ID: nht94-2.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Rhein -- Fisher-Price, Inc. (East Aurora, NY)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/3/93 from John Rhein to John Womack (OCC 8639)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company.

You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squa res" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement.

Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed Ju ne 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material."

The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address spac e is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or over all organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-2.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Moore -- Ferrucci Nurseries (Newfield, NJ)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/4/94 from John Moore to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9645)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1994, requesting verification of a statement made by a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) employee that you are allowed to install passenger seats in a van used for farm transportation if yo u comply with the safety regulations. In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you would like to add seats to the rear of a 14 foot cargo van which the nursery owns. You would be performing this work yourself. As exp lained below, Federal law does not apply to situations where vehicle owners alter their own vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue 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 moto r vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be relevant to installation of a seat in a used vehicle: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No.208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblie s, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your situation, to vehicles and not directly to i tems of equipment. 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. Thus, if you ins tall new seat belts on the seats, the manufacturer is required to certify that the seat belts comply with Standard No. 209.

If a seat is installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as an item of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

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

None of these entities could install seats in your van if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards. Please note, however, that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in a situation where you as an individual vehicle owner, installed seats in your own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. H owever, you should be aware that individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

While Federal law would not apply to a modification you make to your own vehicle, I nonetheless urge you to exercise care in installing the seats and to install seat belts on the seats. The seats and seat belts will not provide any protection to occupan ts if they separate from the vehicle frame in a crash. Also, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of New Jersey regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances.

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: nht94-2.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol (Olympia, WA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from Roger W. Bruett (signed by Carol I. Morton) to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9822)

TEXT:

We have received your letter asking whether the Hella Xenon headlamps being installed on BMW 750 passenger cars "are legal for use on motor vehicles."

The Hella Xenon units on the BMW 750 series cars represent the first application of high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps on motor vehicles. This new technology is permitted by Standard No. 108, as indicated by the test report from ETL Testing Laborat ories that you reference in your letter.

We have no information as to whether the specific BMW headlamp system actually complies with Standard No. 108 because we have not tested it. BMW's certification of compliance that is affixed to all 750s raises the presumption that the BMW HID system mee ts Federal requirements.

A HID system may emit light that is perceived to be somewhat whiter than emitted by conventional headlamps. It may also be perceived as "stronger", to use your word, but a properly aimed HID system should create no more discomfort glare in the eyes of a n oncoming driver than a conventional one.

ID: nht94-2.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from Ray Paradis to John Womack (OCC 9823)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of March 28, 1994, with respect to whether an intermediate side marker lamp is required on a 24-ton ramp trailer whose "overall length is 30'8" in transport position."

We interpret the term "transport position" to mean the position that the ramp is in when the trailer is in operation, the configuration depicted by the upper drawing in the sheet you enclosed. Because the overall length of the trailer exceeds 30 feet, T able I of Standard No. 108 requires that it be equipped with an intermediate side marker lamp.

We note your remarks that competing trailers are not equipped with this lamp, and have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

ID: nht94-2.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: Mike Parker -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives

TO: Christopher Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

I have been contacted by Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District who is seeking to install four nine inch television monitors in a school bus in order to air drug-free videos. The school district has already purchased the equipment but has b een told by the state department of transportation that they must receive approval by the NHTSA. Please provide me suggestions and information which I can share with Mr. Duke to assist him with this endeavor.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht94-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: Fred Benford -- 100+ Motoring Accessories

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/16/94 From John Womack To Fred Benford (A42; Std. 211)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womac:

The Chief Counsel of the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association (SEMA) reviewed all regulations covering wheel covers and suggested that we contact Mr. Truman Vincent. We explained our situation to Mr. Vincent who in turn, suggested that we addre ss our request to your attention.

We are a manufacturer of Aluminum Wheel Covers. They are a standard type and do not have any protrusions (e.g., spinners, etc.). With the assistance of the Chief Counsel at SEMA, the current regulations were reviewed and it was determined that our Alum inum Wheel Covers are similar in design to the Steel and ABS plastic type and are not covered by any regulations, except for # 211 which prohibits protruding objects such as spinners, etc. Our wheel covers do not have any protruding objects.

At the current time, we are the only manufacturers of Aluminum Wheel Covers. Because they are made of a different material from the current steel and ABS models, a major retailer has asked us to confirm that aluminum, like the ABS and Steel wheel covers, do not violate any federal safety standards. Considering information from our SEMA counsel, and Mr. Truman Vincent, we do indeed not violate any federal safety standards. However, the major retailer (and possibly others) has requested a confirmation i n writing from the Department of Transportation. We would appreciate a statement from you with wording to this effect to present to the retailer.

Thank you for your assistance. We would appreciate hearing from you quickly. If desired, you may fax your response to the phone listed below.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: Robin Liu -- President, Introbusy

TO: Stephen Wood -- Transportation Department, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/6/94 From John Womack To Robin Liu (A42; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)A)

TEXT: DEAR MR. WOOD:

WE ARE GOING TO IMPORT A MERCHANDISE OF STOPPING LAMP FOR AUTOMOBILES. ITS FEATURE AND USAGE ARE AS PER THE ATTACHED SHEETS/PHOTOS.

WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER IT MEETS THE REGULATION OF YOUR DEPARTMENT BEFORE WE PLACE ORDERS FOR IMPORTATION.

DO WE NEED TO GET ANY OFFICIAL APPROVAL OR TO APPLY ANY LICENSE TO ENSURE THAT INSTALLING THIS PRODUCT IN MOTOR VEHICLE WILL NOT VIOLATE THE REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT?

SHOULD YOU NEED FURTHER DETAILS OR CLARIFICATION, PLEASE EITHER WRITE TO US AT THE ADDRESS UNDERNEATH OR CALL/FAX TO US AT (415) 468-3831.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU SOON.

SINCERELY YOURS

ID: nht94-2.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: John Collins -- Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, American Trucking Associations (Alexandria, VA)

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/2/94 from John Womack to John Collins (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of the test procedure specified in paragraph S5.8.2, "Supply line retention", of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, "Air Brake Systems". The last sentence in this paragraph states:

"A trailer shall meet the above supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pressurized to 100 psi, and the regulator o f the test rig set at 100 psi."

Our interpretation of test conditions specified in this sentence and Figure 1 (copy attached) is that:

1. The test rig remains connected to the shop air, as shown in Figure 1, for the duration of the test.

2. The shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test.

3. The pressure in the test rig's 1000 cu in. reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test.

The basis for our interpretation are:

a. S5.8.2 does not say that the test rig is to be separated from the shop air supply for the test.

b. S5.8.2 does not say to turn the shut-off valve to the "off" position for the tests. The valve is considered to be normally "open" for tests since it is "open" during the tests for which the test rig was originally designed (brake apply a nd releasing timing tests in paragraphs S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of FMVSS 121) and these paragraphs do not say to have the shut-off valve "open" the tests.

c. There would be no reason for S5.8.2 to specify setting the regulator valve at 100 psi if air was not flowing through the regulator valve. Air can only flow through the valve in this test when air is coming from the shop air supply and go ing out through the shut-off valve.

d. When a combination vehicle is moving, the vehicle's air compressor is operating to maintain the air system pressure within a specified range.

Whenever the trailer supply line pressure is less than the tractor reservoir pressure, air is flowing through the supply line.

We would very much appreciate an early answer to this request as The Maintenance Council of the American Trucking Associations is planning tractor- trailer air systems tests during the first week of May. The objective of these tests is to develop inform ation which will help manufacturers and owners build/modify equipment in such a way as to effectively live with the requirements of S5.8.2 as we interpret the.

Attachment

Figure 1. - Trailer Test Rig. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht94-2.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Judith Jurin Semo, Esq. -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Judith Jurin Semo to John Womack (OCC 9287)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determinatio n. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to b uyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... (S)ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standar ds."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answer ed is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) 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 this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and u nderground 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 vehicles and a maximum sp eed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

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, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the tru cks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of conve rting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. f or modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR S591.5, the importer would file a declaration under S591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standar ds, but is intended solely for export.

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

ID: nht94-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: S. Greiff -- PARS, Passive Ruckhaltesysteme GmbH

TO: Chief Counsel -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To S. Greiff (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Per Fax: 001/202-366-3820

Your "Laboratory Test Procedure For FMVSS 208/212/219/301"

Gentleman:

PARS is a company developing occupant restraint systems for the world wide automotive industry. One of our major topics is the development of airbag systems.

For development and validation of the restraint systems we own a Barrier Impact Test Facility which was built up in 1993 new.

Our runway is 80 m (260 feet's) long. The velocity tolerance up to 60 kph is +/- 0.1 kph.

In your Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS testing, a minimum runway length of 500 feet is requested.

We would like to ask you for an interpretation of your "500 feet requirement".

It would be much appreciated, if we could get an answer by fax.

Our fax no. is: 01149/6023/942-133

Thank you very much for your efforts in advance.

Sincerely yours