ID: nht91-7.36

DATE: December 9, 1991

FROM: Michael A. Martin -- Program Manager, Bureau of Highway Safety, State House Station 42, Augusta, Maine

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael A. Martin (A39; VSA 103(d); Std. 108; Std. 222); Also attached to letter from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

In follow-up to our telephone conversation of November 20 concerning federal school bus safety standards and a state's ability to make improvements beyond those standards would you please provide a written response to the following.

First, what is the general rule to which states need to comply with regarding federal school bus safety standards? What bus safety modifications would not be restricted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)?

Would federal school bus safety standards restrict a state from requiring safety belts on school buses?

Could a school bus fleet modify the rear lighting configuration on their buses (8 light system) to reduce the potential for other vehicles rear-ending buses during poor visibility conditions e.g., fog? Please refer to the attached diagram. The proposed change is to replace the white 8 inch back-up lights with 8 inch red sealed beam warning lights similar to the two at the upper level of the rear end of the bus. These would flash in an alternating criss-cross fashion when the bus is stopped loading or discharging students. The small white lights at the lowest level of the rear end of the bus would each be replaced with white, universal backup lights angled to also direct their beams at 45 degree angles out from the rear of the bus. This would greatly improve the driver's ability to see when backing the bus in a direction both behind and to the side of the bus.

I would appreciate your interpretation of what safety modifications a state may propose that would definitely be preempted by federal school bus safety standards.

Thank you for your assistance.

Attachments

Drawing entitled Rear End of School Bus, Current System. Drawing entitled Rear End of School Bus, Proposed System. (Drawings omitted)

ID: nht91-7.37

DATE: December 9, 1991

FROM: Hanno Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.; Olaf Schmidt -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TO: Richard L. van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: Definition of 2 or 4 Headlamp System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Herrn. Westermann u. Schmidt (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Since the great revision of FMVSS No. 108 by Docket 85-15, Notice 12 of February 8, 1990, we are missing a paragraph clarifying the definition of a 2 or 4 headlamp system respectively.

In the former version of 108, this definition was done under para. S4.1.1.36, but today there only remains figure 26, which explains the application of photometric requirements with respect to the bulb or bulb combination used.

We assume that no changes to the sense of 108 have been made for this matter so that our remarks could be added to FMVSS 108 by short term to avoid the current discrepancies between headlamp manufacturers and the test laboratories.

Attached you will find a sketch representing our understanding of the definition of a 2 or 4 lamp system, deriving from the former 108.

Many thanks for your endeavours in this and

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Attachment

Drawings of Replaceable Bulb Headlamp Systems. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-7.38

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Signature by Kenneth A. Weinstein)

TO: James E. Scapellato -- Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA

TITLE: Re Standard No. 108 (Heavy duty trailers) Lamps and Reflectors

TEXT:

This responds to your memorandum of November 20, 1991, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits a trailer manufacturer "to equip a heavy-duty flatbed trailer with amber tail lamps in combination with its rear turn signal lamps." Such a combination lamp would be adjacent to combination red stop and taillamps.

Standard No. 108 does not directly answer this question. Table II of the standard requires the trailer to be equipped with a pair of red taillamps. Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Thus, the question is whether the installation of amber taillamps would impair the effectiveness of the trailer's amber turn signal lamps, red stop lamps, and red taillamps. Although the determination of impairment is initially that of the vehicle's manufacturer in certifying compliance of the vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA may review that determination, and, if clearly erroneous, inform the manufacturer of its views.

In this instance, NHTSA believes there is a substantial possibility of impairment of the effectiveness of other rear lamps. When combined with an amber turn signal lamp, the intensity of an amber taillamp might mask the turn signal in operation. Because motorists are not used to seeing steady burning amber lamps on the rear of vehicles, amber taillamps could lead to momentary confusion of a driver following the trailer when the stop lamps are activated, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the stop signal. The presence of simultaneously burning amber and red taillamps could also create some confusion of a following driver approaching the trailer from around a corner to its rear. Thus, we have concluded that a combination amber turn signal and taillamp is implicitly prohibited by Standard No. 108.

ID: nht91-7.39

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by K. Weinstein)

TO: Frank Vestergaard -- M-CO Denmark

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-16-91 from Frank Vestergaard to NHTSA (OCC 6641)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding legal requirements with which your company must comply before selling your item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Warn-Mill," that warns of the presence of halted vehicles. As explained below, your device must conform with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR S571.125), if it is to be imported into the United States.

In your letter, you stated that the "Warn-Mill" is intended to warn of the presence of halted vehicles, and is intended as a supplement to the "statutory warning triangle." Although no size dimensions were provided, you provided a description of the "Warn-Mill" as a "strong reflecting white triangle, surrounded by red frame, mounted at a magnet foot to be placed at the roof of a halted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. S3 of Standard No. 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle."

It appears that the "Warn-Mill" would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 125. The "Warn-Mill" has no self-contained energy source and is designed to be carried in motor vehicles. You state that it is to be used to warn of the presence of a stopped vehicle. The "Warn-Mill" is not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle because your letter states that it is designed to fall off the vehicle if the vehicle is driven with the "Warn-Mill" still attached.

I note from your letter that your company intends the "Warn-Mill" as a supplement to the "statutory warning triangle." This agency does not recognize such supplements. Since the "Warn Mill" fulfills the applicability criteria of Standard No. 125, it is a "warning device," within the meaning of the standard, and it must comply with all applicable requirements of that standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the "Warn-Mill" must conform include minimum size, durability,

material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. Based upon the information provided in your letter, it does not appear that the "Warn Mill" complies with the stability requirements in S5.6, because the stability testing is done by placing the warning device on a horizontal brushed concrete surface.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with all applicable standards and are covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act. Unlike jurisdictions in which the vehicles and items of equipment to be offered for sale must be delivered to a governmental entity for testing and approval before they can be sold, the Safety Act gives this agency no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any commercial product.

Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Please also note that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers and remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of our regulations. One is 49 CFR S551.45, Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers, which requires manufacturers and importers of motor vehicle equipment, before offering such items for importation into the United States, to designate an agent in the United States upon whom service of all legal notices may be made. The other is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, which requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to submit to this agency identifying information and a description of the items of motor vehicle equipment produced. I am, for your information, enclosing copies of both of these regulatory provisions.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to write to me.

Attachments

Copy of 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-90 Edition) pertaining to Sections:

571.125: Standard No. 125: Warning devices and Accelerator control systems; 551.45: Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers; 552: Petitions for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders; 566: Manufacturer identification; and 567: Certification

Copy of the NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

Copy of the NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Requlations

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht91-7.4

DATE: November 11, 1991

FROM: Wallace F. Forbes -- Planar Support Systems, Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-30-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Wallace F. Forbes (A38; VSA 102(4); VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Our company is in the process of designing a portable back support product which people would be likely to use in their automobiles as well as in other environments.

In view of its possible use in automobiles, we would like to be advised of any safety standards, guidelines or requirements that may pertain to such a product or the materials used in its construction. This back support system will include a headrest as an optional feature.

Thank you for your advice.

ID: nht91-7.40

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein

TO: James Watson

COPYEE: Area Director of Customs, New York Seaport; Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service Headquarters

TITLE: Re United States Customs Service File No. 866522R

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-10-91 from James M. Watson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6569)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for my opinion of whether a particular vehicle, an e-tant manufactured in Thailand by P.S.N, that you wish import into the United States for your own use as a "farm vehicle," would be considered a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). According to materials you submitted, the e-tant has the appearance of a small flat bed truck. However, since it has a small 11.5 horsepower engine, you believe its top speed would be under 20 mph. You believe that the e-tant should be classified as a "farm vehicle," explaining that you disagree with the U.S. Customs Service classification (NY ruling 866522 dated September 11, 1991) of the e-tant as a motor vehicle. You further explained that the e-tant is generally used as a farm vehicle in Thailand. Based on the information provided in your letter, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any 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 this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold SOLELY for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles AND a maximum speed of 20 mph or less.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under any of these groupings. In such circumstances, we are sometimes able to evaluate factors related to how manufacturers/dealers will advertise, market, and service a particular vehicle in the United States. However, these factors are not relevant where a person is importing a single vehicle for his or her own use. I also note that an individual owner's planned use for a vehicle being imported is not determinative of whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle.

We believe that the relevant factors concerning whether the e-tant is considered a motor vehicle are as follows. First, the e-tant has a body configuration similar to a standard truck. Moreover, in the country where it is manufactured for sale, your letter indicates that the vehicle is used on rural highways to carry crops to market in nearby towns and for visiting friends. In addition, since the e-tant closely resembles a standard small truck, it is likely that states would register it for use on the public highways. The only factor you have identified which suggests that the e-tant should not be considered a motor vehicle is its slow speed, which you believe would be under 20 mph. However, NHTSA does not consider slow speed to be a sufficient factor by itself to take a vehicle which otherwise would be considered a motor vehicle outside of that category. Therefore, after considering all of these factors, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be considered a motor vehicle.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address.

ID: nht91-7.41

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein

TO: Don Weidman -- Manager, Special Projects, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-25-91 from Don Weidman to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6709)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 25, 1991, with respect to the applicability of some new requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to "agricultural vehicles and implements when they are traveling on the highways." Specifically you ask whether the requirements of Standard No. 108 or SAE J137 must be complied with when agricultural equipment is in use.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to motor vehicles, which are defined, in pertinent part, by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Because the primary use for agricultural vehicles such as farm tractors, combines, and the like is off the public roads, and their use of the public roads is incidental to their intended use, NHTSA does not consider agricultural vehicles to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Act. This means that they do not have to conform to Standard No. 108, or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Regulations governing the use of the public roads are issued and enforced by the individual States. We have no knowledge whether any State requires the lighting on agricultural equipment to conform to SAE J137, or to Standard No. 108. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to answer this question for you.

ID: nht91-7.42

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Sandra Mesh-Witucki -- McGraw, Borchard & Martin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-1-91 from Sandra Mesh-Witucki to Mary Versailles (OCC 6641)

TEXT:

This responds to your November 1, 1991 letter in which you asked for "a certified copy of all rules/standards applicable to (a 1987 Chevrolet Cargo Van Conversion) both before and after conversion, and any other information you feel may be of assistance." Your letter mentioned that you are interested in this information for pending litigation concerning an accident in which this vehicle was involved in which, "(a)llegedly, a rear seat passenger suffered a spinal fracture from the lap belt." In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff on November 26, 1991, you verified that you are specifically interested in regulations concerning the type of safety belts this vehicle was required to have. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). S4.2.1 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 1, 1976 and before September 1, 1991. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and EITHER meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems OR have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts.

Standard No. 208 and all the rest of NHTSA's safety standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. This and all other volumes of the CFR may be purchased by contacting:

Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Phone: (202) 783-3238

Because the CFR is published by the Government Printing Office, that office is the only source for certified copies of the regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-7.43

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Terry Semprini -- Executive Director, Cycle Country Accessories Corp.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice (Stephen P. Wood) to Terry Semprini (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

CYCLE COUNTRY ACCESSORIES CORPORATION is working on a new safety light that works in conjunction with the tail lights found on the back of Tractor-Trailers, and Straight Trucks. The light is in a diamond shape 15 1/2" x 15 1/2". The light is positioned at the top of the back doors. As you turn the turn signal right there will be a yellow arrow in the light that will point right. Turn the signal on left and a yellow arrow points left. Put your brake light on and 4 red lights come on. Put your emergency flasher on and the 4 red lights will light up and flash. I have enclosed pictures for your viewing.

We are wanting to know if this type of light is legal to run in all of the United States?

Please contact me with your ruling.

If you have any questions please contact me at 1-800-841-2222.

Looking forward to your response.

ID: nht91-7.44

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: ACTION: General Motors Modified Antitheft Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert Rogers to Barry Felrice; Also attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert A. Rogers (A39; Part 543)

TEXT:

On November 18, 1991, General Motors Corporation (GM) submitted a letter informing NHTSA of a change in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system that was installed on the My 1992 Pontiac Bonneville. (GM discovered, through a review, that the information of the second generation "PASS-KEY" had not been forwarded to the agency.) Since the initial petition for the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville, but before the start of production, of the MY 1992 Bonneville, a design change had been made to include GM's second generation "PASS-KEY II" theft deterrent system, as standard equipment on this car line and not the original "PASS-KEY" system as described in the petition. GM had previously been granted a partial exemption on the original "PASS-KEY" system for the MY 1992 Bonneville.

Rulemaking has reviewed the changes to the system, and finds that the differences between the "PASS-KEY II" and the original "PASS-KEY," as described below, would qualify for de minimis treatment.

GM has changed the system in which the shut down period of the system would be for three minutes plus or minus 18 seconds, instead of the previous 2 to 4 minutes. GM believes that this is more precise than the prior system. The other change in the system is that the "PASS-KEY II" timer does not reset back to zero if further resistance comparisons are attempted while the decoder module is shut down. GM states that this functional difference will still provide a similar level of theft deterrent performance since the decoder module while in the shut down mode, will ignore any further attempts to start the vehicle by means of a key with an improper pellet resistance during that time, and continuous attempts will result in the module remaining inoperative until the proper key is used.

As stated above, Rulemaking does not believe that these changes are significant enough to warrant submission of a full modification petition by GM and, therefore, would qualify for de minimis treatment. Accordingly, Rulemaking requests a letter granting the change to the antitheft system be forwarded to GM, pursuant to Part 543.9 (j).

Attachment

USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert A. Rogers to Barry Felrice. (Text omitted)