ID: nht94-1.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 12/6/93 from Tilman Spingler to Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of December 6, 1993, titled "Petition for an 'Exemption for Inconsequential Noncompliance'" with paragraph S7.8.5.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have also received your FAX of January 14, 1994, in which you seek to withdraw your petition because "we did not realize that it is allowed to use scales without any identification of the markings."

While it is true that the graduations need not be marked, a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 will exist if the spacing of the graduations is not in accordance with Standard No. 108. In your December FAX petitioning for an inconsequentiality determina tion, you have asked for "permission to use scales with graduations of 0.2/0.4 degree." This indicates that a noncompliance exists, as Standard No. 108 specifies that graduation spacing be not greater than 0.19/0.38 degree. As we explain later in this letter, Bosch is not the proper person to file an inconsequentiality petition. However, Bosch may submit a petition for rulemaking to change paragraph S7.8.5.2.

The regulatory requirements to which you refer occur at S7.8.5.2(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i). The graduation increment specified is based on the need to provide an increment consistent with the laws of the States pertaining to correct aim. The increment cor responds to 1 inch at 25 feet; State aiming laws typically specify aim measurements in whole inches at 25 feet. These paragraphs relate to requirements that must be met by a component of those headlamp systems that are capable of being aimed by equipmen t installed on a vehicle. This component is called a "Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device", or "VHAD." Section S3 defines a VHAD in pertinent part as "motor vehicle equipment permanently installed on a motor vehicle by the manufacturer of the vehicle...." Because the VHAD is installed by the vehicle manufacturer, we regard the vehicle manufacturer as responsible for correction of any noncompliance in the VHAD even if the VHAD were manufactured by another person such as Bosch.

If Bosch has manufactured a VHAD whose specifications do not comply with those of S7.8.5.2, Bosch should notify any vehicle manufacturer to whom it has sold the VHAD so that that manufacturer may have information upon which to make a formal determination of noncompliance and to notify this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 573. If the vehicle manufacturer wishes to petition the agency for a determination that the noncompliance of the VHAD is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, th e agency will proceed to consider the petition after the manufacturer has notified the agency pursuant to Part 573. Because Bosch is under no legal obligation to correct a noncompliance caused by the VHAD that the manufacturer has installed on the vehic le, Bosch is not the proper party to file such a

petition.

The only effect of granting an inconsequentiality petition is that the vehicle manufacturer is excused from its obligation to notify purchasers and to remedy the noncompliance. The granting of the petition does not effect an amendment of the standard. Thus, the grant does not entitle the petitioner to continue to install a VHAD that does not meet S7.8.5.2(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht94-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Christopher A. Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Doug Bereuter -- U.S. House Of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/10/94 From Christopher A. Hart To Doug Bereuter (A42; Std. 303) And Letter Dated 4/20/94 From Doug Bereuter To Christopher Hart (OCC-9916)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bereuter:

Thank you for your letter concerning a rulemaking related to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle fuel systems and fuel containers. You express concern about the time it is taking to complete the rulemaking.

I fully understand your concern over this matter and want to assure you that the agency is working diligently to reach a final decision. The supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking we issued in December 1993 was an essential step toward permitting th e use of CNG containers that employ new technologies. We have now reviewed the comments received on this notice and are preparing the final rule. As agency representatives explained when they met with you in December 1993, the final rule will be reviewe d by the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget.

I hope this information is helpful and appreciate your patience in this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-1.30

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timothy McQuiston -- Vice-President Sales, California Dream

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/29/93 from Timothy McQuiston to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9176)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company provides an aftermarket spoiler which incorporates a center stop lamp "that complies with SAE standards." You have asked us for a statement that you co uld provide your dealers that "would affirm that when the dealer installs a spoiler containing a high mount third brakelight meeting/exceeding SAE standards, they are, in fact providing an equivalent light source, thereby allowing them (dealers) to remai n in compliance with federal regulations." You have also enclosed a November 1992 report from ETL Testing Laboratories rendered to Leegold Enterprises Co., Ltd. covering the lamp that we assume to be the one you are offering in your spoiler.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), in the fact situation you present, the dealer has the following obligations with respect to new and used vehicles. It is obliged to deliver a new vehicle to the buyer with a center highmounted stop lamp that is in full compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and if it does not, it may be in violation of section 108(a)(10(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). With respect to a vehicle in use, unde r section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, it may not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, the original center highmounted stop lamp unless it provides a conforming equivalent (agency interpretation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Therefore, as a general principle, we affirm your understanding that a dealer may knowingly render an original equipment center highmounted stoplamp inoperative on a vehicle in use, or cause it on a new vehicle to become noncompliant with the requirement s of Standard No. 108 if the dealer provides a substitute lamp that meets Standard No. 108's requirements. The test report you provided indicates that the Model LG 03-60B lamp that was tested meets requirements specified in Standard No. 108 and SAE Reco mmended Practice J186a, and that that particular lamp is an equivalent in performance to an original equipment light source.

Having said that, however, we feel that further comments are in order. The first comment is to clarify a misunderstanding reflected in your letter. The lamp must comply with Standard No. 108, and not with SAE specifications as you have stated. Although Table III of Standard No. 108 does incorporate by reference SAE Recommended Practice J186a, "Supplemental High Mounted Stop and Rear Turn Signal Lamps," September 1977, certain provisions of J186a, such as photometrics, do not apply because they have be en modified by the text of Standard No. 108 itself. We are pleased to note that the summary of the test report appears to recognize this distinction.

Our second comment is that, in addition to the assurances that you as the spoiler manufacturer provide the dealer, both you and the dealer are afforded a degree of protection from violations of the Act if Leegold's lamp, in fact, fails to meet Standard N o. 108. This is true whether the dealer installs the spoiler either as original equipment or as aftermarket equipment.

With respect to original equipment (i.e., installed before delivery of the vehicle to its first purchaser), Leegold, as the manufacturer of the lamp, is required by section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) to certify to its dealers and distributors that t he lamp complies with Standard No. 108 (which may be signified by the symbol "DOT: on the lamp). If the lamp is later discovered to be noncompliant, those who have sold the lamp and any new vehicle on which it has been installed are in technical violati on of the Act, but are protected by section 108(b)(1) of the Act from civil penalties, unless they have actual knowledge that the lamp does not meet Standard No. 108 (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

With respect to a nonconforming lamp installed after the vehicle's first sale, the original lamp may have been disconnected or partially blocked by the aftermarket lamp, resulting in either case in a "rendering inoperative" of required equipment within t he meaning of the prohibition. However, we would not view this as a "knowingly" rendering inoperative because the dealer's intent is to install a conforming lamp, as indicated by the lamp's certification.

One final comment, one directed more to Leegold than to you or your dealers. As a result of our experience over the years, we have come to realize the value of surveillance testing of production lamps to assure that the lamps continue to comply with Fed eral requirements. Periodic testing may be regarded as evidence of the manufacturer's exercise of due care in the event of noncompliances. If the November 1992 ETL test is of a prototype lamp, Leegold may wish to have new tests conducted on production lamps. Even if that test were of production lamps, sufficient time has elapsed, in our view, for Leegold to conduct a new test, to ensure that design tolerances have been maintained in production and that the lamp continues to conform to Standard No. 10 8.

ID: nht94-1.31

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ramin Bogzaran -- General Manager, Remedquip International Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/1/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to John Womack; Also attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Amar Chhabra to whom it may concern; Also attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 1, 1993, in which you asked whether two trailers on which are mounted specialized equipment would be classified as motor vehicles. We are sorry we were unable to respond by your requested date of December 14, 199 3.

You stated that the trailers in question were manufactured in Greenville, TN in 1991 and Shipped to a company in Canada which is no longer in business. A transportable soil remediation plant was mounted on the trailers, but they have not been used or mo ved since their delivery. You stated that you now expect to import the trailers with their mounted equipment into the U.S. for use as a transportable soil remediation plant. You stated that the trailers will not be registered and will be moved only wit h permits because the anticipated projects for the equipment are long term and "the trailers will hardly see the road in their lifetime." You stated that the trailers will be inspected before they are moved to assure their safety, and that you will assu re the safety of the equipment on the road while transporting it from Vancouver, Canada to your shop in San Diego, CA. You enclosed with your letter a certificate of origin, pictures of the trailers with the equipment mounted thereon, a letter from the company that originally purchased the trailers, and a letter from the manufacturer of the trailers.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S. Code S1381 to S1431, as amended (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles or new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. The term "motor vehicle" is defined in the Safety Act 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.

NHTSA has interpreted that language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or that are otherwise incapable of highway travel are clearly not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport ru nway vehicles and underground mining devices, are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicl es and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles, nor is equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spends

extended periods of time at a single job site. Those vehicles or equipment are not considered motor vehicles because their intended use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary off-road use.

Based on your representations that your trailers will be utilized on long-term off-road projects, they would not be classified as motor vehicles. Therefore, they would not be subject to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards nor the import requ irements of 49 CFR 591.5. That determination, however, does not mean that the trailers would necessarily be exempt from state motor vehicle requirements, especially the states through which you intend to transport the equipment from Vancouver to San Die go. For information on state laws in that regard, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22204, (703) 522-4200.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 27, 1994

FROM: Harleigh Ewell -- Regulatory Affairs Division, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TO: David Elias, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/16/94 from John Womack to Harleigh Ewell (A42; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: As we discussed today, enclosed is a copy of our earlier inquiry.

August 23, 1993

David Elias, Esq.

Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Elias:

In reference to our telephone conversation on August 19, I have attached a letter from Mr. S. M. Rosen, who had a gasoline nozzle separate from its hose while he was filling his motor home at a gas station. I would appreciate your office's interpreta tion of whether the nozzle/hose is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and thus not a consumer product subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. @ 2052(a)(1)(C).

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I can be reached at (301) 504-0980 if you need further information.

Harleigh Ewell

Attorney

Regulatory Affairs Division

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Attachment

July 24, 1993

Chairman Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 18th St. Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman,

Several weeks ago my wife and I were returning home from a 9,000 mile cross-country trip in our motor home when we drove into a gas station for a fill-up. As the gas was flowing into my tank, the hose separated from the nozzle in my vehicle. I found my self holding a hose gushing gasoline freely. A fire erupted and our motor home was destroyed. We were lucky to escape with our lives.

Could you please inform me if your office ever received any compliants nationwide of gasoline hoses separating from nozzles? Could you also inform me if the federal government inspects the nation's service stations on any regular basis, and if so, what i tems are inspected to insure safety for motorists using the station?

Does the federal government have any code books which apply to the nation's service stations regarding safety and cleanliness, etc.?

Your assistance in the matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

S.M. Rosen

ID: nht94-1.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 28, 1994

FROM: Steve Williams -- Director, Public Transportation, Mississippi Department of Education

TO: Terry L. Voy -- Consultant, Bureau of School Administration and Accreditation, Iowa Department of Education

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/31/94 from John Womack to Mike Parker (A42; Std. 222; Part 571.3), letter dated 4/18/94 from Mike Parker to Christopher Hart, and letter dated 1/31/94 from Steve Williams to William Moss

TEXT:

A school district in our state has expressed interest in installing four VCR's and TV monitors on a school bus. The equipment would be used to show films relating to drug education and would target long school bus routes. A school district in Arizona h as implemented such a program on one bus and serves as a model for the interest expressed by the district in Mississippi.

The school district proposes to mount the equipment in a school bus equipped with luggage racks. Two units would be mounted in the front of the luggage racks on each side and two in the middle on each side. This provides for maximum visibility of the TV monitor.

We all applaud these efforts to provide an educational opportunity for students that must ride lengthy and time consuming bus routes. However, to my knowledge, there has been no official test conducted to certify the wiring, mounting, and installation o f such equipment. This certainly raises various safety and liability concerns. However, it does not appear to be in conflict with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, head impact zone.

The 1990 National Standards for School Buses and Operations (NSSBO) appear to most appropriately address this matter. Bus Body Standards - Interior (1), page 16, states in part:

Interior of bus shall be free of all unnecessary projections, which include luggage racks and attendant hand rails, likely to cause injury.

Based on the concerns expressed above, I am requesting an interpretation and/or opinion from the Interpretation Committee on the following questions:

1. Would the installation of VCR's and TV monitors in luggage racks on a school bus be prohibited based on the language of the 1990 NSSBO - Bus Body Standards - Interior (1), page 16.

2. Would the installation of VCR's and TV monitors in luggage racks on a school bus be prohibited based on any other standard included in the 1990 NSSBO.

3. In the committee's opinion, does installation of VCR's and TV

monitors on school buses as described above, violate any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Although Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulate the manufacture and sale of school buses, it is the intent of national and state specifications that users (school districts) not modify or install any component contrary to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I appreciate your assistance and timely consideration of this matter. If you have any question, let me know.

ID: nht94-1.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 31, 1994

FROM: Marc D. Marutani -- National Truck Sales Manager, ARI

TO: Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Marc D. Marutani (A42; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

As a major national fleet leasing company, ARI has a broad cross section of clients in various industries. Recently, an inquiry was received concerning the use of a Ford Econoline Wagon, and whether or not the specific usage fell within the FMVSS defini tion of a "school bus."

The vehicle in question would be a standard, factory-equipped fifteen passenger full-size van (commonly referred to as a "wagon" due to its primary function as passenger transport), with no after-market modifications. The client requesting the vehicle i s a mental health and substance abuse facility handling adolescents on a full-time on-site basis. There is a school located on the premises, since the children reside at the location. The vehicle's purpose would primarily be used for miscellaneous tran sportation of juvenile patients and facility personnel, both on and off campus, as opposed to providing commuting services to and from home.

Because we interpret the FMVSS regulations regarding school buses as applying to those vehicles whose PRIMARY function is for the transporting of students to and from school and related scholastic events, we do not believe that the use of this wagon fall s within that definition. However, we would appreciate your ruling on the matter for verification, and for future reference on similar transactions. If further discussion on this subject is required, I can be reached at 609-727-6995.

Thank you for your consideration.

ID: nht94-1.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 31, 1994

FROM: Steve Williams -- Director, Public Transportation, Mississippi Department of Education

TO: William Moss -- Superintendent, Jones County School District

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/31/94 from John Womack to Mike Parker (A42; Std. 222; Part 571.3), letter dated 4/18/94 from Mike Parker to Christopher Hart, and letter dated 1/28/94 from Steve Williams to Terry L. Voy

TEXT:

On January 24, 1994, Jon Harper and I met with James Green, Transportation Director, and George Dukes, Chapter I Coordinator from your district, to discuss the installation of VCR's and TV monitors on school buses. Pursuant to our visit, I have contacte d school bus engineers which advise against such installation due to liability concerns. In addition, I am requesting an interpretation and opinion from the National Standards for School Buses and Operations Interpretation Committee to determine if the national school bus standards prohibit such installation (copy attached). The interpretation will clarify this matter because Mississippi bus standards are modeled after and based upon the national standards. My discussion with a representative from tha t committee indicated that without official testing and standardization procedures, such installation would probably not be advisable.

Until such time that we can receive the opinion based on the National Standards for School Buses and Operations, we cannot support and would advise against installation of VCR's and TV monitors. It is my understanding that a school district in Arizona h as installed such equipment. Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon our office to ensure that there is no violation of safety standards regarding the school buses that transport students to and from school or related activities.

We will advise you of the Interpretation Committee's opinion as we receive it. If you have any questions, please let me know.

ID: nht94-1.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 1, 1994

FROM: R. Mark Willingham -- Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C.

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to R. Mark Willingham (A42; Part 575)

TEXT:

This correspondence is in reference to 49 CFR 575.105 and the interpretations of same. After phone conversations with Ken Weinstein and Walter Meyers of NHTSA, I have been advised to make a formal request of specific questions and/or interpretations of 49 CFR 575.105, to your attention, for NHTSA's formal opinions.

Please forward to my attention copies of any discussions, preambles, and/or supplements concerning the drafting and interpretations of 49 CFR 575.105. Additionally, please forward to my attention the following:

1) The definition and/or meaning of "permanent" as described in 49 CFR 575.105. 2) To whom is 49 CFR 575.105 directed (ie. Manufacturer, Distributor, Dealership), and whether it is extended to a seller of a used vehicle. I appreciate your cooperation and attention to this query. If any additional information is needed on my part, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above listed telephone number or 1-800-374-8574.

ID: nht94-1.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1994

FROM: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Marv Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/5/94 from John Womack to Scott Slaughter (A42; VSA 102)

TEXT:

Pitts Trailers, Inc. is a trailer manufacturer that specializes in trailers for the logging industry. One particular model we manufacture is called a knuckle boom loader trailer. I have enclosed copies of brochures as well as some advertisements, so th at you might better understand the use of this model. This trailer stays in the woods (off the highway) the majority of its lifetime. The knuckle boom operation must be moved from time to time to different site locations, at which times it will be on hig hways and may cross state lines. The gross vehicle weight of this trailer is 24,000 lbs.

I am writing this letter to request an official interpretation to determine if my trailer (the knuckle boom model only) is subject to the safety standards (FMVSS Standards) with particular attention to include such questions as conspicuity, auto slacks, brakes on all wheels and marker lights. We are particularly interested in your opinion as to whether brakes are required on all wheels. Also, please advise us if our trailers are defined as motor vehicles or are they merely mobile equipment which see v ery limited highway use, solely for the purpose of moving to a new job site.

I hope I have provided you with sufficient information for an official interpretation. If not, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for any light you can shed on this matter.

(Brochure omitted.)