ID: nht93-5.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1993

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

TO: Charles H. Taylor -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-93 from Charles H. Taylor to Jackie Lowey (OCC 8735).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993, to the Acting Secretary for Legislative Affairs, asking the Department of Transportation (DOT) "to reconsider its rules regarding the sale of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles to law enforcement organizations." You have enclosed correspondence from your constituent, Sheriff Long of Buncombe County with respect to this matter. Although your letter states that a letter from the Department of Defense to Sheriff Long is also enclosed, we did not receive it.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component within DOT that establishes and enforces the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In recognition of the fact that compliance with the FMVSS could interfere with the ability of a military vehicle to perform its intended task, we have always exempted from compliance with the FMVSS any motor vehicle that is manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

When such a vehicle has reached the end of its useful military life, the question arises as to its proper disposition. NHTSA has no authority over the disposition that any owner wishes to make of his motor vehicle, whether civilian or military in nature, thus we have no "rules" to reconsider, as you have requested. The Department of Defense (DOD), however, asks our advice on disposal of surplus vehicles; we provide it and DOD appears to follow it. However, in the last analysis, it is DOD's policy that governs the disposal of surplus military motor vehicles.

With respect to the HMMMV, we have advised DOD that we deem it not in the interests of traffic safety to sell for civilian use a motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. We recognize that there is a competing public interest in recovery of Federal funds to the extent practicable but, in our view, it is outweighed by the interest in safety. Given the fact that HMMMVs are now available that meet the FMVSS, we have further advised DOD to consult with the HMMMV's manufacturer to determine whether military vehicles might be retrofitted to comply with the FMVSS. If this can be accomplished, NHTSA would have no objection to the sale of retrofitted military HMMMVs for civilian use.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht93-5.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1993

FROM: Cary Klingner -- Trison Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Cary Klingner (A41; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)h

TEXT:

TRISON INC. has developed a "Daytime Running Lights" module. The product keeps the low beam headlamps on whenever the vehicles engine is running. The module is placed under the hood and can be installed by any car owner. The unit is transparent to the vehicles lighting system thus allowing the headlamp and marking light switch to override it at any time. The product connects to the battery positive terminal, the highbeam headlamp, the lowbeam headlamp and one simply wraps around one spark plug wire.

The unit was developed because of the Minnesota law that requires headlamps to be on during daylight inclement weather. This law has created a problem in that some people forget to turn on their lights when required, or forget to turn them off when they leave their vehicle, which runs down the battery. Our unit will alleviate both problems if the driver does not override the module with the vehicle headlamp switch. The Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated.

We understand that federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept and we would like to market this product nationwide. Would you review our safety device and give us an opinion as to whether it complies with the regulations.

Thank you for your time, your response will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-5.21

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1993

FROM: Cary Klingner -- Trison Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Cary Klingner (A41; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)h

TEXT:

TRISON INC. has developed a "Daytime Running Lights" module. The product keeps the low beam headlamps on whenever the vehicles engine is running. The module is placed under the hood and can be installed by any car owner. The unit is transparent to the vehicles lighting system thus allowing the headlamp and marking light switch to override it at any time. The product connects to the battery positive terminal, the highbeam headlamp, the lowbeam headlamp and one simply wraps around one spark plug wire.

The unit was developed because of the Minnesota law that requires headlamps to be on during daylight inclement weather. This law has created a problem in that some people forget to turn on their lights when required, or forget to turn them off when they leave their vehicle, which runs down the battery. Our unit will alleviate both problems if the driver does not override the module with the vehicle headlamp switch. The Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated.

We understand that federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept and we would like to market this product nationwide. Would you review our safety device and give us an opinion as to whether it complies with the regulations.

Thank you for your time, your response will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-5.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education, Office of Commissioner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from Ernest Farmer to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8815)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of June 25, 1993, with respect to your plan to retrofit three school buses with strobe lights for "the traditional incandescent lights currently used in the eight light overhead warning system on school buses." You ask whether this equipment would "conflict with the provisions of FMVSS 108."

Yes, the substitute system would not conform to S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 because it is not a school bus signal lamp system meeting the requirements of SAE J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964. Moreover, section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392 (a)(2)(A) ) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. We assume for purposes of this interpretation that the State is the owner of the school buses, and owns the repair facilities where the conversion will occur. Under these circumstances, there is no Federal legal prohibition against the State's conversion to the strobe light system if the work is performed in its own repair shops.

ID: nht93-5.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charlie McBay -- Chief Engineer, Barrett Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-13-93 from Charlie McBay to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC 8816)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of June 13, 1993, asking that this Office review the two drawings you enclosed "for compliance with the upcoming conspicuity requirement", and "ask that our installation have your approval."

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act the manufacturer has the responsibility of determining whether its product conforms and then certifies its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does not provide authority for the agency to "approve" or "disapprove" any specific solution to methods of conformance. For this reason, we are unable to advise you in the manner you seek.

However, the agency does provide interpretations when specific questions are asked with respect to the requirements of the standard, and we are pleased to respond accordingly to your inquiries. You have raised four issues for our comment.

1. You have called to our attention that the "outside post" design of the trailers is configured so that the spacing of the posts along the length of the trailers is not the same. The retroreflective material will be evenly spaced in most areas, but breaks between material vary. You have asked whether this will "suffice for evenly distributed."

Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, retroreflective sheeting applied to each side of a trailer need not be continuous "as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." As we have advised many times, under Standard No. 108 the determination of practicability is to be made by the manufacturer in fulfillment of its obligation to certify that its product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA believes that, as a general rule, a manufacturer is in the best position to determine what is practicable for its particular design. However, if that determination appears erroneous on its face, NHTSA will question it. Were you to manufacture trailers with the side conspicuity treatment spacings depicted on your drawings, NHTSA would not question your determination of practicability.

2. You have asked "if an area exists where a minimum 12" strip will not fit, can we install smaller material or must this area stay blank?"

As noted above, under S5.7.1.4.2, a strip of retroreflective material need not be continuous "as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered." Therefore, if exclusion of the area in question would not result in less than half of the length of the trailer being covered, the area may be left

blank.

If additional sheeting is required for a trailer to meet the length requirement, or if a manufacturer simply wishes to add it, it need not be "a minimum 12" strip." S5.7.1.3(d) of Standard No. 108 specifies that each segment of retroreflective sheeting shall have a length of 300 mm (i.e., 12 inches) +/- 150 mm. Therefore, a segment of sheeting as short in length as 150 mm (6 inches) could be applied to the area in question in compliance with the standard. An even shorter segment is permitted if necessary "to clear obstructions" if that should be the reason in your instance where a strip of 300 mm will not fit.

If the length of the area in question is smaller than 150 mm and its coverage is required for the conspicuity treatment on the trailer to meet the length requirement, then any length of material is acceptable.

3. You have asked us to note that the white strips in the upper rear corners do not meet. You have asked "Must white be touching or can there be a gap between the strips?"

Figure 30 "Typical Trailer Conspicuity Treatments" depicts two configurations in which the white strips of retroreflective material intersect at right angles in the upper rear corners. The requirement that Figure 30 illustrates is set forth in S5.7.1.4.1(b), which specifies, in pertinent part, "two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair . . . applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body . . . as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable." There is no explicit requirement in this paragraph that the horizontal and vertical strips intersect or touch. There is an implicit requirement in the specification that the strips be "as close to the top and as far apart as practicable", but the requirement is subject to the manufacturer's determination of practicability. In other words, if the manufacturer's determination of practicability results in a gap between the strips, NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

4. You represent that your design makes it impossible "to make a nice continuous square corner", and that "(i)nstallation of the white corners is also closer than 3" from red top rail lights." You ask whether there is "any tolerance on the 3" dimensions?

There is no tolerance on this requirement. S5.7.1.4(b) states that "The edge of white sheeting shall not be located closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of any lamp that is required by this standard." The diagrams you enclose depict the horizontal white strip directly below the clearance lamps, which are required by Standard No. 108, so that each design does not accord with Standard No. 108.

We have some comments on each design. On "Model 80MP6-DD" it appears to us that, under a determination of practicability, the white strips could be lowered until the required minimum spacing between it and the clearance lamp was achieved. There is no prohibition against placing the material on the roll-up door.

The trailer identified as "GNXS-207" raises a more difficult problem because there appears to be no place where the strips could be relocated. Consideration must be given, therefore, to relocation of the clearance lamps. Under Table II of Standard No. 108, clearance lamps are intended to "indicate the overall width of the trailer". Although clearance lamps should be "as near the top . . . as practicable", they need not be "(w)hen the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle" (S5.3.1.4). The rear identification lamps on GNXS-207 are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle. The clearance lamps could be relocated to the fender where the stop, turn, and taillamps are presently installed. In that location, the clearance lamps would also be better able to fulfill the intent that they indicate the overall width of the trailer, which appears to occur at the fender rather than at the upper part of the body.

We hope that these interpretations are helpful.

ID: nht93-5.24

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1993

FROM: Zaher A. Obeid -- President & CEO, Petrobeid of Syria

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Zatalite device for preventing tragical motor vehicle accidents especially on highways

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/93 (est) from John Womack to Zaher A. Obeid (A41; Std. 108; VSA 108); Also attached to letter dated 8/17/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Alan S. Eldahr (Std. 108)

TEXT:

"Please allow me to submit to you some chosen documents and details of my patented leading invention above, which is intended to be manufactured and distributed in the U.S.A. in the near future.

Prior to such a final step, and as I am quite concerned to make this device as safe and useful as possible, I shall absolutely and always need any serious remark and/or comment, especially from highly experienced adminstrations like yours.

Therefore, please kindly read the attached details carefully, and let me have your esteemed opinion, along with any suggestion that you may find useful.

Your cooperation will be very valuable to me, and shall very much appreciate to hear from you at an early convenience.

Attachment

Zatalite brochure (text and photos omitted).

ID: nht93-5.25

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 15, 1993

FROM: Pat McCue -- Allied Service Systems Manufacturing

TO: Ed Jettner -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/10/94 from John Womack to Pat McCue (A42; Std. 302; Std. 208; Std.. 209; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The intent of this letter is to advise your agency of the need for regulation on an occupant restraint system in ambulances. Hopefully, your technical staff can feed back information on how the regulations are put into effect and what criteria you use to test products or components that make up the restraint system.

The NFPA, National Fire Protection Agency, has required an occupant restraint system in ambulances for medics and attendants riding on the bench seat in the back of ambulances. Unlike other occupant restraint systems, the user must have the ability to move about to provide patient care while the vehicle is moving.

A fatal accident in Phoenix, Arizona on June 24, 1992, caused the Phoenix Fire Department to actively pursue a system to protect their personnel riding in the back of ambulances. This incident identified the need for a restraint system.

Allied Service Systems has produced a patented product which will meet the needs of the user. However, I know of no product specifications.

Enclosed are photos of our system, material specifications, and a copy of the NFPA requirement.

Please advise me of any input your agency can provide in terms of how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards.

ID: nht93-5.26

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1993

FROM: Calin Moldovean -- Vehicle Technology Engineer, Automotive & Vehicle Technology Division, TUV America, Inc.; Signature by other (illegible)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief, Counselor of the NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/93 from John Womack to Calin Moldovean (A41; Std. 301; Redbook (2))

TEXT:

I am in need of information on the legal requirements for the introduction, from Europe, of a new "after market" gas cap to the US market and any NHTSA legal and technical requirements in terms of proofs of compliance.

Please send information to the address listed above, to my attention, or reply via Fax.

Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-5.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lillie Rene Erwin -- 365089, TDC Mt View Unit H-1

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/15/93 from Lillie Rene Erwin to Andrew H. Card Jr. (OCC-8693)

TEXT:

This responds to your May 15, 1993, letter to former Secretary Card. Because your letter concerns motor vehicle safety, it has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response. You are concerned with vehicles used by the State of Texas to transport prisoners because these vehicles have metal seats and no occupant restraints for the prisoners and asked who you should contact to voice your complaint.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish a standard which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. In addition, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which you were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. In addition, your concerns about the State of Texas' use of the vehicle are not addressed by Federal law, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their subsequent use.

Because your questions concern the safety of the State of Texas' vehicles used to transport prisoners, you may wish to contact the Governor's Office, the head of the Texas prison system, or your state representative.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht93-5.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Margaret W. Mouzon -- Mouzon Information Services

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/4/93 from Margaret W. Mouzon to Mary Versailles (OCC-8765), letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst, and letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 4, 1993, requesting information on dealer responsibility for occupant restraint system installation. You asked if a dealer is required to replace a deployed air bag prior to selling a used car. You also asked if the air bag must be operable when a dealer sells a showroom or demonstration model of an "otherwise new" car.

With regard to your first question, I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

With regard to your second question, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies 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 motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." (Emphasis added) Section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(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." Because of these statutory requirements, a dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag installed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, if the air bag is not functional. A showroom or demonstration model would be considered a new car, as it has never been sold for purposes other than resale.

I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the two letters discussed above. 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.