ID: 1985-04.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Charles Pekow -- Editor, Day Care Information Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles Pekow Editor, Day Care Information Service 4550 Montgomery Ave., Suite 700 N Bethesda, Maryland 20814

This responds to your July 23, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking several questions about our school bus regulations and their applicability to the buses used by Head Start centers. In our previous letter to you of August 1, 1985, we explained that a Head Start facility is considered a "school" for purposes of determining the applicability of our school bus safety standards. Keep in mind, therefore, that the following discussion of "school buses" includes buses used by Head Start centers.

Your first question asked, "What Federal regulations apply to the sale, operation and maintenance of buses in Head Start?"

NHTSA has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses used by Head Start centers. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and other types of motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct NHTSA to issue safety standards on various aspects of school bus performance, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The safety standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to all school buses manufactured on or after that date.

Federal law requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with all applicable safety standards. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (including the driver) and sold for transporting students to and from school or related events. If any new school bus does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties.

Federal regulations pertaining to the operation and maintenance of school vehicles are found in the highway safety program standards NHTSA issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These standards provide guidelines to the States for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), provides recommended procedures for a State's pupil transportation program (covering areas such as school bus operation, maintenance, and identification). Individual States have chosen to adopt same or all of our guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs for pupil transportation. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with Program Standard No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. The requirements for school bus operation and maintenance, therefore, are matters left to the individual States to determine.

Your second question asked, "Must Head Start buses meet the same regulations required of public schools?"

Since a Head Start facility is considered a "school" for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act, persons selling new buses to such schools are required to sell buses that comply with our school bus safety standards. This requirement is imposed on sellers regardless of whether the purchasing facility is a Head Start center or a strictly public or private school.

Your third question asked, "To what extent has the Department of Transportation researched these questions?"

NHTSA conducted substantial research into school bus safety issues. When NHTSA developed the school bus safety standards, the agency evaluated the performance characteristics of various types of vehicles to determine the necessary requirements that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Among our conclusions was that the larger school buses weighing over 10,000 pounds should be constructed to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of those school buses include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and improved seat spacing and performance.

Since smaller buses, such as 10-passenger vans, experience different crash forces than larger buses and differ substantially in design, our safety standards were developed to specify particular requirements appropriate for the smaller type of vehicle. For instance, based on our assessment of the crashworthiness of those vehicles, the agency determined that school buses weighing 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped with safety belts.

There are lengthy engineering reports discussing school bus safety that you might be interested in which are available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). I have included a bibliography of those reports for your information. You can contact the NTIS at the following address:

The National Technical Information Service Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703) 557-4600

Your fourth question asked, "If any regulations apply, what types of enforcement efforts has the department made?"

In the years since the issuance of the school bus safety standards, NHTSA's Enforcement Office has contacted a number of dealers when it became known that they were supplying improper vehicles to schools. In most cases, the problems were remedied without the need for extensive enforcement actions Moreover, NHTSA will take necessary steps, including directing vehicle recalls and imposing fines, to enforce the Vehicle Safety Act provisions against the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles.

Your last question asked, "Are many grantees out of compliance to the best of your knowledge?"

Since the parties subject to the Federal school bus regulations are the manufacturers and sellers of new school buses, and not the schools using the buses, the regulations applicable to Head Start centers would be those established by State law on school bus operation. State officials should be able to provide you with information concerning the compliance of Head Start school bus programs with State requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure July 23, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, chief counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Rm. 5219 400 7th St. NW Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Miller:

One of your staffers today suggested I write requesting information for a study I'm making regarding safety of buses used to transport children to Head Start centers.

I would like answers to the following questions: What federal regulations apply to sale, operation and maintenance of buses in Head Start?

Must Head Start buses meet the same regulations required of public schools?

To what extent has the Dept. of Transportation researched these questions?

If any regulations apply, what types of enforcement efforts has the department made?

Are many grantees out of compliance to the best of your knowledge?

My research has indicated that many children are being bused to Head Start programs in buses lacking careful maintenance and safety features. I am planning to publish an article on the topic in the Day Care Information Service newsletter soon and would appreciate a swift reply.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon, I remain,

Sincerely yours, Charles Pekow editor Day Care Information Service

ID: 1985-04.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/23/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Isis Imports

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports, Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 U.S. Custom House San Francisco, CA 9412

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt. Your company, Isis Imports, is an importer of Morgan passenger cars, and has heretofore imported pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iii). Upon advice of your attorney you have concluded that you may instead import them pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix), and wish to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of that fact.

More specifically, under 12.80(b)(1)(iii) an importer declares that his vehicle was not manufactured in conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but that it has been, or will be, brought into conformity: he also is required to furnish a bond for the production of a /conformity statement. Under 12.80(b)(1)(ix), the importer simply declares that the vehicle is an "incomplete vehicle" as defined by 49 CFR Part 568; no bond is required as it is assumed that the vehicle will be completed to conform to the Federal safety standards and bear the certification of its final-stage manufacturer. Because the Morgans are received from Morgan Motor Company without "major components of the fuel system; no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc.," you believe that they are (incomplete vehicles," which are defined by S568.3 as "an assemblage consisting as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations...to become a completed vehicle."

We disagree with your conclusion. The rulemaking history of Part 568 clearly shows that the intent of the regulation is to cover vehicles whose manufacture has customarily been shared. As the agency commented in 1970, "A large number of heavy vehicles of all types, of recreational vehicles, and of special purpose vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages, of which the first is an incomplete vehicle such as a stripped chassis, chassis cowl, or chassis cab to which one or more subsequent manufacturers add components to produce a completed vehicle." (35 FR 4639) The Morgan, on the other hand, is a passenger car ordinarily manufactured in a single stage, and in this instance is nonetheless virtually complete when it arrives in the United States. It is therefore a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), and the agency will not accept any HS-7 forms evidencing attempts to enter the vehicles pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix).

I enclose copies of a couple of rulemaking proposals on Part 568 so that you might have a better understanding of its thrust. Were we to accept your interpretation, S568.4(a) would require Morgan Motor Company to furnish a document with each vehicle advising Isis how compliance with each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard might be affected by its final manufacturing operations. Given the decision of Peter Morgan over the years not to conform his vehicles for the American market, we question whether he would furnish a document attesting that his product complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except 301, Fuel System Integrity.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

November 22, 1985 Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I write on the advice of counsel to inform NHTSA and your office of a change in our response to Form HS 7. As you may recall, Isis Imports Ltd. is the U.S. outlet for the Morgan motorcar of England. We sell fewer than twenty-five cars a year, and we complete the manufacture of these cars here in San Francisco. (For your reference, I enclose a copy of our earlier correspondence, a brochure and a magazine article.)

We have until now checked Box 3 on Form HS 7. A review by our attorney of our final manufacture of these cars in the context of the applicable regulations, tells us that only a response checking Box 9 is appropriate to our business.

The Morgan chassis, body and engine is received from the Morgan Motor Company less major components of the fuel system; no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc. These vehicles are, therefore, according to our attorney, "incomplete vehicles as per 49CFR Part 568.3:

"Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

To: Frank Berndt, Esq.

Since the Morgan cars we sell in the United States operate on a propane fuel system, which is of domestic origin, the addition to the vehicle of this fuel system, as well as implementation of required safety systems, necessitates "further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components" as per 49CFR Part 568.3.

The addition of the fuel tank, in particular, is a fairly detailed manufacturing procedure and without the entire fuel system we add, the car is not a complete vehicle, since it could not be operated. We are aware, of course, of the requirements for "Final Stage manufacturers" as stated in 49 CFR 566 and 49 CFR 568 and are forwarding to the Administrator our identification as a "Final Stage Manufacturer."

Please let us know if your office or your agency require any further information from us. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

W. R. Fink President

WRF:jb

File

CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports, Ltd. P. 0. Box 2290 US Custom House San Francisco, CA 94126

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1983 requesting confidential treatment for information which was submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with statements of compliance and which pertained to vehicles imported by Isis Imports, Ltd. into the United States.

In telephone conversations with Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, you indicated that you had no objection to the release of HS Forms 189. You requested, however, that submitted drawings, diagrams, specifications and photographs showing the methods and extent of modifications made to Morgan vehicles be treated confidentially by this agency. After carefully reviewing the submitted materials and your justifications I have decided to grant your request in part and deny it in part.

All submitted materials will be afforded confidential treatment with the exception of the photographs. NHTSA does not believe that their release will cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. In order to determine whether release of information will cause such harm, courts consider "how valuable the information will be to the requesting competitors and how much this gain will damage the submitter." Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle. 662 F. 2d 45, 51 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

You indicate that a presumption has been established by 49 CFR Part 512 with respect to blueprints and engineering drawings containing process of production data where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints or engineering drawings except after significant reverse engineering. This class determination, however, pertains only to blueprints and engineering drawings; it cannot be interpreted to apply to photographs. Additionally, release of the photographs will not be very valuable to the requesting competitor, and will therefore not cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. Since accompanying diagrams, text and other information will remain confidential, significant reverse engineering will still be required to determine the methods and extent of modifications necessary to bring Morgan vehicles into compliance with Federal standards.

If you wish to submit additional justification explaining why Isis is entitled to confidential treatment for the photographs you must do so within 10 days of your receipt of this letter. At the end of that period, they will be made publicly available. I will notify appropriate agency personnel of this decision, and they will treat your submissions accordingly. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Warren H. Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 31, 1985 Mr. Warren H. Cox Haynesville Correction Unit #17 Haynesville, VA 22472 Dear Mr. Cox: This is to follow-up on the letter of October 11, 1985, sent to you concerning the effect of our regulations on modifications made to used vehicles. Unfortunately, there was a typographical error in the third sentence of the third paragraph, The sentence should have read "However, in making modifications to a used vehicle, commercial businesses do not have to comply with the safety standards that would apply if the modifications are made before the vehicle is first sold." We regret the error. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Charles Pekow --Editor, Day Care USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles Pekow Editor, Day Care USA 4550 Montgomery Avenue Suite 700-N Bethesda, MD 20814

This is in further response to your July 23, 1985 telephone call to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration asking whether a Head Start facility is considered a "school" for purposes of determining the applicability of our school bus safety standards. As Ms. Hom informed you, the answer is yes.

Enclosed are copies of two letters from this office addressing this " question. Our December 21, 1977 letter to Mr. James Tydings explains that Head Start facilities are preprimary schools within the scope of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974). We have also enclosed a May 10, 1982 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin of the New York State Department of Transportation. You might be interested in the discussion in the Chauvin letter that distinguishes day care centers from Head Start facilities.

I understand that you might be contacting us with further questions regarding our school bus safety standards. We will be happy to assist you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

Enclosures

NOA-30

Mr. James Tydings Thomas Built Buses, Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P. O. Box 2450 High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your November 11, 1977, letter asking whether Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools for purposes of applying the Federal school bus safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that these facilities are primarily involved with the education of preprimary school children. Thus, the buses used to transport children to and from the Head Start facilities are considered school buses under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended by the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974) and must meet all Federal school bus safety standards. Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. -- Arent, Fox, Kintner, Platkin and Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1985, concerning the applicability of the requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for the installation of center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's) to passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. You also asked about the applicability of the CHMSL performance requirements to CHMSL's sold as aftermarket equipment for cars manufactured before that date. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You are correct in stating that there is no requirement in Standard No. 108 for installing CHMSL's on new cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. The installation requirement applies only to cars manufactured on or after that date. (48 FR 48235, October 13, 1984.) The only requirements regarding CHMSL's and pre-September 1, 1985 cars are that if a manufacturer voluntarily installs a CHMSL on a car manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and before September 1, 1985, the installation must be performed in accordance with criteria concerning the location of the CHMSL, and reflections from it. (49 FR 34488, August 31, 1984.)

As to aftermarket CHMSL's for cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, the applicability depends on whether or not the CHMSL is intended to be installed as a replacement for an original equipment CHMSL that was voluntarily installed on a car that was manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but before September 1, 1985. If the aftermarket CHMSL is intended to be installed in the interior of such a car, then the manufacturer of the CHMSL must comply with the requirement in S3.1.8.4 concerning minimization of reflections. If the CHMSL is intended to be installed on other pre-September 1, 1985 cars, its manufacturer is not subject to any Standard No. 108 requirements for CHMSL's. However, the agency encourages manufacturers of any aftermarket CHMSL to conform as closely as possible to all criteria in the standard for original equipment CHMSL's. We believe that standardization of rear signals minimizes the possibility of creating confusion to following drivers in situations where immediate action is essential to avoid a rear end collision. Further, aftermarket CHMSL's for those other pre-September 1, 1985 cars would be regulated by the applicable law of the State in which they are operated.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel (202) 857-6087

September 16, 1985 Jeffrey R. Miller, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Request for Interpretation; FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller:

As we discussed by telephone, I am requesting that you confirm that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, as it relates to the requirement for installation of a single center, high-mounted stoplamp on passenger cars, does not apply to passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985, and therefore does not apply to aftermarket center high-mounted stoplamps produced for applications on passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985.

An expedited response will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely, Lawrence F. Henneberger

ID: 1985-04.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Rosario Costanzo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rosario Costanzo 28 Amelia Avenue Livingston, N.J. 07039

Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relevant to the importation of a wind deflector to be sold as an aftermarket accessory for specific motor vehicles. You also asked how such a deflector should be certified as meeting our standards. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which are applicable to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which applies to wind deflectors for use in motor vehicles, regardless of their size. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," of the American National Standard Institute. A copy of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z-26 are enclosed for your reference.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also regulates the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard. Under the requirements of this standard, a wind deflector to be used on a passenger vehicle at locations requisite for driving visibility, such as the devices you wish to import, may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, Item 11, or Item 14 glazing materials. You said your deflectors are made of plexiglass. Generally, plexiglass would have to meet the requirements set for Item 4 glazing materials.

Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (i.e., those, such as Parimor, who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) that produce glazing designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle are set out in paragraph S6.2 of the standard. Please note that one of the certification requirements is that the manufacturer place its National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-assigned code mark on its products. Our records do not show any code mark assigned to Parimor. Parimor may request a number by writing to our Office of Vehicle Safety Standards at the address shown above.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, new motor vehicle equipment, such as wind deflectors, must comply with applicable safety standards prior to sale. The manufacture, sale, or installation of a deflector that does not conform to the standard, or the installation in a new vehicle in a location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, would be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109(a), anyone who sells motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Manufacturers and importers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under Sections 151 et seq., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. Again, Section 109(a) imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in motor vehicle equipment. A copy of the Vehicle Safety Act and an information sheet outlining the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers is enclosed for your reference.

Section 110(e) of the Vehicle Safety Act also affects Parimor, the foreign company manufacturing the wind deflector. That section requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as its agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions and requirements may be made. In order for that designation to be valid the following information must be submitted to our office:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be sighed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name ahd title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures 28 Amelia Avenue Livingston, N.J. 07039 June 27, 1985 Mr. Steve Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

My name is Rosario Costanzo of Cosbar, Inc. I'm sorry I didn't have the pleasure of meeting you at my stop in Washington, but I hope that in the future I'll be more fortunate and have the opportunity of doing so.

As you are probably aware from talking to Mr. Jettener, I'm in the process of importing wind deflectors, specifically those of a company called Parimor, from Bologna, Italy and I'm in need of certain information in order to proceed with a smooth importation of this particular accessory.

Briefly, the airfoil is designed to overcome the lack of front vents in an automobile. Made of plexiglass, the accessory is fitted to overlap the exterior window frame by means of self-locking nuts; once attached, it makes it possible to travel with the car windows open or half-open with less turbulence and noise. There are two different models: the Antiturbo and the Mixer, the latter being considerable small in size. The process that Parimor follows to manufacture the items is of this nature:

A. Molding the liquid material into the actual shape of the product. B. Cutting the molded sample into 95% completed product. C. Smoothing, cleaning and polishing the product. D. Packaging the finished product.

Enclosed please find copies illustrating the items. As a result, these questions arise for clarification: A. If any, what Federal Vehicle Safety Standards apply to the Antiturbo and Mixer? B. What is the responsibility of the manufacturer as to the certified marking on the accessory?

Furthermore, since the Mixer is considerably small in terms of area that it will occupy in the front window of the car, does it require to meet these regulations? Moreover, I would appreciate receiving any other information that is particularly helpful in this matter and most importantly any words of advice concerning this venture.

Thank you so much for your cooperation and I'm looking forward to meeting you personally in the near future, God bless. Sincerely, Rosario Costanzo

ID: 1985y

Mr. Rolf Duerr
Project Engineer
Voith Transmissions, Inc.
P.O. Box 712
York, PA 17405

Dear Mr. Duerr:

This is in response to your letter requesting Department of Transportation "approval" of a fitting to be used in air brake systems in conjunction with your company's product, a driveline brake retarder. I apologize for the delay in this response. Your letter explained that your company's brake retarder is designed to be attached to the air brake system on trucks or buses by means of a fitting, and enclosed a sample of the fitting you plan to use. You asked for DOT approval of the fitting. As explained below, whether the fitting and associated air hoses are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) depends upon how the fittings are attached to the vehicle's air brake system.

This agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106; copy enclosed), which applies to motor vehicle brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.

Your letter did not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion as to whether or not the air lines and end fittings used with your product would be considered "brake hoses" and "brake hose end fittings" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106. It has been NHTSA's long-standing position that accessory air lines and end fittings, such as those used in your product, are "brake hoses" and "brake hose end fittings" only if a failure of the line or fitting would result in a loss of pressure in the vehicle's brake system. (See the enclosed June 5, 1987 letter to Albert Schwarz, and the August 3, 1984 letter to Terry Teeter).

Accordingly, if a failure of the accessory lines or fittings used with your product could result in a loss of pressure in the brake system, the hoses and fittings are subject to all the provisions of Standard No. 106. In this case, the Safety Act specifies that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any of those hoses or end fittings unless those hoses and end fittings comply with all of the applicable requirements in Standard No. 106.

NHTSA has no authority to certify, endorse, or approve in advance any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including the hoses and end fittings used for this product. Instead, under the Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests; the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care when making the certification. Once your company has determined that these hoses and end fittings comply with the requirements of Standard No. 106, the Standard requires you to mark these products with the symbol "DOT" to show your company's certification of compliance.

This agency enforces the requirements of Standard No. 106 by randomly purchasing brake hoses and end fittings that have been certified as complying with Standard No. 106. The certified products are then tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the products pass these tests, no further actions are taken.

On the other hand, if the accessory air line running to your product is isolated from the air brake system by means such as a check valve, the hoses and fittings used with your product are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106. In this case, your company would not be required to certify that the hoses and fittings used with your product comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 106. You would, however, be considered a "manufacturer" of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. Similarly, if this product were subject to Standard No. 106, your company would be required to notify owners and remedy without charge to those owners any noncompliance of your product with the requirements of Standard No. 106, as well as remedying any safety-related defect.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:106 d:8/23/89

ID: 19867.wkm

Mr. Keely Brunner
Customer Relations and Contract Compliance
Transportation Techniques "Trans Teq"
1705 East 39^th Avenue
Denver, CO 80205

Dear Mr. Brunner:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry of April 14, 1999, in which you stated that you are a start-up manufacturer of a hybrid-electric bus for a downtown pedestrian mall. You stated that the bus has a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 46,000 pounds. You cited paragraph S5.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard), No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed) and asked whether, since your bus cannot attain a speed of 80 kilometers per hour in 3.2 kilometers or less or 50 mph in 2 miles or less, S5.1.2 applies to your bus. The answer is no.

Paragraph S5.1.2 provides that except for vehicles that are unable to reach a speed of 80 kmh in 3.2 km or reach a speed of 50 mph in 2 miles, the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle system must be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system. The GAWR is stated on the vehicle certification label required by 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 567. Paragraph S5.1.2 specifies other requirements, but since your bus has a maximum speed of only 30 mph, none of the requirements of S5.1.2 would apply to your bus. The remaining provisions of Standard No. 120, however, do apply to your bus.

It is not clear from your incoming e-mail whether Trans Teq has manufactured, sold, or delivered any vehicles into interstate commerce. If so, we have no record of Trans Teq having submitted to this agency the information required by 49 CFR Part 565.7(d) (copy attached). Further, if Trans Teq began manufacturing vehicles more than 30 days ago, we have no record of it meeting the reporting requirement of 49 CFR Part 566.6 (copy attached). Please submit the required information without delay.

I am enclosing for your further information a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which discusses other pertinent requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:120
d.6/23/99

ID: 1986y

Mr. Takayoshi Chikada
Manager of Automotive Lighting
Engineering Control Dept.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

FAX 03-792-0007 (Japan)

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, l989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, by FAX as you requested. You have asked four questions with respect to the recently amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

We responded to your first two questions in a letter dated June l9 to Mr. Hasegawa of your office. A copy is enclosed for your reference. Since that time, however, in response to a petition by General Motors, we have changed the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) to December l, l989, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A copy of this notice is also enclosed.

Your third question is:

How should we prove the confirmation to the requirement of S7.7.2.2? We think the combination of Horizontal and Vertical angle within the aim range will be so huge and it is not practicable to test for all combinations.

This paragraph applies to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa. The agency has frequently advised manufacturers that there is no legal requirement that conformance be demonstrated through the test procedures stated in the standard. While the agency will use those procedures in its compliance testing, the manufacturer may certify compliance with the performance requirements of a standard through engineering studies, computer simulations, mathematical calculations, or other means intended as an exercise of due care and affording a reasonable basis upon which to certify compliance. Your final question is:

It is acceptable to set up initial "0" point of S7.7.5.2(a)(2) not mechanically but photometrically?

You may determine the "O" point by whatever means you deem appropriate for the headlighting system, as long as the method achieves a horizontal "O" point that may be used for the purposes of paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(2), and any other paragraph in which the horizontal "O" mark is required to be determined.

In the future, please address your requests for interpretations of Standard No. l08 to this office.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:l08 d:8/23/89

ID: 19873.ztv

Mr. Daniel R. Todd
Muth Mirror Systems
4221 High Tech Lane
Sheboygan, WI 53082-0418

Dear Mr. Todd:

This is in reply to your e-mails of April 15 and April 19, 1999, requesting confirmation that an interpretation that this Office provided John K. Roberts of Muth Mirror Systems on January 15, 1991, with respect to a "Stop Turn Mirror" ("STM") is valid also for a revised version of that device.

The original STM was designed to appear as a mirror to the vehicle operator, but as a stop and turn signal indication system to the operator of a vehicle following. Your current "Signal Mirror" provides a "high intensity chevron shaped signal which is mounted behind and projects through the mirror," and is operated by the turn and hazard warning signal system. That is to say, the chevron signal in the exterior rearview mirror on the driver's side of the vehicle will indicate a left turn, and the chevron signal in the exterior rearview mirror on the passenger side of the mirror will indicate a right turn. Both chevron signals will activate simultaneously when the hazard warning signal is activated.

You are also developing a "high extended mount stop lamp" (HEMSL) which is operated when the brakes are applied; this feature consists of "a straight line of high intensity lamps" centered near the top edge of the mirror, which also "are mounted behind and project through the mirror surface." As you explained to Taylor Vinson of this office on May 24, the stop signal will appear simultaneously in both exterior mirrors. You have asked us four questions about how our 1991 letter applies to these two new mirrors.

The first question relates to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108's prohibition of combining a center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) with any other lamp or reflective device. We advised in 1991 that a mirror was not a reflective device for purposes of Standard No. 108, and that the question would be whether the turn signal functions of the STM were clearly separated from the stop function so that the question does not arise as to whether they are combined. You have asked "Based on the updated device description provided above and current code interpretation, does the Chief Counsel's remarks still stand."

The original STM provided a stop signal through the interior rearview mirror, whereas the new mirror system provides a stop signal through the two exterior mirrors. The stop signals are supplementary to the stop lamps that are mounted on the rear of the vehicle. Paragraph S5.4 Equipment combinations of Standard No. 108 does not prohibit combining stop lamps, other than CHMSLs with other lighting devices. The question that must be answered with respect to supplementary lighting equipment is whether they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. With respect to the Muth mirror, we do not conclude that such an impairment exists. This also answers your final question: whether the stop and turn signal function may be combined in the Signal Mirror alone which does not incorporate a CHMSL. The answer is yes; Standard No. 108 does not prohibit the combining of supplementary stop and turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps.

Our 1991 letter also discussed the possibility of the STM replacing the original equipment CHMSL. We advised that the STM could not do so if it were intended to be located in the exterior rear view mirrors rather than the center interior mirror. This is the configuration of your HEMSL. Thus, the supplementary stop lamp HEMSL may not replace the original equipment CHMSL.

You next ask "If the HEMSL, mounted in the exterior rear-view mirrors, provided a certain geometric visibility and photometric output such that it contributed to the required CHMSL visibility and photometric standard, in this theoretic system of three lamps, could the lamp mounted on the centerline have its geometric and photometric requirements tailored such that when combined with the HEMSLs and provided the overall CHMSL requirements indicated in Standard No. 108?" The answer is no; Standard No. 108 requires that there be a single, not multiple, lamp comprising the CHMSL, and that that single CHMSL meet all specified photometric and visibility requirements, and not share them with an array of three lamps.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/14/99