ID: nht95-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. C. Rost -- Minnesota Body & Equipment

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/8/94 LETTER FROM R. C. ROST TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 10496)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law requires buses used for Head Start to be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. You stated that the state of Minnesota recently adopted a law that prohibits such buses from being equip ped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. I apologize for the delay in our response.

In an August 26, 1988 letter to you, NHTSA explained that "Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils suc h as those in Head Start programs." Federal law continues to require such buses to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, the Head Start buses referenced in your letter must be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. We have writte n to Major Glen Gramse of the Minnesota State Patrol to explain that the Minnesota law is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Terrence S. Lockman -- Legal Investigator; Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/2/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERRENCE LOCKMAN (REDBOOK 2 VSA 102 (3))

TEXT: Dir Sir and/or Madam:

I am currently conducting an investigation involving a 1981 Versa Sweeper, manufactured by Terrain King, Sequin, Texas.

While conducting research it has become difficult to determine exactly how this vehicle would have been classified, for the purpose of applying applicable standards. I hereby request this formal inquiry.

The "Versa Sweeper" vehicle is considered to be a road/highway sweeper and/or power broom. At the time in question, the vehicle was being used in a construction zone, to sweep debris off the roadway.

I hereby submit the following inquiries:

1. For the model year, 1981, how would NHTSA had defined the Terrain King "Versa Sweeper"?

2. Under the applied NHTSA definition, for the 1981 Terrain King "Versa Sweeper", what regulations and/or standards would had applied to the manufacturing of the sweeper?

3. Did those applied regulations require the implementation of an occupant restraint system or rollover protection? If not, what is the respective date of application for implementation of those standards?

In addition to the above, I submit the following request(s) and inquiries in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act:

4. Request production of any and all correspondence and/or documentation in which the U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, or an agent thereof possess regarding inquiries made by the designer and/or manufacturer, W. F. Larson Company, Amarillo, Te xas and Terrain King, regarding the manufacturing and production of the "Versa Sweeper" and all applicable standards?

A. What was the definition of use and/or application provided to the designer/manufacturer?

B. Based on the definition supplied to the designer/manufacturer, what were the Federal standards for which they were required to meet, as provided by the NHTSA?

C. At the time this product was manufactured, was this vehicle required to be equipped with an occupant restraint system and/or rollover protection?

5. Request production of any and all correspondence and/or documentation in which the U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, or an agent thereof possess regarding inquiries made by a designer and/or manufacturer of a street sweeper, power broom, and /or street broom regarding the required and applicable standards?

For your review, I have enclosed copies of photographs of the "Versa Sweeper" in question. This vehicle is equipped with headlights. Ironically, however, this vehicle is not equipped with tail lights or a brake warning device.

I greatly appreciate your time and efforts towards responding to my inquiries. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me by calling (904) 435-7065. I look forward to receiving your response.

Enclosure VERSA SWEEPER BROCHURE (OMITTED)

ID: nht95-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 13, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mayo D. Tubbs -- Visionary Lighting Systems

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE AVAILABLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tubbs:

We have received your letter of March 23, 1995, asking for a waiver of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) which will enable the introduction of a new lighting system that you have developed for large trailers. You envision that this system will eventually be installed on emergency vehicles and school buses. We understand that you wish to market this system as original equipment.

You have asked that we "provide adequate safeguards to prevent unauthorized dissemination of this information." As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you before you wrote, all the agency's letters of interpretation must be made available to the ge neral public, and these letters must include enough information to make the interpretation comprehensible. Mr. Vinson telephoned you on March 30, 1995, and informed you that we proposed, in this instance, to limit the description of the system to the nu mber, location, and quantity of lamps, to withhold the incoming letter with the exception of Attachment A, and to exclude your name and address from the copy made publicly available. You concurred with this treatment of your letter, except that you pref erred not to have your name and address withheld in the event a reader might be interested in getting in touch with you.

You believe that the current lighting and conspicuity requirements for large trailers are inadequate for safety when compared with your system. This system consists of 18 "strip lights on the side and rear" of large trailers which are "Aviation Green" i n color. The side and rear lighting schemes are depicted on Attachment A to your letter. As we interpret Attachment A, two of the strip lights are mounted in the upper right and left rear corners, while eight lights are on each side of the trailer (fou r right-angle lights in each upper and lower corner, and four lights deployed at one-third body-length intervals at the top and bottom).

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is the Federal regulation that governs original lighting equipment on trailers. These requirements must be met upon the manufacture and sale of trailers. With res pect to the rear of a van trailer, your Attachment A depicts only strip lights in the upper right and left corners. This is not permissible under Standard No. 108. The Federal regulation requires the conspicuity treatment specified by S5.7 to be applie d in this area, as well as clearance lamps. With respect to the side of a van trailer, Standard No. 108 requires horizontal conspicuity treatment to be applied near the lower edge of the trailer as close to the front and rear as practicable, though it n eed not be continuous as long as it covers at least half the trailer length. Because of the gaps between the strip lights on the trailer side as depicted in Attachment A, it is possible that conspicuity treatment could be applied between the strips that would total half or more of the trailer length.

However, supplementary lighting equipment such as your system is not permissible under Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3) if it impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of exteri or lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory side lighting equipment, i.e., amber front side markers, red rear side markers, and red and white conspicuity striping or red reflectors.

A vehicle manufacturer may petition for a temporary exemption from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under the conditions specified in 49 CFR part 555, a copy of which is enclosed. Therefore, a trailer manufacturer interested in using your system could apply for a 2-year exemption on the basis that the exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the standard. The effect of an exemption is to allow the manufacture and sale of a nonconforming vehicle without violating 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). I am sorry to inform you that the exemption is not available to equipment manufacturers.

If you have data that sustains your belief that your system enhances safety, our Office of Research and Development would be interested in corresponding with you. The Associate Administrator of that Office is George Parker.

If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you.

Sincerely,

DRAWINGS OMITTED

ID: nht95-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David A. White -- Manager of Reliability, Grumman Olson

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/14/95 LETTER FROM DAVID A. WHITE TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TEXT: Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter of March 14, 1995, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on certain vehicles manufactured by Grumman Olson. Your lette r describes those vehicles as van bodies mounted on either cutaway chassis or chassis cabs that are sold as part of Grumman Olson's Freight Star line. Your letter further states that as chassis manufacturers have made changes to the doors and interiors of their vehicles, Grumman Olson has found it "increasingly difficult, if not impossible" to locate its certification label, which measures three and one half by six inches, in any of the locations specified in NHTSA certification regulations at 49 CFR 5 67.4.

Paragraph (c) of that section prescribes specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provides that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for NHTSA's approval. The location that you have recommended is on the forward half of the left side of the cargo box, which is the same location as the one specified in 49 CFR 567.4(d) for the placement of certification labels on trailers. In a photograph that you subsequently faxed to us, the proposed location was more precisely identified as the left front corner of the cargo box, immediately behind the cab.

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for vehicles in Grumman Olson's Freight Star line would meet this objecti ve. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

To ensure that vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States may be distinguished from those manufactured for sale in Canada, NHTSA strongly suggests that the letters "U.S." or "U.S.A." be inserted before the word "Federal" in the safety standard c ompliance statement that must be included in the certification label under 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5).

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1995

FROM: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LANCE TUNICK (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter requests an interpretation of a portion of SAE J586 (Feb. 84) installation requirements for rear stop lamps (section 5.4.1), as incorporated by reference in FMVSS 108, Table III.

More specifically, this request concerns the visibility requirements for rear stop lamps. The referenced SAE section states that "to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface of at least 12.5 square cent imeters measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." (Emphasis added.) "Outer lens surface", however, is not defined either in the SAE materials or in FMVSS 108.

We believe that "outer lens surface" when used in the above section of J586 means "light emitting surface" as defined in SAE J387.

Please confirm the agency's definition of "outer lens surface" as used in the visibility requirement in SAE J586 (Feb. 84).

Given testing and production deadlines, we kindly request as prompt an answer as possible.

Thank you for your kind attention.

ID: nht95-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 17, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marshall S. Reagle -- Sate-Lite Mfg. Co.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/1/95 (EST.) LETTER FROM MARSHALL S. REAGLE TO PAT BOYD (OCC 10784)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reagle:

This is in reply to your recent FAX to Pat Boyd of this agency asking for a confirmation of an interpretation of certain reflex reflector requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically S5.7.2.1(b) and (c). For your future reference, requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel.

You state that Mr. Boyd informed you that "any retro-reflector would have to be made in intervals of 4 inches" with the 0 degree at the two-inch mark, and that the reflective reading would have to comply with S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). He also informed you tha t, regardless of whether the segment was 4, 8, or 12 inches in length, the agency will test in 4-inch segments.

This is correct. According to paragraph S5.7.2.2(a) and (b) of Standard No. 108, each reflector shall be installed "with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm from the center of each adjacent reflector." As 100 mm is approximately 4 inches, this effectively limits the size of a reflector to a maximum length of 4 inches. However, this does not prohibit the mounting of two or three adjacent reflectors in "segments" of 8 or 12 inches, whether separately or in a housing. As Mr. Boyd informed you, each discrete 4-inch segment must comply with paragraph S5.7.2.1(b) or (c).

Paragraphs S5.7.2.1(b) and (c) specify reflectivity values for red and white reflex reflectors respectively "at any light entrance angle between 30 degrees left and 30 degrees right, including an entrance angle of 0 degrees," as well as "any light entran ce angle between 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right." Your drawing of a 4-inch reflector correctly depicts the 0 degree light entrance angle at the 2-inch mark, in the center of the reflector. However, SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 19 77, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires the measurement of the other light entrance angles also with respect to the center of the reflector, rather than with respect to the ends as pictured in your drawing.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harry C. Gough -- P. E., State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/28/94 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS D. TURNER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/7/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS D. TURNER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 11/18/94 LETTER FROM HARRY C. GOUGH TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gough:

This responds to your letter to this office asking whether the retroreflective tape required to outline school bus emergency exits can, in the case of the rear emergency door, be placed on the door itself. The short answer is no.

You stated that the State of Connecticut requires that school bus bumpers be black. You further stated that one school bus manufacturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of the retroreflective tape installed on the rear bumper. You then noticed that a number of school buses from a different manufacturer had the bottom part of the tape installed on the door itself. You asked whether the language of S5.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window reten tion and release, permitted the installation of the retroreflective tape on the door itself.

Paragraph S5.5.3 of FMVSS No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, . . . .

This requirement was imposed by amendment to FMVSS No. 217 promulgated by a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). In discussing this requirement in the preamble portion of the final rule, we said at 57 FR 49421:

Accordingly, the final rule requires a minimum 1 inch wide strip of retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, to be placed around the outside perimeter of the emergency exit opening, not the emergency exit itself (emphasis added).

As you may know, the buses with the tape on the emergency exit doors have been recalled by the manufacturer. For information about the recall, you can contact the bus manufacturer, Thomas Built Buses, P. O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261.

Enclosed for your information are two interpretative letters issued by this office on related issues pertaining to the retroreflective tape requirement. See letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, dated July 7, 1993; and letter to Mr. Turner dated March 28, 1994.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1995

FROM: Carol Stroebel, Director -- Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Tillie K. Fowler -- Member, U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: Your Reference: 95-0167-J

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/10/95 LETTER FROM TILLIE K. FOWLER TO RICARDO MARTINEZ; ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/4/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO FORBES HOWARD

TEXT: Dear Congresswoman Fowler:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dail Taylor of St. Augustine, Florida. Mr. Taylor requested assistance, stating that his company would have to stop manufacturing passenger motor vehicles if the vehicles must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). I appreciate the concerns of Mr. Taylor as a small businessman and offer the following information.

In order to protect motorists and their passengers, a Federal statute requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs regulating motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Mr. Taylor's company, Goodlife Motor Company, wrote to NHTSA asking whether their "super golf cars" were motor vehicles and therefore subject to the FMVSSs. NHTSA's Chief Counsel responded by letter that the answer was "yes".

We were informed that the "super golf cars" are intended for use on public roads. NHTSA has two criteria for determining whether a vehicle that regularly uses the public roads is considered to be a "motor vehicle." A vehicle is not a motor vehicle if it meets both of the following criteria: the vehicle has an abnormal configuration distinguishing it from other vehicles; and the vehicle cannot attain speeds over 20 miles per hour (mph).

The "super golf cars" do not meet either criterion. We have determined that because the vehicles resemble passenger cars, they do not have an abnormal configuration. As to speed, we note that the top speed of the vehicles, 29 mph, is approximately the speed at which NHTSA conducts crash tests to see whether vehicles meet certain safety standards. It is also a speed at which vehicle occupants can readily suffer serious or even fatal injuries in a crash. We note further that older adults are more susc eptible than younger adults to injury in motor vehicle crashes. This is particularly important since we understand that one of the primary expected uses of the "super golf car" is in retirement communities.

As motor vehicles, the "super golf cars" must meet the FMVSS. As the president of a small business, Mr. Taylor has a number of compliance options. First, he can comply with the current safety standards. I appreciate that the costs of compliance would be significant. Second, Mr. Taylor may petition NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to amend the current safety standards to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. NHTSA has authority to establish different levels of re quirements for vehicles of different sizes. However, it lacks the authority to vary the stringency of requirements based on the size of a vehicle manufacturer.

Third, NHTSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to small manufacturers. Mr. Taylor may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more of the safety standards. However, as we explained to Mr. Taylor, temporary exemptions are primarily grant ed as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. Further, the exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standard s have not been granted.

Mr. Taylor may himself prepare and submit any petition. We have enclosed copies of our regulations regarding petitions for rulemaking and petitions for exemption. If Mr. Taylor has any questions or needs further information on how to proceed under any of the three options discussed above, we will gladly provide assistance. Please ask him to contact Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1995

FROM: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for clarification of interpretation of FMVSS 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LANCE TUNICK (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is to request a clarification of the letter of Mr. Philip Recht to Vehicle Science Corporation dated April 3, 1995 regarding FMVSS 210 location requirements, and more specifically S 4.3. This section states that "Anchorages that meet the frontal cr ash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 . . . are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

Although Mr. Recht's April 3 letter discusses the meaning of this provision, kindly confirm for our records that seat belt anchorages in the following scenario are exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210:

A vehicle with 2 front seating positions that is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and such restraint system meets the frontal and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested unde r FMVSS 208.

Your immediate attention to this request would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

ID: nht95-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 20, 1995

FROM: Valter Sforca

TO: Philipe Recht -- Chief Counselor, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO VALTER SFORCA (A43; PART 591)

TEXT: I have speak with Mr. Taylor Vincent about get a letter in writing from you, explaining if there is any regulation to bring from a foreign Country, a assembled unit called, Air Equalizer for Tire Pressure, wich comply with Safety Standarts. In a emergen cy the system have a safety valve for the air brakes the truck, for a properly stop.

Since now, I'wating for your response, please mail or fax to me a "Letter of Approval for Safety Standard", I'apreciatte at this matter thank you.