ID: nht92-5.31

DATE: July 1, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gene Fouts -- Shelbyville Municipal Water and Sewer (Kentucky)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/19/91 from Paul J. Rice to Jerry Tassan (Part 567)

TEXT:

This responds to the questions you posed in a telephone conversation with Mr. Jim Simons of our Plans and Policy division. Specifically, you asked whether a vehicle manufacturer can alter the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) assigned to one of its vehicles on the certification label, and, if so, how the alteration would be accomplished. You asked this question in the context of the Federal Highway Administration's commercial driver's license program which applies in part, to commercial vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 lbs. or more. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our regulations for you.

In a March 19, 1991 letter to Mr. Jerry Tassan, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, I explained that the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the original manufacturer, a final stage manufacturer, or an alterer. Thus, the answer to the first part of your question is that the original vehicle manufacturer can modify the GVWR assigned to vehicles. However, modifications to assigned GVWRs should not be made for reasons relating to the GVWR threshold of the commercial driver's license program. This agency expects that modifications to assigned GVWRs would be made only when the manufacturer had made an effort regarding the originally assigned GVWR on the certification label and that the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable safety standards would still be valid for this vehicle at the modified GVWR. The modified GVWR should, of course, comply with S567.4(g)(3) of Title 49 of the CFR which requires that the GVWR "not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." The agency further expects that if a manufacturer changed the GVWR of one vehicle, it would also change the GVWR of all similar vehicles.

The answer to how the manufacturer would go about modifying the assigned GVWR on a vehicle is not set forth explicitly in our regulations. Hence, the manufacturer has some latitude in choosing what it would provide to display the modified GVWR on the vehicle. However, a label with the modified GVWR should be permanently affixed to the vehicle as near as possible to the certification label. Further, the modification would have to be shown in such a way that the vehicle operator would not be likely to misunderstand or be confused about which GVWR the vehicle manufacturer regards as the correct one.

In your telephone conversation with Mr. Simons, you indicated that you were also interested in whether the Federal Highway Administration would recognize a modified GVWR for purposes of the commercial driver's license requirements. We have spoken with the Federal Highway Administration, which has indicated that it would recognize legitimate modifications to the GVWR that are made by the original vehicle manufacturer. If you have any further questions about licensing requirements for operators of commercial motor vehicles, I suggest

you contact Mr. James Scapelleto, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, HCS-1, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-5.32

DATE: July 1, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth Lenz -- HME Incorporated

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/24/92 from Kenneth Lenz to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 7449)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." (S S4)

Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks should be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206.

You also asked about the possibility of obtaining an exemption from Standard No. 206 for fire trucks. The only provisions for exemptions from safety standards are those set forth in 49 CFR 555, a copy of which is enclosed. As you will note, the circumstances under which exemptions may be granted and the scope of such exemptions are very limited.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Attachments

Copy of 49 CFR 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Copy of S 571.206, Standard No. 206; Door locks and door retention components. (Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht92-5.33

DATE: July 1, 1992 EST

FROM: Charles L. Henry, Jr.

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 08/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Charles Henry, Jr. (Std. 101; A39; Std. 108; VSA 108)

TEXT:

My partner and I will shortly begin marketing an electronic device for automatically shutting down the lighting circuits of an automobile or vehicle after a predetermined time period following the motor shut down. A patent is applied for and we are incorporated.

We were advised to have the device cleared by the consumer products safety commission but they say they don't control anything relating to auto safety and referred me to N.A.H.T.S.A.

I am told that your organization has no clearance procedures either but was advised that you might provide some sound advice.

We are aware that such devices are currently available as optional equipment on higher priced automobiles. Our device accomplishes this "automatic lights-out" function in a different way and will be initially sold to the auto "add-on" market at a reasonable price for do-it-yourselvers or installers.

Any advice you can provide will be greatly appreciated. We are trying to take all the steps necessary to protect our corp. and the public.

ID: nht92-5.34

DATE: 07/01/92 EST

FROM: Bob Bullard

TO: Walter Myers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/4/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Bob Bullard (A39; Std. 120)

TEXT:

In regards to our telephone conversation on Monday, July 20 concerning used tires being installed as standard equipment on new utility trailers.

There are over 200,000 utility trailers manufactured annually. Of this number, approximately 185,000 are mounted with used tires and shipped to the dealers. The dealers sell these trailers to the general public. This situation presents a problem in that every trailer has a rated load weight allowable. With used tires being used-the rated load weight is totally inaccurate, because no one knows what kind of weight a used tires can carry. Because of this problem, it is not uncommon to see a new trailer have a blow-out on our highways. In many instances, these accidents cause major fatalities.

The NHTSA has had the foresight to asses the situation and now has a regulation pertaining to used tires on trailers,--reference #49CFR Ch.V,571.120,S5.1.3. The drawback to this regulation is that no trailer manufacturer or dealer knows about this law. If they are aware of it's existence- they do not full understand it. Although this regulation speaks for itself, some of those dealing with the requirements may not have an extensive educational background. For this reason, I desperately need an interpretation from your office that spells out exactly what a manufacturer and dealer can and cannot do in regards to this law.

Please include in this interpretation, a simplified version of the regulation, penalty for violations, and who to contact for enforcement. This version will be sent to dealers around the country.

If only one life can be saved on our highways by bringing utility trailers to your already existing standards, the time on this issue will have been well spent.

Please forward the requested information to: Bob Bullard 12400 West I-20 E Odessa, Texas 79766 (915) 563-0300

ID: nht92-5.35

DATE: June 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Puentes -- President, Sacramento Registration Service

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/2/92 from Jeffrey Puentes to NHTSA Chief Council (OCC 7403)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 2, 1992, asking several questions with respect to kit cars.

Your questions, and our answers, are:

"What is your definition of a Kit Car?"

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted a definition of a kit car. The regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are issued and enforced by this agency refer to manufacturers, motor vehicles, and motor vehicle equipment, and it is in this context that we answer questions about kits of motor vehicle equipment and the vehicles that may be assembled from them.

"How far into the manufacturing process can a party assemble a kit before it is classified as an automobile?"

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a motor vehicle is defined, in part, as one that is "driven by mechanical power." Generally, until the power source is added, the unit is considered an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle. However, if the assemblage is shipped with all parts necessary for its completion, including the power source, the agency will consider it a motor vehicle for purposes of its regulations regardless of its state of completion.

"What definitions and/or rules (laws) must he follow in order to begin selling kits for kit cars to the retail public?"

There are no specific regulations that a seller of kits must follow in order to begin sales. However, if the seller is the fabricator of an item of motor vehicle equipment that is directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the seller must ensure that the equipment item is properly certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These equipment items include brake hose assemblies, brake fluid, lamps and reflex reflectors, tires, wheel covers, or hubcaps, glazing materials, and seat belt assemblies.

Further, if the assemblage is shipped with all parts necessary for its completion, including the power source, and the parts are all new, the seller must provide certification that the vehicle, when assembled, will conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers, which identifies relevant NHTSA standards and regulations and explains how to get copies of those standards and regulations, and a brochure that gives a summary description of our standards and regulations.

ID: nht92-5.36

DATE: June 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Walter T. Jakobowski -- President, Signal Dynamics Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/92 from Walter T. Jakobowski to Jamie McLaughlin Fish (OCC 7324)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Jamie Fish, a former employee of this agency. You referenced an October 1991 meeting with Taylor Vinson of this office, and other agency representatives, to discuss your aftermarket Safety System, and how it could be legally used. You write that "Mr. Vinson's position was that we could conduct testing with fleet and privately owned vehicles, because 'fleet owners' are considered individuals and therefore have the right to modify their vehicle as desired after manufacturing." You now request a confirmation of that interpretation.

You have not described your Safety System, but, as Mr. Vinson remembers it, your device changes the center highmounted stop lamp so that it operates in a manner that does not conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You were informed that 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) states that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." This means that none of the persons so named could install your Safety System without violating the Act. However, the owner of a vehicle is not precluded by Section 1397(a)(2) (A) from modifying his own vehicle without respect to whether the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 108. As you note, "State law, of course, is another matter."

You were further advised that commercial enterprises who own fleets of vehicles are also not considered to be manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses within the meaning of Section 1397(a)(2)(A), and could have your Safety System installed by their own in-house private service facilities without violating the statute. Accordingly, I am pleased to confirm your interpretation.

ID: nht92-5.37

DATE: June 30, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Bob Clement -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/11/92 from Bob Clement to Andrew Card, Jr.

TEXT:

Thank you for your June 11, 1992, letter to Secretary Card regarding the use of 11 or more passenger vans for school purposes.

You stated in your letter that concern exists among your constituents in Tennessee as to whether such vans can be used to transport students participating in after-school athletic events. You further stated that you were advised by your constituents that Federal law permits school officials to use 10-passenger vans but not vans equipped to carry 11 or more passengers. In closing, you asked whether the regulations in question provide any relief for the school districts in this situation or, if not, whether this Department or the National Transportation Safety Board have considered revising those regulations.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) appreciates the opportunity to clarify for you our school bus regulations. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. SS1381 - 1431 (hereinafter Safety Act), authorizes NHTSA to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments. These amendments directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all school buses. Such standards became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to every school bus manufactured on or after that date. The standards may be found in 49 CFR Part 571.

Under Federal law, a vehicle, including a van, designed for carrying 11 or more persons is a bus. A bus is a school bus if used or intended for use in transporting students to and from school or school-related activities.

The Safety Act requires each person selling a new school bus to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, a person may sell a new bus, including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons, to a school or school district only if the vehicle is certified as complying with our school bus safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the bus. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus and the vehicle is not certified as such.

Please note that Federal law and our implementing regulations directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. School districts are not prohibited by Federal law from using their vans to transport school children, whether or not such vans meet school bus safety standards. However, states are free to impose their own standards relating to the USE of motor vehicles, including school buses. Therefore, Tennessee may impose any regulation it deems appropriate regarding the use of school buses.

We also would like to note that it is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children. In addition, use of noncomplying vehicles of any kind to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. School districts should consult their attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on this issue.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-5.38

DATE: June 30, 1992

FROM: Lyle Walheim -- Lieutenant, Motor Carrier & Inspection Services, Wisconsin Department of Transportation

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Thomas Turner -- Bluebird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Lyle Walheim (A39; Std. 131)

TEXT:

I am writing regarding a concern raised by Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Bluebird Body Co. In his letter of April 21, 1992, he requested information regarding FMVSS Standard 131. He also asked for an interpretation of how it applies to Wisconsin as well as other states that require the four warning-light system on school buses rather than the eight warning-light system now used in several states.

Wisconsin Statute S346.48(2)(a) requires that a school bus operator shall actuate such red lights at least 100 feet before stopping to load or unload pupils or other authorized passengers, etc. As stated in 346.48(1), a driver shall stop when the bus is displaying the flashing red warning lights. In addition, when the bus comes to a atop, the "stop-arm" is actuated by the opening of the service door. The service door may not be opened until the bus comes to a complete stop as stated in Administrative Rule, Trans 300.64.

In states that require an eight warning-light system, the amber warning lights are actuated when the school bus is preparing to stop; the red lights are not actuated until the bus comes to a stop. At that point, the red lights come on; the stop lights are actuated and the service door is opened. As you can see, it would not be practical to have the stop-arm extend until the bus actually stops and the door is opened.

It was our understanding that the Bluebird proposal to install a warning device that will sound when the alternating red lights are activated until the service door is opened and the stop-arm is extended would meet the requirement found in S5.5 exception.

The Wisconsin red light system has been required since 1954 and there are no plans to change to the eight light system. Conversion would be very costly and would create a great deal of confusion for the public who is used to the four light system.

It would appear that when the standard was written and implemented, no consideration was given to states who had implemented the stop-arm requirements (for safety purposes) well before they were considered for implementation in Standard 131.

Wisconsin urges you to consider approval of the warning system proposed by Bluebird Bus Company that appears to comply with the exception found in S5.5 for states that require the four red warning-light system.

Wisconsin continues to be in full compliance with SS131 except there now appears to be a difference of how S5.5 is interpreted for states with the four light system.

As previously indicated, requiring the stop-arm to be activated when the red warning lights come on will require Wisconsin to change both Statutes and the Administrative Rule to require an eight light system. This would be both very costly to retrofit and confusing to the public until total conversion by replacement of vehicles placed in operation prior to the effective date of SS131.

I have enclosed copies of Wisconsin Statutes and Administrative Rules for your information. If you have questions or need further information, feel free to call me at (608) 266-0305.

(Enclosure omitted)

ID: nht92-5.39

DATE: June 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 6/3/92 from Steven Henderson to Michael Perel (OCC 7383)

TEXT:

Michael Perel of this agency has asked this Office to reply to your FAX of June 3, 1992, in which you have asked for a legal opinion with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning-device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you have described the device, it "flickers the headlight, tail light, and signal lights at a rate of 10 flashes per second whenever the horn button is pressed." If the horn button is pushed while a turn signal is operating, "the headlight flickers at a rate of 10 Hz, and only the actuated signal light gives out 2 Hz bursts of 10 Hz flicker." The device "is also intended for use with automobile signal lights (but not automobile headlights)."

One of the basic performance requirements of Standard No. 108 is that lighting equipment in use be steady-burning, with the exceptions provided in S5.5.10. One of these exceptions (S5.5.10(c)) allows either the upper beam, or the lower beam, of a motorcycle headlamp to be wired to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity, in accordance with S5.6. Your letter does not state whether the "flicker" is between the upper and lower beams, or between intensity levels within a single beam so that we do not know whether the modulation is in accordance with S5.6. However, the flash rate of 10 per second is substantially more than the maximum of 280 cycles per minute specified by S5.6.1(a), so, that overall, the device would not comply with the exception set forth in S5.5.10(c).

Furthermore, the device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

For the reasons stated above, the device would be impermissible for installation as original motor vehicle equipment. The situation is much the same in the aftermarket. Under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), as it applies to your device, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle-repair business may modify a motor vehicle in a manner that renders it noncompliant with Standard No. 108. You will note that the statute does not preclude the owner from such modifications. Thus, if a motorcycle owner can install the device, there would be no violation of Federal Law. In this event, the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states, many of which follow Standard No. 108.

You have also asked our assistance "in advancing the examination of a U.S. patent application" for the device in accordance with 37 CFR 1.102. Advancements may occur upon application wherein the invention is "deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason." Because the safety benefits of the device are speculative and unproven, and because the device is contrary to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I believe that it would be improper for this agency to intervene in the manner you have requested.

ID: nht92-5.4

DATE: July 31, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Le Van Lac -- Vice President, Pioneer Electronic Services, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/5/92 from Le Van Lac to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7406)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 5, 1992, with reference to your plan to sell a new car speaker in the U.S. It will be installed "in the rear deck" with the "Pioneer brand name to be printed on the rear side of the speaker cabinet." The brand name will be lit "with blue color at night" and "there are 8 lamps for each left and right speaker." The brightness of the lamp is "just 1/40 of the high mount stop lamp." You believe that the "illuminated speaker will not impair the effectiveness of the existing lighting equipment installed into the car."

We understand that the speaker will be sold as aftermarket equipment, not as original equipment. Installation of the speaker by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is permissible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as long as it does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any of the rear view mirror or lighting equipment that is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The drawing you enclosed, and the description of the speaker, are insufficient for us to provide you a definitive interpretation. For instance, it is not possible to tell whether the light is oriented to the rear, so that it will be seen through the rear window, adjacent to the center highmounted stop lamp, or whether it is oriented to the front, so that it will reflect in the rear view mirror. In either location, it may have the potential to affect negatively the safety performance of rear view mirrors or the rear center stop lamp. Taylor Vinson of this Office telephoned your company on June 22, suggesting that it furnish a clearer drawing and a better description. As of the date of this response, we have heard nothing further from you.

Further, there are state laws that prohibit illumination in vehicle interiors under certain conditions. We are unable to advise you of these laws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to provide you with an interpretation.