ID: nht93-3.1

DATE: April 14, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Steve Thomas -- General Manager, Texas Bragg Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-16-93 from Steve Thomas to Walter Meyers (OCC 8404)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 16, 1993, addressed to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter that several of your dealers want to buy trailers from you without tires and wheels. You expressed doubt that those dealers have that many customers desiring to mount their own tires and wheels, and asked whether you can legally sell trailers to your dealers without tires and wheels and if so, whether you need them to sign a waiver or form to that effect.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. TIRE SELECTION AND RUINS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES OTBOR THAN PASSENGER CARS (copy enclosed), provides that each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway use must be equipped with tires that, in the case of trailers, meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES FOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS (copy enclosed). Rims mounted on new trailers must meet the requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120.

There is, however, no specific requirement in Standard 120 that vehicles be equipped with tires and wheels. In fact, this agency's definition of a "completed vehicle" envisions the situation where a vehicle is sold without tires and wheels. That definition is set forth at 49 CFR Part 568.3, which defines a "completed vehicle" as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors OR TIRE AND RIM ASSEMBLIES, or minor finishing operations such as painting" (emphasis added).

The trailer dealers to whom you ship your trailers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S. Code SS 1381 - 1431 (Safety Act) to sell vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard 120. Therefore, if they sell the trailers with tires and wheels installed, those tires and wheels must meet the requirements for tires and wheels set forth in Standard 120.

In the event a new trailer sold by one of your dealers has tires and wheels that do not meet the applicable requirements of Standard 120, from a compliance standpoint it would be important to determine who equipped that vehicle with the noncomplying tires and wheels. Therefore, although not required by this agency, you might consider obtaining written statements or acknowledgements from the dealers concerned that you provided the trailers without tires and wheels, and retain those documents for your records. You might also consider consulting your attorney regarding any potential liability on your part for the actions of your dealers. Finally, we recommend that you inform any dealer whom you know to be considering installing noncomplying tires and wheels on your trailers to contact this agency for information about their responsibility under the Safety Act to sell trailers that meet the requirements of Standard

120.

I hope this information will clarify this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Attachments: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 119 and 120 (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-3.10

DATE: April 21, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Jeffery A. Kester -- Product Development, Green Wheels Electric Car Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-18-93 from Jeffery A. Kester to John Womack (OCC 8439)

TEXT: We have received your letter of March 18, 1993, with respect to electric vehicle conversions and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

As we understand it, Green Wheels intends to convert 1975-84 Volkswagen Rabbits to electric power. Because the FMVSS directly apply only to the manufacture of new vehicles you understand that you are "not bound to comply with the FMVSS and have no reason to petition from exemption from any standards in the FMVSS."

You have concluded that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) applies in this instance, but are worried by the fact that the conversion operations will render inoperative "'devices or elements of design' on a permanent basis," as "(t)he vehicle will obviously be used during the time such devices or elements of design no longer exist." You believe that any devices or elements of design rendered inoperative by conversion operations should be disregarded if it will not compromise safety when the vehicle is in operation. For example, because a flammable fuel system no longer exists after conversion to electric power, you should not be regarded as having rendered the system inoperable.

On this basis, you have asked for a confirmation of the "viability" of your interpretation, which you may provide to prospective customers. You have also asked for recommendations for any further action with reference to compliance with section 108(a)(2)(A), information on petitioning for exemption under section 108(a)(2)(B), and information concerning the establishment of standards for used motor vehicles under section 108(b)(1).

We are pleased to provide you with our views on this matter. We do not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system components installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 during the conversion to electric propulsion, as long as the converter ensures that its modifications do not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design" required for compliance with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

By way of background, it is important to understand the scheme established by the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) with respect to new and used vehicles. With respect to the issues you have raised, certain statutory provisions are relevant. These are discussed below and quoted in pertinent part:

SECTION 108(a)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)): "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce, or

import into the United States, any motor vehicle ... on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect ... unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification ...."

SECTION 108(b)(1): "Paragraph (1) (A) of subsection (a) shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle ... after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale."

Under section 108(b)(1), a "new" vehicle becomes a "used" one after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, and certain actions may occur without violation of the Vehicle Safety Act. Please compare section 108(b)(1) with section 108(a)(1)(A). When a vehicle is used, Section 108(b)(1) clearly allows, without penalty, its sale, offer for sale, introduction a delivery for introduction into interstate commerce even if it does not conform to the FMVSS. However, section 108(b)(1) does not include "manufacture for sale" and "import" in its used vehicle exclusions. With respect to the latter, the agency does require used imported vehicles to be brought into conformance with the FMVSS.

We assume that Congress deemed it impossible to "manufacture for sale" a vehicle "after its first purchase for purposes other than resale", and that is the reason why "manufacture for sale" is not included in the used vehicle exclusions of section 108(b)(1).

SECTION 108(b)(1) (CON'D): "It is the policy of Congress to encourage and strengthen the enforcement of State inspection of used motor vehicles. Therefore to that end the Secretary shall conduct a thorough study and investigation to determine the adequacy of motor vehicle safety standards and motor vehicle inspection requirements and procedures applicable to used motor vehicles ... the Secretary ... shall establish uniform Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to used motor vehicles."

You have asked whether the Secretary has exercised his authority to establish standards for used motor vehicles. The answer is yes, but the standards do not apply to the remanufacture, repair, or conversion of used vehicles; they only establish criteria to be followed by States, in their motor vehicle inspection programs. See 49 CFR Part 570 VEHICLE IN USE INSPECTION STANDARDS. No standards have been established governing repair or conversion of used vehicles, or "vehicles in use", the term the agency prefers.

Although Congress has not granted the agency authority to establish manufacturing standards for a motor vehicle after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, it did take a limited step intended to ensure that a vehicle remained in compliance with its original FMVSS throughout its life. This step is reflected in section 108(a)(2)(A):

SECTION 108(a)(2)(A): "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, unless such manufacturer or motor vehicle repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle ... will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element

of design is rendered inoperative."

The principal purpose of this prohibition is to inhibit the removal of safety equipment such as seat belts and head rests that might be initially unpopular with vehicle operators. However, this agency has interpreted the prohibition to apply to any modification of a used motor vehicle that is performed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that has the possible effect of creating a noncompliance.

However, we have not interpreted Section 108(a)(2)(A) as forbidding modifications that result in the inapplicability of one or more of the FMVSS with which a vehicle originally complied. For instance, under section 108(a)(2)(A) we have allowed the conversions of closed sedans to convertibles, as long as FMVSS requirements applicable to convertibles are met at the end of the conversion process. Similarly, to use your hypothetical, we would not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 in the process of conversion to electric propulsion because this standard would not apply to the propulsion source of a new electric vehicle. However, the converter does remain under the obligation to ensure that its modifications do not create a noncompliance. For example, the additional weight of batteries could render inoperative the ability of the converted vehicle to meet the standards with crash test demonstration procedures.

SECTION 108(a)(2)(B): "The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from this paragraph if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this Act. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term 'render inoperative.'"

Although under section 108(a)(2)(B) the agency may "by ... regulation" provide exemptions from section 108(a)(2)(A), we have never developed a procedure by which exemptions may be granted, nor have we adopted a regulation defining "render inoperative." No such regulations are under consideration.

I hope that this letter is responsive to your request.

ID: nht93-3.11

DATE: April 21, 1993

FROM: Steve Reeder -- President & General Manager; Trails West Manufacturing of Idaho Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-28-93 from John Womack to Steve Reeder (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: I am writing your office for clarification of national standards for motor vehicle lighting equipment. We are a manufacturer of livestock trailers, and in reviewing the regulations that apply to our industry, I am confused on a couple of issues.

First, would our products be considered to be over 80 inches wide inasmuch as the box itself is 78 inches, but when you add the fenders to the box, it then exceeds 80 inches. Safety Standard Part 571; S-108 refers to table 2, a copy of which is enclosed, wherein clearance lamps are required on the front and rear of the vehicle to indicate overall width if it is over 80" wide. At the point where clearance lamps would be installed, the vehicle is less than 80 inches in width, but as stated earlier, the overall width including fenders does exceed the 80 inches.

Also, in regards to side marker lamps, would table 2 apply wherein there is no height restrictions, or would table 4 apply (copy enclosed) which requires rear side marker lamps to fall between 15 inches and 60 inches. In regards to the length of a trailer for purposes of determining the need for intermediate side marker lamps is the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer which extends over the tow vehicle to be included in calculating overall length. Also, would front clearance lights be required where the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer extends over the tow vehicle.

The second issue I am concerned about relates to safety chains. Could you provide our company with current regulations for safety chains as they relate to the products we manufacture. It is my understanding that safety chains are not required where a 5th wheel hookup is used, but are required on products such as ours where the attachment point is typically inside the box of a pickup or light duty truck bed and the method of attachment is a ball and coupler.

It seems inconsistent that a recreational type vehicle such as a travel trailer which utilizes a 5th wheel connection on a pickup or a light duty truck would not require safety chains, but a stock trailer which we refer to as a gooseneck that utilizes a ball and coupler and attaches similarly in the bed of a pickup or light duty truck would require safety chains.

I am enclosing a brochure of our products for your information. If the clarification I am asking for is not clear, could you please call me at the office number of (208) 852-2200 at your convenience. We appreciate any help and insight you are able to provide.

Attachments:

- Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 -- Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, and Motorcycles (Docket No. 69-18) (S1.-S5.1.1.4)

- Table II -- Location of Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment

- Table IV -- Location of Required Equipment

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-3.12

DATE: April 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kirk Brown -- Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-15-93 from Kirk Brown to John Womack (OCC 8442)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 15, 1993, inquiring "whether modifying the throttle controls on a school bus so that a short person can operate it would jeopardize the manufacturer's certification that a bus is in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" (FMVSS's).

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.; Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 124, ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS (49 CFR Part 571.124). Standard No. 124 "establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control." The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements.

If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new bus prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would probably be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. As an alterer, that person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR S567.7.)

If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the "render inoperative" prohibition in S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). 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.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from modifying the throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition.

You ask whether NHTSA could grant a waiver to allow a school bus company to modify the throttle control on its vehicles. The Safety Act provides that

NHTSA may by regulation exempt a person from the "render inoperative" prohibition if the agency determines that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. Based on the information in your letter, we believe it would be unlikely that the agency would decide that an exemption is appropriate for any modification that would prevent the throttle from returning to idle. Such an exemption would increase the incidence of engine overspeed and the likelihood of possible crashes resulting from this condition. That the vehicle in question is a school bus makes the safety concerns even more compelling.

You should be aware that the "render inoperative" prohibition only applies to the commercial entities listed in S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

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.

ID: nht93-3.13

DATE: April 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Larry Bluthardt -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Kansas Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-19-93 from Larry Bluthardt to Patricia Breslin (OCC 8458)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 19, 1993, concerning the use of built-up foot operated throttle controls. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

1. IS THERE A VIOLATION OF THE FMCSR'S IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FMVSS CONCERNING THE MODIFICATION OF A SCHOOL BUS FOOT OPERATED THROTTLE CONTROL OR OTHER EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS THAT MAY RELATE TO THE PHYSICAL ACCOMMODATION OF A COMMERCIALLY LICENSED DRIVER TO PERFORM HIS OR HER DUTIES BEHIND THE WHEEL?

My answer is limited to a discussion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's), since NHTSA issued these under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.; Safety Act). The Federal motor carrier safety regulations (FMCSR's) are issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on the FMCSR's you should contact:

Office of Motor Carrier Standards Room 3404 Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-1790

The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 124, ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEM (49 CFR S571.124). Standard No. 124 "establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control." The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new, completed school bus) prior to the new vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR S567.7.) If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA

requirement that would affect the modification is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

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.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business listed in S108(a)(2)(A) from modifying the foot operated throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the foot operated throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition.

Please note that the render inoperative prohibition only applies to the named commercial entities. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

2. IF WE CAN MODIFY THE FOOT OPERATED THROTTLE CONTROL TO THE VEHICLE (SCHOOL BUS), DOES THE MODIFICATION REQUIRE SPECIFIC REGISTRATION, CERTIFICATION, OR INSPECTION PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION?

FOR EXAMPLE: CAN THE MODIFICATION BE MADE AND INSTALLED LOCALLY, OR SHOULD THE MODIFICATION BE PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BY A CERTIFIED COMMERCIAL VENDOR I.E., MANUFACTURER.

NHTSA does not limit who may modify vehicles,and does not approve modifications or motor vehicle designs. Thus, the person making the modification does not receive any NHTSA approval prior to making the modification. If the modification is made by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, S108(a)(2)(A) would be a factor in how the modification may be performed. As explained above, those persons must not render inoperative any device or design installed pursuant to an FMVSS.

State law might affect how a throttle control can be modified on a vehicle. We suggest you consult with your State as to whether its law might affect the registration or inspection of the modified vehicle.

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.

ID: nht93-3.14

DATE: April 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Dann T. Deaver -- President, Origins International Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from Dann T. Deaver to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8516); Also attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Matthew J. Plache; Also attached to letter dated 10-31-88 from Erika Z. Jones (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Hiroshi Kato; Also attached to letter dated 4-16-85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Alexander E. Nagy

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 30, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have asked for the Department's position on an electric vehicle to be developed by your company. You state that the vehicle "will be marketed as a closed community vehicle for retirement communities, closed club grounds, on site/off road/construction vehicles, theme parks, resorts, etc." It is also designed for use as a golf cart. The vehicle would have a top speed of 25 mph.

The jurisdiction of this agency over a vehicle depends upon whether it is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Under the Act, a motor vehicle is one that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways."

It appears from your letter that your planned vehicle could readily be used on the public highways. On the other hand, you plan to market the vehicle exclusively for off-road use. I have attached copies of two previous letters (December 3, 1991, addressed to Matthew J. Plache, Esq., and October 31, 1988, addressed to Mitsubishi) which address five factors that are relevant for determining whether such a vehicle is considered a motor vehicle. I have also enclosed a copy of an April 16, 1985 letter, addressed to Mr. Alexander E. Nagy, which discusses whether golf carts are considered motor vehicles.

If you wish to submit information relevant to the factors discussed in the enclosed letters, we would be pleased to consider it and offer you an opinion regarding your vehicle.

ID: nht93-3.15

DATE: April 23, 1993 EST

FROM: Patrick P. Radice -- Director of Operations, Electronics Division, Tridon

TO: Chief Counsel -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-5-93 from John Womack to Patrick P. Radice (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: We understand aftermarket manufacturers of turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers must certify their flashers comply with the applicable requirements specified in FMVSS-108 prior to sale.

For vehicles having combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flashers, must the manufacturer certify the aftermarket flasher also meet both the turn signal and hazard warning flasher requirements of FMVSS-108 or can they certify their flashers to meet either the turn signal flasher or hazard warning signal flasher or FMVSS-108 but not both?

I look forward to your response.

ID: nht93-3.16

DATE: April 23, 1993

FROM: Wayne S. Ferguson -- Research Manager, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation, Transportation Research Council

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/30/93 from John Womack to Wayne Ferguson (A41; Std. 108; VSA 103(d); VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The Virginia General Assembly recently passed a joint resolution requesting the Department of Motor Vehicles and other designated state entities to study the desirability of allowing deceleration lights on semitrailer-trucks in the Commonwealth (see attached). The purpose of these lights would be to warn following traffic of non-braking deceleration by trucks, thereby preventing potential rear-end collisions.

The Virginia Transportation Research Council has been asked to evaluate any potential legal problems regarding state regulation of such deceleration lights. Of primary concern is the potential federal pre-emption in the area of vehicle safety equipment.

I am writing to request your opinion on two questions. First, do the current federal regulations and standards dealing with various vehicle safety devices pre-empt Virginia's proposal to permit deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth? Second, if such state action would be pre-empted, what is the proper course of action to obtain federal approval of the use of deceleration lights?

I would appreciate your legal opinion on these questions, as well as any additional comments you may have on this matter.

Attachment

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 247

Requesting the Department of Motor Vehicles, in cooperation with the Center for Innovative Technology, the Motor Carrier Division of the State Corporation Commission, and the State Police, to study the use of deacceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth.

Agreed to by the Senate, February 25, 1993 Agreed to by the House of Delegates, February 23, 1993

WHEREAS, trucks often deaccelerate without use of brakes, such as when traveling uphill; and

WHEREAS, such deacceleration can pose a hazard to following traffic which is given no warning of the deacceleration; and WHEREAS, deacceleration lights on trucks may provide an appropriate warning to following traffic; and

WHEREAS, such deacceleration lights are not currently permitted in the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth should study the desirability of permitting deacceleration lights on trucks; and

WHEREAS, if the Commonwealth decides to allow such deacceleration lights on trucks, appropriate standards should be developed to dictate their use; now therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That the Department of Motor Vehicles, in cooperation with the Center for Innovative Technology, the Motor Carrier Division of the State Corporation Commission, and the State Police, be requested to study the desirability of allowing deacceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth, the types of deacceleration lights which currently exist, and the appropriate standards which should dictate their use.

The Department shall complete its work in time to submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the 1994 Session of the General Assembly as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents.

ID: nht93-3.17

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Jeff Gerner -- Product Engineering Manager, Banner Welder, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-25-93 from Jeff Gerner to NHTSA, Office of the Chief Council (OCC 8268)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about whether the mobile screening and shredding equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that your equipment is designed to be used primarily in off-road environments such as compost sites similar to landfills, but may be towed over the public roads to multiple sites. You stated that most purchasers of your equipment use it at an off-road site for extended time periods, but occasionally the equipment will be moved from one off-road to another off-road site on a more frequent basis. You stated that it would be inconvenient for your equipment to comply with Standard No. 121's emergency braking requirements because a truck with an air brake system would be needed at all times to move your equipment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, this agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"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."

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

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

Based on the literature provided in your letter and the subsequent telephone conversation, the agency believes that the on-highway use of your equipment is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured.

Accordingly, it appears that your mobile screener and shredder are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, they would not be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

This conclusion is based on the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. We note that while your letter stated that your equipment may be moved "daily or weekly" on the public roads to other sites, you stated in the telephone conversation that such frequent movement is rare and that this equipment is primarily for off-road purposes. The agency would reconsider this determination if it obtained information indicating that the equipment's on-highway use is more than "incidental."

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.

ID: nht93-3.18

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Arvind V. Rajan -- Vice President, Marketing and Planning, Solectria Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from Arvind V. Rajan to John Womack (OCC 8505)

TEXT: We have received your letter of March 30, 1993, asking for confirmation that Solectria Corporation is permitted to import nonconforming motor vehicles for conversion to electric power, provided that the vehicles will be exported immediately following conversion. The vehicle you wish to import is the Suzuki Swift, similar to the Suzuki Swift that has been certified by its manufacturer for sale in the United States, except that the steering column is on the right hand side, and that it has not been certified.

There is no section of the importation provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) that directly permit the importation of nonconforming vehicles for purposes of repair or alteration. Obviously, the failure of such vehicles to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards poses no risk of traffic accidents, or deaths and injuries resulting from such accidents if these vehicles are never driven on the public roads. In these instances, the agency tries to provide an interpretation of the Act that is consistent with both the purpose of the Act and the facts at hand.

Section 108 (b)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)), in effect, allows importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle "intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle ... and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported." As the legislative history of this section makes clear, "(t)his legislation does not purport to establish standards for motor vehicles ... to be used entirely outside the United States." (House Report 1776, page 24). Section 108(b)(3) has been implemented by 49 CFR 591.5(c). We believe that, under the facts as described in your letter, it would be appropriate for Solectria to import nonconforming Suzuki Swifts for conversion to electric power pursuant to paragraph 591.5(c). The vehicles have not been imported for use on the American roads, but solely for export following their conversion. We assume that Solectria will label the converted vehicles and their containers, if applicable, in accordance with the regulatory requirement.

If we may help you in any other way, please let us know.