ID: nht95-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: Yvonne Anderson -- Todd Wans

TO: Mary Versailles, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YVONNE ANDERSON (A43; VSA 108 (A) 2))

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

Our company, Todd Vans in the state of Minnesota does handicap van conversions. We are currently converting a van for a school system. The van was purchased by the school system at a local car dealer and was then brought to us to raise the roof, extend the side door, install wheelchair tiedowns and a wheelchair lift. The original manufacturers rating of the vehicle is that of a "Bus". When the handicap equipment is installed and a seat removed it would change the vehicle to a MPV and thus reducing the seating in a 12 passenger van.

My question is this, "Does this vehicle have to be recertified by us or anyone else to conform with Federal guidelines?"

I would appreciate an answer as soon as possible, as they want the vehicle in use by the end of August.

ID: nht95-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Norman

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/30/95 LETTER FROM MICHAEL A. NORMAN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Norman:

This responds to your letter of June 30, 1995, with respect to the "Auto Truckers Courtesy Light." This is the device that you discussed with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 29. You have applied to the Virginia Department of Transportation for eval uation of this product who will make a decision on July 13. We assume that you wish to know whether the product is permitted by Federal regulations.

As we understand it from the description, photos, and drawings that you enclosed, the device consists of a large sign with a "thank you" message that would be illuminated by two small amber lamps in the upper corners. The device could be mounted on the rear underride guard of a large truck or trailer, or on the rear cargo door. The purpose of the device is to enable the driver of the vehicle on which it is installed to show appreciation "to a trailing motorist for blinking his lights to assist the tru ck operator in changing back to the right hand lane after passing." In addition "[the] device operates with audio and visual indicators with three second automatic delay cut off."

You told Taylor Vinson that the intent is to sell this product in the aftermarket. As Mr. Vinson indicated, the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting (Standard No. 108) contains no specifications applicable to the manufacture a nd sale in the aftermarket of supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment such as this. This means that the device may be manufactured and sold without violating any Federal law administered by the Department of Transportation.

There remains, however, the issue of whether its installation and use would violate a Federal proscription that forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative" motor vehicle lighting equipment i nstalled in accordance with Standard No. 108 (or equipment installed that was necessary to comply with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). With respect to supplementary lighting equipment, we generally ask ourselves whether the "message" s ent by required lighting equipment is likely to be made less effective if it and the device are used simultaneously. The effectiveness of the required lighting equipment is especially important with respect to oversized vehicles such as large trucks and trailers. With respect to your device, we foresee the possibility that the driver of a large vehicle on which it is installed might have to apply the brakes at the moment that the two small amber lamps are activated that illuminate the "thank you" sign , thus impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamps (we would probably reach a different conclusion if the message was related to the brake lamps, i.e., if it said "Stop"). Therefore, the installation of your device by a manufacturer, dealer, distribut or, or motor vehicle repair business would appear to violate the Federal proscription against making safety equipment inoperative.

The proscription, however, does not apply to the owner of the vehicle which, if a company, could have the device installed in its own private repair facilities, or if the owner is a person, by the owner. This means that the individual States in which th e device is to be used may accept or reject the device as they determine to be appropriate. We are unable to advise you how the laws of the individual States would apply to the device, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Associatio n of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to assist you (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Miyashiro -- Northrop Grumman

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/22/95 LETTER FROM DOUGLAS MIYASHIRO TO DOROTHY NAKAMA (OCC 11011)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miyashiro:

This is in response to a memo dated June 22, 1995 that you faxed to Coleman Sachs of my staff on July 12, 1995. Your memo states that Northrup Grumman's System Engineering Department is defining design requirements for an Advance Technology Transit Bus (ATTB), and, as part of that effort, researching whether the Federal Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581 would apply to such vehicles.

As noted in your memo, 49 CFR 581.3 states that the standard "applies to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles." The standard itself does not define the term "passenger motor vehicle," but does state, in section 581.4, that "all terms defined in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act . . . are used as defined therein." Section 2(1) of that Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. @ 32101(10)), defines "passenger motor vehicle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, design ed for carrying twelve persons or less . . ."

In light of this definition, the ATTB would not have to comply with the Bumper Standard unless it is designed to carry twelve persons or less.

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 15, 1995

FROM: Charles Holmes

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO CHARLES HOLMES (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 206)

TEXT: Letter of Interpation:

On May 24, 1995 my minor son Justin Holmes, Fell out of a Ford 1 ton truck. This was an 1989 Ford 1 ton with a gross weight of 33,000 lbs. Upon entering the truck, Justin was placed in a seat belt, and I locked the door. Some where along the ride he unhooked the belt, I was in a curve when the door opened, I looked up and Justin was falling out the truck.

When Justin was asked what happen he stated, I had my hand over the door handle when daddy started going around, I was tring to hold on and the door came open.

Ryder trucks are Rental trucks, Which rents to Families. I had no warning the look was not a safety lock.

Ryder said they are not in any way responsible, and Ford has not answered. I would like to know what Regulations you have on a truck that carries the gross weight of 33,000 lbs, the safety regulations which governs door locks and handle? By this bei ng a Rental Vehicle would the regulations fall under passenger vehicles? What Federal Case Laws Reverse or OverRules your Regeulations? And a list of people ever injured in a simular accidents. That is there Names and Addresses.

ID: nht95-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/23/95 LETTER FROM YOSHIAKI MATSUI TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 11017)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Matsui:

This responds to your letter of June 23, 1995, asking questions about neon high mounted stop lamps.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration answered these questions in the preamble to a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published on June 19, 1995. We assume that you had not received it by the 23rd, and enclose a copy for your informati on.

You will see (center column, page 31940) that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 allows neon tubes as light sources for the center highmounted lamp. Under our interpretation of paragraph S5.1.1.16, FMVSS No. 108 also allows testing of a neon lamp with or without its ballast, in accordance with the directions of that paragraph.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

ID: nht95-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: John Renock -- Director of Operations, Central New York Regional Transport Authority

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM M. JUDSON BROWN TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10992)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Renock:

Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for your Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Tran sit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years.

The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With rega rd to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you.

NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel contai ner integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS N o. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1995

FROM: Thomas A. Placey -- Senior Assistant District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney, Cumberland County

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Commonwealth v. One 1994 GMC Jimmy 95-258 Miscellaneous Term; VIN: 1GKDT13WR2508404 (true); 1GKDT13W4R2511523 (altered); PSP ID: X4-15565

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/11/95 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD AND JOHN WOMACK (TO THOMA A. PLACEY (A43; PART 591)

TEXT: Sir/Madame:

Corporal James Drenning, of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), has referred me to you for information on a case currently within my jurisdiction.

The nutshell facts are as follows: Auto thief steals a Canadian owned GMC Jimmy in Canada. Thief, without any import or export license, delivers GMC Jimmy to conspirator in Pennsylvania. Conspirator alters VIN and sells to buyer. Police in both cou ntries break auto theft ring. PSP, pursuant to state law, seize vehicle from buyer. Buyer wants GMC Jimmy back and files with local state court for return.

The issue, on the federal level, is can this vehicle ever be properly registered in the United States. What are the specific federal laws or regulations that govern such situations.

My hearing on the state issue is in September. I know the judge will ask about federal ramifications. It would be extremely helpful if you could point me in the right direction so I may answer the judge's question with specific law or regulation.

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter.

ID: nht95-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ron Hooker -- Missouri Department of Agriculture

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/9/95 LETTER FROM RON HOOKER TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10906)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hooker:

This responds to your question about whether the State of Missouri has authority to promulgate regulations relating to the safety of motor vehicles powered by alternative fuels, particularly compressed natural gas (CNG). The short answer is that while M issouri is generally preempted in this area, it could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles.

Federal law will preempt a State law if (1) there is a Federal safety standard in effect, (2) the State law covers the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard, and (3) the State law is not identical to the Federal standard. Specifically, sec tion 30103(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code states that

(b) Preemption - (1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equip ment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.

State safety standards applicable to CNG fuel system integrity are generally preempted by Federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles. (59 FR 19659, April 25, 1994, copy enclosed). The Standard specifies frontal barrier and rear barrier crash tests conducted at 30 mph and a lateral moving barrier crash test conducted at 20 mph. The Standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less and use CNG as a motor fuel. It also applies to school buses regardless of weight that use CNG as a motor fuel. Th e Standard takes effect September 1, 1995. Accordingly, after September 1, 1995, Missouri could only issue its own safety standard applicable to CNG vehicle fuel system integrity if the State safety standard is identical to FMVSS No. 303. The one excep tion to requiring such identical standards is that Missouri could prescribe a standard for motor vehicles obtained for its own use, provided the State law imposed a higher performance requirement than the level of performance prescribed by FMVSS No. 303. Thus, Missouri could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles.

NHTSA further notes that Missouri is free to issue safety standards applicable to the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by other alternative fuels (e.g., liquid propane, hydrogen), since the agency has not issued any FMVSS applicable to other alt ernative fuels.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1995

FROM: Heather Paul -- Executive Director, National Safe Kids Campaign

TO: Patricia Breslin, Ph.D. -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/5/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ANGELA MICKALIDE (REDBOOK 2; STD. 213; A43)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Breslin:

As you know, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and its partners, the National Safety Council, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association, will be distributing approximately 38,00 0 child safety seats to families in need over the next few months.

This presents an ideal opportunity for research on the effectiveness of the child safety seat distribution process. The Campaign is submitting a written request to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an interpretation of the Federal M otor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVqSS) 213. Specifically, the Campaign is interested in modifying the uniform child restraint registration card to collect information about recipient families' sociodemographic profile, the type of cars in which the child safety seats would typically be installed in order to address incompatibility issues, and the comprehensiveness of the educational outreach at the distribution sites (see enclosed draft).

The Campaign would require the distribution site coordinators to complete the modified child [Illegible Word] registration card with the recipient family prior to distributing the child safety seat. This would yield almost a 100% child safety seat regis tration response rate which would allow NHTSA and the manufacturer to more readily notify families about recalls. Distribution site coordinators would mail the cards directly to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for the Campaign's evalu ation research purposes.

Please call me or Dr. Angela Mickalide, Program Director, as soon as possible in order to resolve this important child safety matter. Thank you in advance for your timely response to the Campaign's request for an interpretation of FMVSS 213.

(Enclosure omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 24, 1995

FROM: Doug Burnett -- (Office Of Chuck Chvala)

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- DOT

TITLE: Re: School bus definition language

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO CHUCK CHVALA (REDBOOK 2; PART 571)

TEXT: The budget language is reproduced below. The plus marks indicate new language and the minus marks indicate deleted language. Our current definition is not statutory, and I was mistaken when I told you that it is in Administrative Rule. Our only referen ces to the definition of a school bus are modified in the language below.

I have also attached a copy of the motion which was included in the budget, including a brief analysis of it by the Legislature's budget office. There is also a 1993 memo from our state DOT which discusses some of the issues involved here.

Thanks for your help on this and give me a call if you have any questions.

347.40 (2) No person shall operate on a highway any school bus having a passenger-carrying capacity of [- 10 -] [+ 16 +] or more persons [- including -] [+ in addition to +] the operator unless such bus is equipped with at least one mirror which is 7 inches in diameter so located as to enable the operator to see a reflection of the road from the entire front bumper forward to a point where direct observation is possible.

121.555 (2) (a) Insurance. If the vehicle is owned or leased by a school or a school bus contractor, or is a vehicle authorized under sub. (1) (b), it shall comply with s. 121.53. If the vehicle is transporting [- 9 -] [+ 15 +] or less persons in ad dition to the operator and is not owned or leased by a school or by a school bus contractor, it shall be insured by a policy providing property damage coverage with a limit of not less than $ 10,000 and bodily injury liability coverage with limits of not less than $ 25,000 for each person, and, subject to the limit for each person, a total limit of not less than $ 50,000 for each accident.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Definition of School Bus

Motion:

Move to modify the current definition of school bus as follows:

1. Define a school bus as a motor vehicle which carries 16 or more passengers (in addition to the operator).

2. Provide that a school district can use, as an alternative method of transportation, a motor vehicle transporting 15 or less passengers (in addition to the operator).

Note:

Under current law, a school bus is defined as a motor vehicle which carries 10 or more passengers (in addition to the operator) for the purpose of transporting private and public school pupils to or from school, curricular or extracurricular activitie s, religious instruction (on days when school is in session). If a school board uses a school bus to transport pupils through a contract or the use of its own motor vehicles, the operation of the bus is subject to certain requirements regarding bus oper ator licensure and physical examinations, vehicle insurance, school bus painting and traffic safety rules. A school board can use, as an alternative, a motor vehicle transporting 9 or less passengers (in addition to the operator): in such cases, the scho ol district is not subject to the same requirements applicable to the operation of a school bus.

[Change to Governor: None]

LETTER

Ricardo Martinez Administrator, NHTSA Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Martinez,

I have been contacted by Wisconsin State Senator Chuck Chvala regarding a provision recently passed in the Wisconsin Legislature's biennial budget. The language included in the legislation changes the state definition of school buses in a manner that is inconsistent with the definition established by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Senator Chvala has inquired as to whether this change in state law and subsequent state regulations would violate any federal laws or regulations with respect to the definition of school buses.

I would appreciate a prompt reply to Senator Chvala's inquiry. Please direct your response to:

Chuck Chvala Wisconsin State Senator State Capitol P.O. Box 7882 Madison, WI 53707-7882

Russell D. Feingold United States Senator

cc: Ms. Carmen Rivera, Legislative Liaison, NHTSA