ID: nht95-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive And Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Department of the Army

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Overbay:

This letter follows up a telephone conversation between Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff and Mr. John Hretz of the U.S. Department of the Army in which Mr. Hretz requested a clarification of a February 17, 1995, letter that we sent to you. In that letter, w e discussed the testing of air braked vehicles under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. We explained that, as a result of a court decision, the emergency stopping test requirements, set forth in S5.7.1 of the standa rd, are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers.

As Mr. Glancy explained, subsequent to that letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule reinstating emergency stopping tests in FMVSS No. 121. The amendments reinstating these tests take effect on March 1, 1997 , for truck tractors and March 1, 1998, for other medium and heavy vehicles that are equipped with air brakes. Once these amendments take effect, the provisions in S5.7.1 will again be applicable to air braked vehicles.

Mr. Hretz asked whether, in conducting the emergency stopping distance tests, removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test. Your question is addressed below.

Section S5.7.1 states that

When stopped six times for each combination of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1, except for a loaded truck tractor with an unbraked control trailer, on a road surface having a PFC of 0.9, with a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake chamber housing), the vehicle shall stop at least once in not more than the distance specified in Column 5 of Table II.

In describing the failure conditions for which stopping distance requirements must be met, S5.7.1 broadly specifies "a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid," except for certain listed part s. It is our opinion that the failure mode Mr. Hretz described in which one disconnects the service air signal line at the rear service air relay comes within this language. Therefore, a vehicle would not comply with FMVSS No. 121 if it did not meet th e specified stopping distance requirements after disconnection of the service air signal line at the rear service air relay.

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

ID: nht95-3.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David A. Lowell -- Engineering Manager, Bankhead Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/8/95 LETTER FROM DAVID A. LOWELL TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10978)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lowell:

This responds to your letter of June 8, 1995, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Specifically, your company manufactures "stinger steered automobile transport trailers" as defined by 23 CFR 658.5, paragraphs (k) Tractor or Truck Tractor, (m) Automobile Transporters, and (n) Single-steered combination. Your company currently mounts ta illamps, turn signal lamps, and clearance lamps on the back of the truck tractor. It is your understanding of paragraphs S5.1.1.1 and S5.1.1.2 of Standard No. 108 that "these items do not seem to be necessary."

For purposes of Standard No. 108, types of motor vehicles are defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b), a regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, rather than 23 CFR 658.5, a regulation of the Federal Highway Administration. Under 571.3(b), th e towing portion of your combination vehicle is a "truck", rather than a "truck tractor." A "truck" is defined, in pertinent part, as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property." A "truck tractor" is a "truck designed primaril y for drawing other motor vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn." The photographs you enclosed show that the towing portion of Bankhead's combination vehicle is designed to carry motor vehicles, and may do so without the attachment of the trailer, hence it is a "truck." It is constructed to carry a load other than a part of the trailer, hence it is not a "truck tractor."

Accordingly, Bankhead's towing vehicle may not avail itself of the truck tractor lighting options of paragraphs S5.1.1.1 and S5.1.1.2 of Standard No. 108.

Your understanding of these sections as they relate to truck tractors meeting the definition of 571.3(b) is generally accurate. However, no provision of Standard No. 108 permits either the elimination or the relocation of taillamps from truck tractors.

Because Bankhead's product is operated in interstate commerce, it must also conform to the safety regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (49 CFR part 393). This is to advise you that the Office of Motor Carrier Standards has reviewed this let ter and concurs in it.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senator

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/4/95 LETTER FROM PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE TO REGINA SULLIVAN

TEXT: Dear Senator Wellstone:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Kris Solberg, concerning our requirements for school buses. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA admin isters the Federal regulations for school buses.

Ms. Solberg, principal of Grace Christian School, asks that our "school bus" definition be narrowed so that it only encompasses vehicles carrying more than 15 passengers. Ms. Solberg believes that, at NHTSA's urging, Minnesota recently amended its schoo l bus definition to include vehicles carrying 15 passengers. She states that, as a result of this change, schools cannot use conventional 15-passenger vans to transport students to school events, even though the vans are "safe enough."

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. The short answer to Ms. Solberg's question is that NHTSA cannot narrow the "school bus" definition as she requests because the definition was set by Congress. Further, for safety rea sons, we do not agree that the definition should be changed.

As Ms. Solberg's letter suggests, school bus regulations exist on the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level are NHTSA's school bus regulations. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles by issuing Federal motor vehicle safe ty standards (FMVSSs) that each new vehicle must meet when sold. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Congr ess also defined a "school bus" as a passenger motor vehicle "designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (Emphasis added.) Since the school bus definition was set by Congress, NHTSA is unable to revise it to exclude 15-passenger vans.

Further, we do not agree that the definition should be narrowed to exclude vehicles. School bus-type vans have more safety features providing occupant crash protection than do conventional full-size vans. Narrowing the definition could result in school children being transported in vehicles that are not as safe as the vehicles used today. NHTSA believes that, while school bus vans are slightly more expensive than conventional 15-passenger vans, the increased level of safety justifies the higher costs . Thus, we recommend against changing the Federal definition of a "school bus." While the Federal government regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the States regulate the use of vehicles. According to Ms. Solberg's letter, Minnesota has decided to adopt NHTSA's "school bus" definition into its regulations. In d oing so, under Minnesota law, if a school wishes to use a 15-passenger van to carry students, the van must meet school bus safety standards.

NHTSA does not require States to adopt our "school bus" definition. However, we strongly support any decision by a State to do so. This agency attaches the utmost importance to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. While s chool buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John N. Quinata -- Customs And Quarantine Agency, Government Of Guam

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN M. QUINATA TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Quinata:

This responds to your letter asking whether used Nissan Truck Crane Lorries from Japan are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in our response, but we had difficulty contacting Nissan for some informa tion we needed to answer your question. From your letter, I assume that Sanko Bussan Guam has imported this vehicle for use in the dock area, and that your agency is holding the vehicle pending this interpretation because the vehicle is not certified as complying with the FMVSS.

The short answer to your question is that the truck crane is a motor vehicle, subject to the FMVSS. I will outline the applicable law and point out some of our regulations that you should consider.

The issue you raise is whether the truck crane is a "motor vehicle," since the regulations you ask about apply only to motor vehicles. Title 49 of the U.S. Code, section 30102(a)(6), defines a motor vehicle as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical po wer and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . ." Work-related vehicles generally are "motor vehicles" for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site fo r only a limited time.

We believe the truck crane is a motor vehicle. Nissan Diesel North America informs us that this truck crane is a general purpose medium-duty crane that can be used for short-duty jobs and driven from site to site on the public roads. The photographs you enclosed show the crane mounted on what appears to be a conventional truck chassis. The vehicle appears to be manufactured for use on the highways, and is thus a motor vehicle. The vehicle is a "truck" under our regulations, and must meet the FMVSSs f or trucks that were in effect on the vehicle's date of manufacture.

As you know, NHTSA has regulations related to the importation of vehicles. They appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), at parts 591 to 593. In particular, note the declarations in 49 CFR 591.5 that are required for importation. Since your le tter says that you enforce the FMVSSs in 49 CFR Part 571, I assume you have a copy of Parts 591-593. If you do not, we can send one to you.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: Robert J. Ponticelli -- President, American International

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK/WEINSTEIN TO ROBERT J. PONTICELLI (STD. 108; REDBOOK 2; A43)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

I am writing to you to request an opinion on the use of Electro-Luminescent Strip Lighting on motor vehicles. The E-Luminescence is an ornamental light which produces less than .05 candela/sq. Inch. The product is sold as an illuminated pin-striping . I have enclosed a brochure which illustrates the intended uses.

The intensity of the lamp does not exceed the brightness of any U.S. DOT required lighting. I have also enclosed a copy of a letter from the University of Connecticut, School of Engineering concerning the light output.

Please provide me with an opinion on the installation on this product by regulated parties such as new car dealers and non-regulated entities such as aftermarket specialty shops and vehicle owners.

Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter, any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (800) 336-6500 Ext. 528

(Brochure omitted.)

ENCLOSURE: UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering

April 4, 1995

Robert Ponticelli American International 1040 Avenda Acaso Camarillo, CA 93012-8712

Re: State of California Acceptance of E-LUME Strip Lighting on Vehicles

Dear Mr. Ponticelli:

This is in response to your request regarding the verification of light output from the E-LUME Strip Lamp. We have measured the output of various E-LUME lamps using standard photometers. The lamp output does not exceed the 0.05 Candella/sq. in. (whi ch is about 22 ft. Lambert) when operated using an invertor producuing 250 volt at 800 Hz. Please let me know if you need additional information.

Sincerely,

Faquir Jain Professor Director, Microelectronics/Optoelectronics Laboratory

ID: nht95-3.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 25, 1995

FROM: Robert J. Ponticelli -- President, American International

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT J. PONTICELLI (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 114)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

I would like to request an opinion on the regulations concerning an aftermarket anti-theft device.

This device is installed between the steering wheel and the steering shaft. When a key swich is activated the steering wheel is disengaged and becomes freewheeling, preventing the vehicle from being driven.

I am requesting an interpretation of federal regulations to identify any restrictions or conditions which apply to this device when installed on a motor vehicle. Please distinguish which, if any, would apply to a regulated party such as a new car dea ler and to aftermarket service businesses.

Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter, any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this device I can be reached at (800) 336-6500 ext. 528

ID: nht95-3.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: Robert R. Brester -- Director of Product Engineering, Velvac, Inc.

TO: Steve Wood -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/17/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT R. BRESTER (A43; STD. 105; STD. 106)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood

On the advice of Mr. Richard Carter with NHTSA, (1-202-366-5274) I am sending you this letter requesting your departments legal interpretation of 571.105 in regards to auxilary braking systems on motor vehicles.

Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking.

The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached a catalogue drawings 003119, 0031 18, 003117 and 003115 to 003128). We do not supply the braking mechanism at the wheels. (brake linings, wheel cylinders etc.) These items come as part of the axle package. Customers specify our components based on the braking requirements for the axle , (hydraulic pressure and displacement required)

Recently, I called Mr. Richard Carter asking for his interpretation of 571.105 and how it affects the brake products we sell. Basically, Mr. Carter indicated that 571.105 has little affect on Velvac since it deals mainly with vehicle braking performance . 571.105 is not detailed in how the requirements are met, therefore, it can be assumed different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the desired braking results. Furthermore, Velvac has no control over how the customer installs o ur brake systems and components on their vehicles.

The opinion given by Mr. Carter is that the responsibility for certifying the vehicle to 571.105 lies in the hands of our customers.

Mr. Carter indicated that your department would make the official reply regarding this matter and would confer with him regarding the technical details.

Your prompt response on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

(Drawings omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/23/95 LETTER FROM LANCE TUNICK TO ORRON KEE (OCC 10925)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the requirements of 49 CFR 575.101, which until recently required manufacturers to disclose information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles. In particular, you asked ho w the requirement would apply to vehicles certified to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems.

I am enclosing a copy of a June 26, 1995, final rule in which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded section 575.101 (60 FR 32918). As a result of this decision, a vehicle manufacturer is no longer required to furnish infor mation about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles.

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

ID: nht95-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. F. Tolley -- Senior Development Engineer, New Products Office, Magneti Marelli UK Ltd. Lighting Division

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/28/95 LETTER FROM R. F. TOLLEY TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10847)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tolley:

This responds to your letter of April 28, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the torque deflection test specified in paragraph S7.8.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The second sentence of this paragraph states that "The downward force used to create the torque shall be applied parallel to the aiming reference plane, through the aiming pads, and displaced forward using a lever arm such that the force is applied on an axis that is perpendicular to the aiming reference plane and originates at the center of the aiming pad pattern." You believe that the instructions for performing the test are not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in different ways. Specifica lly, you are concerned that the standard fails to adequately define the center of rotation of force, which is necessary to determine the downward force applied to the headlamp.

We agree with you, and are examining ways in which the standard might be amended to address the problem you have brought to our attention. Noting that you have presented four possible answers (as well as "some other point"), our comment is that; until N HTSA clarifies the matter, a manufacturer should choose a center of rotation that appears the most appropriate for the design of mechanically aimable headlamp under consideration, in certifying that the headlamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am sorry that we could not be more helpful at this point. If you have any questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-3.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Wirsch -- Manager, Electric Transportation Department, Sacramento Municipal Utility District

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/16/95 LETTER FROM MICHAEL J. WIRSCH TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 11006)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wirsch:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1995, relating to the disposition of 16 City-El electric vehicles ("EVs") which were imported into the United States in 1992 for purposes of demonstration and testing. The EVs do not meet the Federal motor veh icle safety standards.

The EVs were imported pursuant to the declaration that, at the end of the test period, they would be exported or brought into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards not later than November 1995. You suggest that there may be a third alternative, which you would prefer: "transferring ownership" to McClellan Air Force Base for use on base property and not on the public roads. McClellan apparently has been testing another group of 25 EVs.

Although a literal interpretation of our regulations does not permit this transaction without exportation and reimportation of the EVs, we have determined that the transaction you propose is in the public interest, and may be accomplished, subject to the terms of this letter.

In brief, the regulation under which the EVs were imported does not allow transfer of ownership or possession, and provides that such vehicles must be exported or brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the e nd of the period for which admission has been authorized. The regulations would permit the EVs to be exported to Mexico or Canada, transferred to McClellan, and reimported into the United States by McClellan under the same terms and conditions as the or iginal importation (your letter indicates that McClellan may also be engaged in an evaluation of electric vehicles for use on military bases).

We assume that this course of action would be acceptable to you and to McClellan. Under that assumption, we have tentatively concluded that it would be in the public interest to forego the formalities and to allow a direct transfer of the EVs to McClell an without requiring them to be exported. However, in order to allow us to reach a final conclusion, we want you to obtain from McClellan and to provide us with a written statement similar to what McClellan would have provided had it imported the vehicle s itself. Understanding from you that the EVs will not be operated on the public roads, McClellan should also provide this assurance. We also need a statement as to McClellan's eventual intended disposition of the EVs, which should include an assurance that none of the EVs will be sold to individuals for on-road use.

This is especially important in view of the fact that McClellan appears to be one of the military bases that has been selected for closure.

Our eventual agreement to the transaction you propose will not relieve you of your obligation to fulfill the requirements of the U.S. Customs Service regarding the original importation of the EVs.

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