNG and LNG same as the engine." In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you would like information about NHTSA's current requirements for auxiliary heaters on alternative fueled buses and the agency's future plans in this area.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering auxiliary heaters of any kind, and I am not aware of any plans to issue standards in this area. Nevertheless, an auxiliary heater is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety- related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the heater is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

As Mr. Shaw informed you on the telephone, earlier this year NHTSA proposed to issue a safety standard that would apply to CNG tanks (i.e., containers designed to store CNG as motor vehicle fuel on-board a motor vehicle) and vehicles using CNG as a fuel (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If this proposed standard is adopted, it would affect your product in the following manner.

If your heater were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's, including the CNG fuel system standard. If the heater were added to a new, previously- certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. These certification requirements apply to the vehicle manufacturer and alterer regardless of whether the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system. Of course, if the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system, the vehicle's compliance with the CNG standard should be carefully scrutinized.

If the heater were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not be subject to the certification requirements outlined above. Instead, the installer would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including the CNG standard. This is required by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. If the modification of the vehicle entailed connecting the heater to the vehicle's fuel system, compliance with the CNG standard would be especially germane to whether 108(a)(2)(A) were violated.

The prohibition of 108(a(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

The certification responsibilities discussed above would affect vehicle manufacturers even if the proposed CNG standard is not adopted or is not yet effective when you market your product. Except for FMVSS 301, which sets fuel system integrity requirements for gasoline and diesel-powered buses under 10,000 pounds GVWR, all of the FMVSS's that apply to a diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicle now apply to a CNG-powered vehicle. A manufacturer of a CNG-powered vehicle who installs your heater as original equipment must certify the vehicle to those standards, regardless if the CNG FMVSS is among them. Similarly, a vehicle alterer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS's.

The "render inoperative" prohibition would also apply even in the absence of a CNG FMVSS. The commercial entity listed in 108(a)(2)(A) who installs the heater on a CNG-powered vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any FMVSS that applies to the vehicle, even if a CNG standard is not among them.

I am enclosing for your information a copy of NHTSA's proposed FMVSS for CNG tanks and vehicles. Also enclosed is a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

As you are aware, the Federal Highway Administration has issued a regulation applicable to heaters on commercial vehicles. (49 CFR 393.77). You can contact the FHWA for an interpretation of its regulations at the following address:

Theodore McConnell Chief Counsel Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#303 d:10/5/93

ID: 8950

Mr. William D. McIntosh
Quality Assurance Manager
Perstorp Components
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
K2G 4R9

Dear Mr. McIntosh:

This responds to your inquiry about whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), applies to your product. You state that you manufacture a "composite assembly acoustical abatement product" that is installed against vehicle sheet metal and is then covered by carpet, trim, or the instrument panel. You had further questions about testing your product and certifying its compliance if the Standard applies to it. I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The "Safety Act") establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Under the Safety Act's authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 302 which specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Among the listed items that might be applicable to your acoustical abatement product are floor coverings and engine compartment covers. That is, the standard would apply to your product if the acoustical abatement material is a part of one of the covered items and is within 1/2" of the occupant compartment.

You indicate in your letter that you are uncertain whether to test your product to Standard No. 302 as a composite with other materials. S4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 states, "Any material that adheres to other material(s) at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a composite...." You indicate in your letter that your product has multiple layers that always adhere to each other. Accordingly, assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 302, the agency would test your product as a composite material, in accordance with S4.2.2.

Please note that there are other NHTSA requirements that could affect the manufacture and sale of your product. A motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer incorporating your product in its vehicles or equipment would be subject to sections 151- 159 of the Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles or equipment do not contain any safety related defect. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard..." Under this section, the entities mentioned above are required to ensure that the addition of your product would not adversely affect the compliance of any component or element of design on a vehicle with an applicable Federal safety standard. With respect to Standard No. 302, the addition of your product must not reduce the vehicle's overall flammability resistance.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:302 d:4/l/94

ID: 8951

Mr. C.N. Littler
Coordinator-Regulatory Affairs MCI/TMC
Engineering Centre
1558 Willson Place
Winnepeg, Manitoba R3T 0Y4

Dear Mr. Littler:

This responds to your FAX and phone call of July 30, 1993 to Mary Versailles of my office. Your FAX enclosed information on a vehicle, the AMF Invader, which is built on a remanufactured MCI chassis, and advertised and sold as a new vehicle. You do not believe that such a vehicle should be considered a new vehicle. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, we can explain whether such a vehicle would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the implications of such a determination. I suggest you also contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it is appropriate to advertise this vehicle as new. To determine whether this vehicle can be titled and registered as new, you would have to contact the various states concerning their laws.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle's first retail sale, a provision affecting its modification is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) which provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

It is possible that modifications on an existing vehicle may be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle for purposes of compliance with the safety standards. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such modifications were completed.

The agency has stated that a bus built with a new body is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle (see, for example, August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer). The agency has also stated that a bus constructed from an old body and a new chassis is a new vehicle (see, for example, July 17, 1981 letter to Mr. Larry Louderback). When neither the body nor the chassis are completely new, the agency looks to see if the vehicle has so deviated from the original components and attributes that it may be considered a new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a used vehicle (see, for example, April 22, 1991 letter to Mr. Kent Morris).

You enclosed an article titled "The New Invader" from the August 1993 issue of National Bus Trader magazine. The manufacturing process for the Invader is described beginning on page 14. Page 16 of this article states, "the Invader is supplied with a new engine," but the article does not contain enough information to determine whether the vehicle, which includes both new and old parts, would be considered new. If the Invader has a new body, NHTSA would considered the vehicle to be new if the chassis lacks the used components referenced in the Farmer letter. Any new vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture before the vehicle can be sold in the United States.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: AMF 1830 LeBer Street, Montreal Quebec, Canada H3K 2A4 ref:571 d:1/10/94

ID: 8957-2

Mr. Maine E. Peace, Jr.
Supervising Revenue Officer
State of Washington
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 1176
Bellingham, WA 98327

Dear Mr. Peace:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591#VSA d.2/3/94

ID: 8962

Mr. Pat McCue
Allied Service Systems Manufacturing
P.O. Box 6027
Phoenix, AZ 85005

Dear Mr. McCue:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Ed Jettner of this agency concerning an occupant restraint system you have developed to protect medics and attendants in the back of ambulances. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The system consists of a vest worn by the attendant which is attached by a tether strap to the ambulance. During an August 23, 1993 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the tether straps include retractors which lock during a crash. During this phone call you also stated that the back vest can be attached to two tethers on the vehicle wall adjacent to the bench seat, and that the front of the vest is attached to another tether on the opposite wall. You asked for advice on "how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish three safety standards that may be relevant to a vest and tether system for ambulance attendants. The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Ambulances, which are classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles under our regulations, are required to have safety belts

at each designated seating position. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, including ambulances. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies.

Standards No. 208 and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, is responsible for certifying compliance to these standards. Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements.

Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." Thus, your vest and tether system would be considered a "seat belt assembly," and the manufacturer of the system would be required to certify that it complies with Standard No. 209 before it could be sold.

If the vest and tether system was installed as original equipment by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable safety standards with that equipment installed in the vehicle. If the device was added to a new ambulance prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

I note that in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, you stated that your ambulances do have safety belts on the bench seat, however, these do not provide the mobility needed by the attendants when they are caring for a patient. It is our understanding that you intend the vest and tether system to supplement the original safety belts. If your vest and tether system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing your system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in your system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. The render inoperative provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

In addition to certifying that your vest and tether system complies with Standard No. 209, I urge you to exercise care in evaluating how effective this system would be in an actual crash situation. The original belt system supplied with the vehicle limits the motion of the occupant by keeping the occupant attached to the seat. Your system would have a dual purpose: allowing the attendant sufficient mobility to care for a patient and protecting the attendant in a crash. The tether on your system will not achieve this second purpose if it allows too much motion within the compartment.

You may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business. I also note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208#209#302 d.2/10/94

ID: 8968

Mr. Bernhard Peer
President
Peer Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 580237
Houston, TX 77258-0237

Dear Mr. Peer:

This responds to your letter in which you request "Federal approval and certification" for the "TWIP," the product you plan to import into the United States. You state that this product is a battery driven, two-wheeled electric scooter with a maximum top speed of about 9 miles per hour. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the TWIP will be used in warehouses and for recreational purposes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Based on statements in your letter and in your telephone conversation that the TWIP would be used in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes, it appears that the TWIP is manufactured primarily for off-road purposes rather than for use on the public streets. Therefore, your product would not be a motor vehicle and thus would not be subject to any of this agency's safety standards.

Even if your product is manufactured for on-road use a substantial amount of the time, it appears that the TWIP would still not be a motor vehicle under this agency's statutory definitions. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. These criteria are met by the TWIP. In your letter, you stated that the TWIP has a top speed of approximately 9 miles per hour. The sales material you enclosed show that the TWIP's steering mechanism and driver's seat are attached to elongated bars that fold down apparently to make the scooter more portable. This configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

I wish to clarify this agency's authority to provide "federal approval and certification." As noted above, under the Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, even if the TWIP had been found to be a motor vehicle, the agency would not have approved or certified it. Rather, you, as its manufacturer, would be responsible for certification.

Because your vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," under the Safety Act, none of this agency's standards or regulations applies to it. You may wish to contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply. Their address is:

Office of Chief Counsel 5401 Westbard Avenue Bethesda, MD 20207 Telephone: (301) 504-0980

You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at:

4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 522-4200

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:10/5/93

ID: 8975-2

Mr. Maine E. Peace, Jr.
Supervising Revenue Officer
State of Washington
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 1176
Bellingham, WA 98327

Dear Mr. Peace:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591#VSA d.2/3/94

ID: 8978

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, Va. 223l4

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We are replying to your letter of August 9, 1993, with respect to your views on the enforceability of a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code.

This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a "semitrailer" whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with "two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable." In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police you stated your assumption that the "two clearance lamps" are the "intermediate side marker lamps" specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps "then it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ." In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations.

Michigan replied on May 16, 1989, that NHTSA had not notified it that "the requirement of an additional 'clearance lamp' as near as to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by section 103(d)", and that "the lamp is not a marker lamp as mentioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations." You indicate that this is a reference to our letter of December 10, 1974, to the California Highway Patrol. You ask for our concurrence in your conclusion that Michigan is preempted from enforcing its requirements.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective devices, and Associated Equipment. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to

the front and to the rear as practicable, and with "intermediate side marker lamps", amber in color, "located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps." All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State "shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard" (emphasis added). In our opinion, the "aspect of performance" covered by Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same "aspect of performance" that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Because Standard No. 108 requires trailers more than 50 feet in length to be equipped with intermediate side lamps located not less than l5 inches above the pavement, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps on the same approximate vertical plane but as near the top of the trailer as practicable is preempted by Table II of Standard No. 108. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a "clearance" lamp rather than a "marker" lamp does not affect this conclusion (in fact, we regard all non-signal lamps other than headlamps as "marker" lamps, including the "clearance" lamps Table II requires on the front and rear of wide trailers). The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones.

The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent

that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Standard No. 108 those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel /BODY>

ID: 8992

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, "requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted." It is clear from your letter that it is the lateral spacing of clearance lamps that concerns you as you believe that it is not uncommon to see them mounted as much as 6 to 8 inches "'inside' the side extremities of huge vehicles."

With respect to lateral spacing, Table II of Standard No. 108 requires clearance lamps to be mounted "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . ." The standard does not require the lamps to be mounted at the widest point of the vehicle, nor does it require them to be mounted as far apart as practicable. We believe that manufacturers generally try to mount clearance lamps to "indicate" the overall width of the vehicle, but we recognize that there may be certain circumstances and/or configurations that require mounting of the lamps at something less than the widest point.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/16/93