ID: GF006103

Larry C. Dickinson, Ph.D.
Manager, Engineering & Technology
Martin Marietta Composites
PO Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622

Dear Mr. Dickinson:

This responds to your phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff and subsequent e-mail asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (FMVSS No. 223), S5.2.2 allows for "elastic deformation" as opposed to plastic deformation. Specifically, you ask whether the requirement that the energy absorption be accomplished by plastic deformation would preclude a material that returns to its original shape (i.e., elastic material).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

FMVSS No. 223 requires that underride guards fitted to new trailers and semitrailers provide a certain amount of energy absorption to lessen the crash forces on a passenger vehicle colliding from the rear. In creating FMVSS No. 223, the agency sought to balance concerns associated with rear impact guards being overly rigid and non-yielding in rear impact crashes against those associated with the guards being insufficiently rigid to prevent intrusion of a trailer into a vehicle occupant compartment. Accordingly, the standard requires that a certain minimum amount of force be absorbed through "permanent yielding" or plastic deformation of the guard. [1] S5.2.2 of the standard states:

" [a] guard  . . .shall absorb by plastic deformation within the first 125 mm of deflection at least 5,650 J of energy at each test location P3."
(emphasis added).

The standards energy absorption requirement cannot be met by elastic deformation for two reasons. First, the language of the standard calls for plastic deformation. Second, the prescribed method of measuring the required energy absorption greatly restricts any elastic qualities of the rear impact guard. Specifically, any energy that the guard returns to the force application device when the load is removed (i.e., the elastic component of the deformation) is subtracted from the total energy absorption for purposes of meeting the requirement.

The requirement that guards absorb energy by plastic deformation was to ensure that the guard did not subsequently return the absorbed energy to the colliding vehicle, because that energy return could increase the chance of death or injury to the occupants. Any immediate rebound occurring after the crash event could pose a threat to passenger vehicle occupants.

In an August 4, 1998, letter to Mr. Toms of Power Brace (copy enclosed), NHTSA stated that the plastic deformation requirement of S5.2.2 does not preclude use of certain elastic materials that return to their original shape very slowly (approximately 24 hours). Based on your conversation with Mr. Feygin, it is our understanding that your question concerned materials that returned to their original shape immediately after impact.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:223
d.10/21/03





---

[1] See Preamble to the Final Rule, January 24, 1996 (61 FR 2004 at 2011).

ID: GF006332

Mr. Timothy C. Murphy
Vice President, Engineering
Peterson Manufacturing Company
4200 East 135^th Street
Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your letter dated August 18, 2004, asking whether strobing stop lamps or auxiliary lamps are permissible under the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment, including stop lamps, is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. The relevant sections of that standard read as follows:

S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:

(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;

(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;

(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;

(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning. [emphasis added]

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise explicitly permitted.In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c).Accordingly, FMVSS No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady burning. We regard a strobe lamp as one that flashes. For this reason, the strobing stop lamps described in your letter would be prohibited by FMVSS No. 108, if they are installed as original equipment on motor vehicles.They would also be prohibited from being sold as replacement for original equipment stop lamps.Further, unless auxiliary lamps mentioned in your letter fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c), they must also be steady burning.

This prohibition would also apply to aftermarket lighting installation because 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative safety equipment installed in accordance with FMVSS No. 108 (and any other applicable FMVSS as well).Accordingly, installation of a strobing lamp not permitted by S5.5.10 would create a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 which constitutes "making inoperative" within the meaning of the statute.

The list of persons prohibited from making vehicle modifications affecting compliance in 49 U.S.C. 30122 does not include vehicle owners.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/1/04

ID: GF006472

Mr. Jim Haigh
Vice President
Transpec Worldwide
7205 Sterling Ponds Ct.
Sterling Heights, MI 48312




Dear Mr. Haigh:

This responds to your e-mail regarding installation of certain auxiliary lighting on school buses. Specifically, you ask whether installing a "Driver Alert Device" on school buses, which you state has been mandated by the State of Alabama, conflicts with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment.

Your e-mail and your web site (www.transpecworldwide.com/products/driver_alert.htm) explain that the "Driver Alert Device" is an LED message board mounted on the school bus emergency door that is wired to flash the word "Caution" when the school bus is backing up. The device is also wired into the eight-lamp school bus warning lamp system. When the amber lamps of the system are activated, the LED sign alternately flashes "Caution-Stopping". When the red lamps of the system are activated, the sign flashes "Stop" or "Do not Pass".

First, S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 generally requires that all lamps, including auxiliary lighting, must be steady burning, unless otherwise specifically permitted. Your message board does not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10.

Second, S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 prohibits additional lighting devices that impair the effectiveness of lamps required by FMVSS No. 108. The agency interprets the standard as generally prohibiting electronic message boards because they have the potential of impairing the effectiveness of required lighting (see August 4, 1997 letter to Mr. Alan Robinson).

However, with respect to school buses equipped with flashing electronic message boards, we do not prohibit them because we believe that under certain local conditions, an electronic message board could enhance the safety of school bus passengers. That is, we defer to the States with respect to the narrow issue of prescribing or prohibiting electronic message boards on school buses.

We caution that this interpretation is limited to electronic message boards on school buses. For example, the agency recently explained that our standards would prohibit a flashing red lamp located on the roof of a school bus, because it had the potential of impairing the effectiveness of the required lighting (see 5/22/03 letter to J. Adam Krugh IV). Further, electronic message boards must be located far enough away from the required lighting so as to minimize any potential impairment.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

NCC-112:Gfeygin:mar:11/2/05:62992:OCC 006472
Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 108
S:\INTERP\108\GF006472.doc

ID: GF006474

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609




Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in response to your letter in which you requested an interpretation of the new tire information requirements in S4.3.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask if the tire and rim information specified in S4.3.3 of FMVSS No. 110 could be set forth separately from the certification label. As discussed below, the answer is no. However, as we have indicated in the past, it is permissible to provide a certification label in two parts under certain circumstances.

S4.3.3 reads (with emphasis added) as follows:

Additional labeling information for vehicles other than passenger cars.Each vehicle shall show the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for the tire appropriate for use on that vehicle, including the tire installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer, after each GAWR listed on the certification label required by 567.4 or 567.5 of this chapter. This information shall be in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 2.4 millimeters high and in the following format:

Truck ExampleSuitable Tire-Rim Choice

GVWR: 2,441 kilograms (5381 pounds).

GAWR: Front1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.0 rims at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

GAWR: Rear1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.00 rims, at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

The information required by S4.3.3 thus cannot appear separately from the certification label.

We note, however, that as we explained in a May 3, 1984, letter to Takeshi Tanuma of Nissan, NHTSA permits the use of a certification label in two parts, under certain circumstances. We explained that while the Part 567 certification regulations specify that "a label" must be used, the agency has permitted the use of a label in two parts in circumstances which will not lead to confusion and which will satisfy the basic intent of Part 567. Specifically, the two portions of the label must be placed in close proximity to each other, to permit individuals to readily find all the specified information and to leave no doubt as to the significance of either portion of the label. Further, the two portions must be oriented in such a manner that the specified information appears in the required order. As a practical matter, these considerations require that the two portions be affixed to the same vehicle part. While the agency did not specify a particular distance as a maximum permissible separation of the two portions of the label, we stated that the two portions must be located so as to leave the unmistakable impression that they provide related information.

Accordingly, the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be separated from the certification label. However, the certification label may be affixed in two parts under the circumstances described above.

We note that the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be added to the tire information placard required by S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. As the agency previously explained in amending the tire safety information regulations, additional information is not appropriate because it would overcrowd the already content-rich vehicle placard (see 69 FR 31306 at 31311).

Finally, we note that in the end of your letter, you requested that, if a separate label is not permitted, the agency treat your letter as a request for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 110 in order to afford vehicle manufacturers the option of specifying alternative tire and rim information separately from the certification label. However, your letter did not provide sufficient supporting information for us to determine whether rulemaking would be warranted.

If, after reviewing this letter, you still believe that rulemaking is needed, please submit a petition for rulemaking with detailed supporting information. Among other things, the agency would want to examine actual examples (photographs) of vehicles unable to display the information required by S4.3.3 on the usual certification label or a split certification label. We would also want to review additional information about spacing problems, and what location requirements might be appropriate for an additional label.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.11/16/05

ID: GF006496

Mr. Merrill Sutton
Tie Down Engineering, Inc.
5901 Wheaton Drive
Atlanta, GA 30336

Dear Mr. Sutton:

This responds to your facsimile and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding the possibility of placing your companys name on "side two" of brake hoses manufactured by Meiji Rubber and Chemical, Ltd. (Meiji). You indicated that Meiji is duly registered with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as a brake hose manufacturer. Further, Meiji is prepared to place your name, as a distributor, on "side two" of the brake hose.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 (FMVSS No. 106) has certain labeling requirements. S5.2.1 of the standard states:

S5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opposite sides of the brake hose parallel to its longitudinal axis. One stripe may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option." (Emphasis added.)

Based on the language of the standard, Meiji, as a manufacturer of brake hoses, is permitted to enter "additional information" on the other side of the brake hose at its option. Such "additional information" can include, among other things, the name of your company.

We note that one side (or "side one") of the brake hose must contain information as required by S5.2.2. Specifically, the one side of the brake hose must include: (a) the symbol DOT; (b) a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose; (c) the nominal inside diameter of the hose; (d) the month, day and year of manufacture; [1] and (e) either "HR" to indicate regular-expansion hydraulic hose or "HL" to indicate low-expansion hydraulic hose.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:106
d.10/9/03





---

[1] Your facsimile contained drawings of the brake hose in question. We note that the drawing of "side one" of the brake hose contains only the month and year of the manufacture but not the date.

ID: GF006498

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This responds to your facsimile dated August 29, 2003, seeking further clarification of our interpretation letter sent to you on August 7, 2003. In response to our August 7^th letter, you have reprogrammed the flash rate in your hazard warning signal flasher. You now ask whether the newly reprogrammed flash rate complies with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Standard No. 108).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

As previously discussed, SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966 (SAE 945), is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, as the Federal Requirement for Flashers. Paragraph 3 of J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash Rate and Percent Current On Time." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. This paragraph also specifies that:

"flashing rate . . . shall be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles." (emphasis added)

Your newly reprogrammed flash pattern operates as follows (in milliseconds):

ON	OFF	ON	OFF	ON	OFF
200	250	200	250	200	850

Our calculations indicate that the above flash pattern, taking into account the averaging procedure set forth in J945, is within the specified flash rate.

In considering this issue further, however, we believe this type of flash pattern is very different from what NHTSA contemplated in incorporating J945 by reference in Standard No. 108. As you know, existing flashers operate at an essentially constant rate. Moreover, while Figure 1 of J945 permits considerable flexibility in flash rate, our calculations indicate that the flash rate and percent current on time for each and every cycle of your flash pattern fall outside the figure.

As we have stated before, we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. The information currently provided by signal lamps, such as flashers, is well understood by the driving public, instantly recognized, and unambiguously informative. We are concerned that very different flash patterns have the potential to cause confusion. Therefore, we plan in the near future to modify Standard No. 108 in a way that would preclude your design.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/2/04

ID: GF006627-2

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in response to your letter of September 8, 2004, in which you requested interpretation of the new tire information placard requirements in S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, as amended June 3, 2004 (see 69 FR 31306).

The standard currently applicable to the vehicles described in your letter (trucks and trailers) is FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that the tire information must appear on the vehicle certification label or on a separate tire information label affixed to the vehicle in the same manner and location as the certification label (see 49 CFR 567.4).

Effective September 1, 2005, FMVSS No. 110 will apply to trucks and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.S4.3 of that standard will require that each vehicle contain either a single vehicle placard with a revised list of tire information, or a vehicle placard and a supplementary tire inflation pressure label, affixed to the drivers side B-pillar.Prior to September 1, 2005, compliance with the new requirements in S4.3 is voluntary.Thus, until September 1, 2005, the vehicles described in your letter with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less may comply with either S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 or S4.3 of the amended version of FMVSS No. 110.

You ask whether a tire information placard, affixed to a previously certified vehicle that has been altered, may remain on that vehicle if it contains incorrect information because of the alteration.You also ask if it is permissible to remove or black out portions of the tire information placard that may contain incorrect information.Your letter does not specify whether the placard in question is one affixed pursuant to the current requirements of FMVSS No. 120 or the new requirements of FMVSS No. 110.Our answers follow.

First, irrespective of which tire information placard is affixed to the vehicle, the information on that placard must be correct. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a dealer may not sell vehicles or equipment that do not comply with applicable safety standards.Also, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits dealers, manufacturers, and certain other entities from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, a dealer must replace the tire information placard if, after the dealer installs additional equipment, the required information is no longer accurate. We note that, with respect to altered vehicles, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

In the event that a vehicle contains a tire information placard affixed pursuant to S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120, and a placard affixed pursuant to the requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, at least one placard must contain accurate information and must fully comply with applicable requirements.The other placard may remain if it is accurate, or must be removed or replaced, if it is not.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has consistently stated with respect to labeling requirements that additional information may be present (unless specifically prohibited), provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose."In the case at hand, a second, voluntarily affixed placard containing incorrect tire safety information would confuse the meaning of the required information on the required placard.Accordingly, the second placard would have to be replaced, or be removed.

In sum, until September 1, 2005, the altered vehicles described in your letter must fully comply with current requirements in FMVSS No. 120 or the new requirements in FMVSS No. 110.In both instances, the tire information placard must contain accurate information.If both placards are affixed to the vehicle, neither placard may contain information that would confuse the meaning of the required contents.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.12/22/04

ID: GF007036

Mr. Robert M. Clarke
President, Truck Manufacturers Association
1225 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005-6156

Dear Mr. Clarke:

This is in response to your letter of September 15, 2003, seeking clarification of the two effective dates for the new heavy vehicle antilock brake system (ABS) performance requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 121, and FMVSS No. 105. [1] In your letter, you indicated your understanding that "complete vehicle" manufacturers were subject to the effective date of July 1, 2005.You also indicated your understanding that "incomplete vehicle" manufacturers, including "final stage" manufacturers and "intermediate stage" manufacturers were subject to the effective date of July 1, 2006. You ask whether a "chassis-cab" manufacturer [2] would also qualify as an "incomplete vehicle" manufacturer, and thus be subject to the July 1, 2006, effective date. As discussed below, our answer is yes.

The new regulatory text of FMVSS No. 121 states, in relevant part:

"The service brake system on each bus and truck (other than a truck tractor) manufactured on or after July 1, 2005, and each bus and truck (other than a truck tractor) manufactured in two or more stages on or after July 1, 2006 shall, under the conditions of S6, meet the requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.3, S5.3.4, and S5.3.6"

The new regulatory text for FMVSS No. 105 contains similar language with respect to the effective dates.

The preamble to the final rule explains that "vehicles built in two or more stages must meet the braking-in-a-curve tests requirements on or after July 1, 2006." The preamble also indicates that the additional lead time was necessary in order to enable early stage manufacturers to provide complying incomplete vehicles to final stage manufactures. [3]

With respect to the effective date for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, the final rule does not differentiate between the different stages of the manufacturing process or different categories of incomplete vehicles. Instead, we provided an effective date of July 1, 2006, for all vehicles built in two or more stages. Accordingly, all vehicles built in two or more stages, including chassis-cabs, are subject to the effective date of July 1, 2006.

With respect to your last question, the abbreviation "LLVW" appearing in Table 1 of the August 11 Final Rule, stands for "lightly loaded vehicle weight." The term carries the same meaning in FMVSS No. 121 as it does in FMVSS No. 105 where it is defined as unloaded vehicle weight plus up to 1,500 lb. We intend to add this same definition to FMVSS No. 121 at a future date.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.12/3/03





---

[1] The new requirements were published in the Final Rule on August 11, 2003 (68 FR 47485).

[2] A "chassis-cab" is one type of incomplete vehicle.

[3] See Id. at 47493.

ID: GF007048

Jose M. Hernndez, President
Service Public Commission
PO Box 190870
San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00919-0870
ATTN: Maria Roln-Castillo, Esq.

Dear Mr. Hernndez:

This responds to your letter regarding certain rules and procedures that may be applicable to ambulance manufacturers. Specifically, you ask about the certification process for ambulance manufacturers. You also ask whether an ambulance manufacturer must obtain permission or a license in order to manufacture ambulances, and whether non-registered parties can rebuild existing ambulances using replacement chassis. We apologize for the delay in responding.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which all motor vehicle manufacturers, including ambulance manufacturers, are responsible for certifying that their vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

An ambulance manufacturer need not obtain permission or a license from NHTSA in order to manufacture ambulances. However, under the requirements of Part 566 (a copy of which is enclosed), all manufacturers of motor vehicles must submit to NHTSA certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce. Specifically, a manufacturer must indicate: (a) the full individual, partnership, or corporate name of the manufacturer; (b) the residence address of the manufacturer and state of incorporation, if applicable; (c) a description of the motor vehicle produced, including approximate ranges of the gross vehicle weight rating. The vehicle description should be specific enough to indicate the intended use. [1]

NHTSA does not generally regulate rebuilding or re-manufacturing of used motor vehicles. However, if the rebuilding or re-manufacturing involved sufficient manufacturing operations, the vehicle could be considered to be newly manufactured. This would mean that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of rebuilding (re-manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards.Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case by case basis.

In the event your use of the term "rebuild" refers to converting, prior to first retail sale, a new vehicle or the completion of an incomplete vehicle chassis into an ambulance, then such a manufacturer would be considered either a "vehicle alterer" or a "final stage manufacturer." These entities are subject to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 567 and Part 568, which generally require the entities to certify that the given completed or modified vehicle meets or continues to meet all applicable FMVSS.

We also note that under 49 U.S.C. 30122, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle" pursuant to an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, a manufacturer who undertakes to "rebuild" or convert a previously sold vehicle into an ambulance is subject to the prohibitions of this "make inoperative provision."

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:566
d.12/8/03





---

[1] Please note that if the vehicle in question is produced in two or more stages (which is often the case with ambulances), the manufacturer must indicate the stage of completion for which this ambulance manufacturer is responsible (presumably the final stage), and include a brief description of the work performed.

ID: GF007210

Mr. Jeff Oldham
Performance Tires, LLC
22810 Pennyrile Lane
Katy, TX 77450

Dear Mr. Oldham:

This responds to your e-mail and previous phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding the legality of "knock off" style wheel hubs. You intend to supply these wheel hubs to Factory Five Racing, a kit car manufacturer, who will in turn, sell unassembled kits to consumers. You ask whether "knock off" style wheel hubs satisfy the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

In your e-mail, you describe the wheel hubs in question as follows: "An adapter goes over the existing studs which the wheel would typically mount to. The adapter is held on by lugs, then the wheel is slid over the adapter. The wheel itself is held on by an "knock off" style hub, which screws down onto the adapter on the face of the wheel. The knockoff screws on in a counter clockwise rotation (opposite direction of the wheels when the car is in drive)."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

There is no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard regulating "knock off" wheel hubs. Previously, FMVSS No. 211 (Standard No. 211), Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps (49 CFR Section 571.211), precluded certain wheel nuts, wheel hubs, wheel discs, and hub caps from having "winged projections." We were concerned that the winged projections could catch on clothing or strike legs or other body parts, posing a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. However, Standard No. 211 was rescinded as of June 5, 1996. [1]

We note that despite the fact that NHTSA does not directly regulate wheel hubs, any wheel hub designed to be used on a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" and is subject the recall and remedy provisions of Chapter 310. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:211
d.11/17/03





---

[1] See 61 FR 20172, copy attached.