ID: nht94-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 27, 1994

FROM: Harleigh Ewell -- Regulatory Affairs Division, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TO: David Elias, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/16/94 from John Womack to Harleigh Ewell (A42; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: As we discussed today, enclosed is a copy of our earlier inquiry.

August 23, 1993

David Elias, Esq.

Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Elias:

In reference to our telephone conversation on August 19, I have attached a letter from Mr. S. M. Rosen, who had a gasoline nozzle separate from its hose while he was filling his motor home at a gas station. I would appreciate your office's interpreta tion of whether the nozzle/hose is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and thus not a consumer product subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. @ 2052(a)(1)(C).

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I can be reached at (301) 504-0980 if you need further information.

Harleigh Ewell

Attorney

Regulatory Affairs Division

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Attachment

July 24, 1993

Chairman Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 18th St. Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman,

Several weeks ago my wife and I were returning home from a 9,000 mile cross-country trip in our motor home when we drove into a gas station for a fill-up. As the gas was flowing into my tank, the hose separated from the nozzle in my vehicle. I found my self holding a hose gushing gasoline freely. A fire erupted and our motor home was destroyed. We were lucky to escape with our lives.

Could you please inform me if your office ever received any compliants nationwide of gasoline hoses separating from nozzles? Could you also inform me if the federal government inspects the nation's service stations on any regular basis, and if so, what i tems are inspected to insure safety for motorists using the station?

Does the federal government have any code books which apply to the nation's service stations regarding safety and cleanliness, etc.?

Your assistance in the matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

S.M. Rosen

ID: nht94-1.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 28, 1994

FROM: Steve Williams -- Director, Public Transportation, Mississippi Department of Education

TO: Terry L. Voy -- Consultant, Bureau of School Administration and Accreditation, Iowa Department of Education

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/31/94 from John Womack to Mike Parker (A42; Std. 222; Part 571.3), letter dated 4/18/94 from Mike Parker to Christopher Hart, and letter dated 1/31/94 from Steve Williams to William Moss

TEXT:

A school district in our state has expressed interest in installing four VCR's and TV monitors on a school bus. The equipment would be used to show films relating to drug education and would target long school bus routes. A school district in Arizona h as implemented such a program on one bus and serves as a model for the interest expressed by the district in Mississippi.

The school district proposes to mount the equipment in a school bus equipped with luggage racks. Two units would be mounted in the front of the luggage racks on each side and two in the middle on each side. This provides for maximum visibility of the TV monitor.

We all applaud these efforts to provide an educational opportunity for students that must ride lengthy and time consuming bus routes. However, to my knowledge, there has been no official test conducted to certify the wiring, mounting, and installation o f such equipment. This certainly raises various safety and liability concerns. However, it does not appear to be in conflict with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, head impact zone.

The 1990 National Standards for School Buses and Operations (NSSBO) appear to most appropriately address this matter. Bus Body Standards - Interior (1), page 16, states in part:

Interior of bus shall be free of all unnecessary projections, which include luggage racks and attendant hand rails, likely to cause injury.

Based on the concerns expressed above, I am requesting an interpretation and/or opinion from the Interpretation Committee on the following questions:

1. Would the installation of VCR's and TV monitors in luggage racks on a school bus be prohibited based on the language of the 1990 NSSBO - Bus Body Standards - Interior (1), page 16.

2. Would the installation of VCR's and TV monitors in luggage racks on a school bus be prohibited based on any other standard included in the 1990 NSSBO.

3. In the committee's opinion, does installation of VCR's and TV

monitors on school buses as described above, violate any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Although Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulate the manufacture and sale of school buses, it is the intent of national and state specifications that users (school districts) not modify or install any component contrary to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I appreciate your assistance and timely consideration of this matter. If you have any question, let me know.

ID: nht94-1.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 31, 1994

FROM: Marc D. Marutani -- National Truck Sales Manager, ARI

TO: Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Marc D. Marutani (A42; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

As a major national fleet leasing company, ARI has a broad cross section of clients in various industries. Recently, an inquiry was received concerning the use of a Ford Econoline Wagon, and whether or not the specific usage fell within the FMVSS defini tion of a "school bus."

The vehicle in question would be a standard, factory-equipped fifteen passenger full-size van (commonly referred to as a "wagon" due to its primary function as passenger transport), with no after-market modifications. The client requesting the vehicle i s a mental health and substance abuse facility handling adolescents on a full-time on-site basis. There is a school located on the premises, since the children reside at the location. The vehicle's purpose would primarily be used for miscellaneous tran sportation of juvenile patients and facility personnel, both on and off campus, as opposed to providing commuting services to and from home.

Because we interpret the FMVSS regulations regarding school buses as applying to those vehicles whose PRIMARY function is for the transporting of students to and from school and related scholastic events, we do not believe that the use of this wagon fall s within that definition. However, we would appreciate your ruling on the matter for verification, and for future reference on similar transactions. If further discussion on this subject is required, I can be reached at 609-727-6995.

Thank you for your consideration.

ID: nht94-1.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 31, 1994

FROM: Steve Williams -- Director, Public Transportation, Mississippi Department of Education

TO: William Moss -- Superintendent, Jones County School District

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/31/94 from John Womack to Mike Parker (A42; Std. 222; Part 571.3), letter dated 4/18/94 from Mike Parker to Christopher Hart, and letter dated 1/28/94 from Steve Williams to Terry L. Voy

TEXT:

On January 24, 1994, Jon Harper and I met with James Green, Transportation Director, and George Dukes, Chapter I Coordinator from your district, to discuss the installation of VCR's and TV monitors on school buses. Pursuant to our visit, I have contacte d school bus engineers which advise against such installation due to liability concerns. In addition, I am requesting an interpretation and opinion from the National Standards for School Buses and Operations Interpretation Committee to determine if the national school bus standards prohibit such installation (copy attached). The interpretation will clarify this matter because Mississippi bus standards are modeled after and based upon the national standards. My discussion with a representative from tha t committee indicated that without official testing and standardization procedures, such installation would probably not be advisable.

Until such time that we can receive the opinion based on the National Standards for School Buses and Operations, we cannot support and would advise against installation of VCR's and TV monitors. It is my understanding that a school district in Arizona h as installed such equipment. Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon our office to ensure that there is no violation of safety standards regarding the school buses that transport students to and from school or related activities.

We will advise you of the Interpretation Committee's opinion as we receive it. If you have any questions, please let me know.

ID: nht94-1.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 1, 1994

FROM: R. Mark Willingham -- Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C.

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to R. Mark Willingham (A42; Part 575)

TEXT:

This correspondence is in reference to 49 CFR 575.105 and the interpretations of same. After phone conversations with Ken Weinstein and Walter Meyers of NHTSA, I have been advised to make a formal request of specific questions and/or interpretations of 49 CFR 575.105, to your attention, for NHTSA's formal opinions.

Please forward to my attention copies of any discussions, preambles, and/or supplements concerning the drafting and interpretations of 49 CFR 575.105. Additionally, please forward to my attention the following:

1) The definition and/or meaning of "permanent" as described in 49 CFR 575.105. 2) To whom is 49 CFR 575.105 directed (ie. Manufacturer, Distributor, Dealership), and whether it is extended to a seller of a used vehicle. I appreciate your cooperation and attention to this query. If any additional information is needed on my part, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above listed telephone number or 1-800-374-8574.

ID: nht94-1.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1994

FROM: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Marv Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/5/94 from John Womack to Scott Slaughter (A42; VSA 102)

TEXT:

Pitts Trailers, Inc. is a trailer manufacturer that specializes in trailers for the logging industry. One particular model we manufacture is called a knuckle boom loader trailer. I have enclosed copies of brochures as well as some advertisements, so th at you might better understand the use of this model. This trailer stays in the woods (off the highway) the majority of its lifetime. The knuckle boom operation must be moved from time to time to different site locations, at which times it will be on hig hways and may cross state lines. The gross vehicle weight of this trailer is 24,000 lbs.

I am writing this letter to request an official interpretation to determine if my trailer (the knuckle boom model only) is subject to the safety standards (FMVSS Standards) with particular attention to include such questions as conspicuity, auto slacks, brakes on all wheels and marker lights. We are particularly interested in your opinion as to whether brakes are required on all wheels. Also, please advise us if our trailers are defined as motor vehicles or are they merely mobile equipment which see v ery limited highway use, solely for the purpose of moving to a new job site.

I hope I have provided you with sufficient information for an official interpretation. If not, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for any light you can shed on this matter.

(Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht94-1.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James M. Keitges -- President, Native American Motorcycle Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/14/94 from James M. Keitges to John Womack (OCC-9089)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1994, in which you ask to be provided the statement "that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations, and standards, then the company has also complied with the State and Loca l requirements as applicable to NHTSA."

It is not possible to provide you with a statement in this form. We are unaware of any State and local requirements that are literally "applicable to NHTSA." However, there may be state and local laws that require compliance with the Federal motor vehi cle safety standards, issued by NHTSA, in order for vehicles to be sold or registered for use on state and local roads. We believe it likely that this is your concern, and we will take this opportunity to explain the relationship between Federal and Sta te or local requirements.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), in effect, allows a State or a political subdivision of a State to enact a safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a NHTSA Federal motor vehicle s afety standard if it is identical to the NHTSA standard. A State or local standard cannot impose a higher level of performance than a NHTSA standard, except for vehicles procured for use by the State or the political subdivision. Further, a State or a subdivision is specifically permitted to enforce its own identical safety standard. Finally, State or local standards are permitted in areas of performance where there is no NHTSA standard, such as horns and fog lamps.

Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each motor vehicle to bear its manufacturer's permanently affixed certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification raises the presumption that the vehicle, in fact, conforms with those standards. If a State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards as a condition of vehicle sale or registration, then the manufacturer's certification should be accepted as fulfilling this State or local requirement. We believe, however, that in spite of the certification, a vehicle could be rejected as not in conformance with Federal requirements within the meaning of State or local law if the nonconformanc e was manifest on its face (e.g., failure of a new passenger car to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp) in spite of the facts that a State cannot enforce a Federal standard, and that neither the manufacturer nor NHTSA may have made a formal determination of noncompliance.

If the State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all

State or local requirements as a condition of sale or registration, the manufacturer's certification may be accepted as indicating compliance with all identical State or local requirements if the governing authority so chooses, but obviously the certific ation could not cover compliance with State or local requirements in areas not covered by the Federal safety standards.

We hope that this explanation is useful to you, and will be glad to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: nht94-1.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Maine E. Peace -- Supervising Revenue Officer, State of Washington, Department of Revenue

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 8/3/93 from Maine E. Peace to Robert Hellmuth (OCC-8957)

TEXT:

This is in response to your FAX of August 3, 1993, to Robert Hellmuth, Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to the disposition of Canadian vehicles seized in the State of Washington for violations of Washington law regarding the possession and transportation of illegal cigarettes. I apologize for the delay in our response. You have requested that we "provide authority for the department of Revenue to sell the vehicles locally even tho (sic) they were manufactured in Canada , providing of course the vehicles meet most if not all the standards regulated by your agency regarding vehicle safety."

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides, among other things, that no person shall import into the United States any motor vehicle that does not comply with U.S. safety s tandards. When a vehicle that doesn't meet the U.S. safety standards crosses the border from Canada into the United States, its driver is regarded as the importer, and, unless the driver or circumstances indicate otherwise, we view the importation as a temporary one by a non-resident for his or her personal use, and hence, permissible.

However, if the State of Washington were to seize the vehicle and sell it locally, the action of the State would have the effect of converting the temporary importation of a non-conforming vehicle into a permanent one. We believe that such action would b e inconsistent with the Safety Act's requirement that no person import into the United States any motor vehicle that doesn't meet U.S. safety standards.

Non-conforming Canadian vehicles are admitted into the United States on the condition that they will be exported back to Canada within one year. We believe that the most appropriate way for the State of Washington to dispose of the vehicles would be to e xport them back to Canada.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

ID: nht94-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Luis Carricaburu -- South Steering Specialists

TO: Mary L. Versailles -- Office Of The Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/5/94 From John Womack To Luis Carricaburu (A42; Std. 208; VSA S108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: I WISH TO THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ADRESS MY QUESTION.

IS IT ILLEGAL TO BUY OR SELL A SALVAGED AIR BAG FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPAIRING A OTHER PERSONS AUTOMOVILE?

DEFINITION OF SALVAGED AIR BAG AS IT IS INTENDED IN ABOVE QUESTION.

A AIR BAG FROM A VEHICLE THAT HAS FOR ONE REASON OR A OTHER MADE. ITS WAY TO A AUTOMOTIVE RECYCLING YARD BUTT IS STILL INTACT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

ID: nht94-1.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 4, 1994

FROM: John Moore -- Maintenance, Ferrucci Nurseries

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to John Moore (A42; Std. 207)

TEXT:

I am seeking verification of information regarding the installation of passenger seats in a van used for farm transportation. I have been instructed by George Shifflet that as long as we're in compliance with safety regulations, we are permitted to make the installation. Please verify this information in writing, and either fax to me at (609) 697-4241, or mail to me at:

Ferrucci Nurseries Rd 1, Box 299 Piney Hollow Rd. Newfield, NJ 08344

Should you need to discuss this request further, please contact me at any time.

Thank you for your cooperation.