ID: aiam2750

Dear Mr. Kashu: This is in reply to your inquiry of January 23, 1973. Speedometer covers on motorcycles are not subject to FMVSS No. 205. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safet Compliance Enforcement;

ID: 5-6-02Corlltr

Ms. Mary L. Corl
217 S. West Boulevard
Elkhart, IN 46514

Dear Ms. Corl:

This responds to your May 1, 2002, electronic mail message to Mr. Tewabe Asebe of the Office of Safety Performance Standards at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Your inquiry was referred to my office for reply. You ask about the Federal requirements that apply to the modification of a used van. You are particularly interested in the replacement of the vehicles "seats, seat belts, pedestals, carpet, blinds, leather-wrapped steering wheels, floor mats, windows, dash kits and wood overhead and floor console."

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, each person selling a new vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as complying with all applicable FMVSS in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured. Generally speaking, once a motor vehicle is sold to its first retail purchaser, its use and any modifications made to it become a matter of State, rather than Federal, interest. Thus, owners of used vehicles may personally make any modifications or alterations they want to their vehicles without regard to the FMVSSs, subject only to applicable State requirements.

There is, however, a limit on modifications of used vehicles by commercial entities. You indicated in your letter that a "company" is planning to replace the items you identified. Section 30122 of our statute prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violations of 30122 can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each violation, up to a maximum penalty of $15,000,000 for a series of related violations. 49 U.S.C. 30165. Yet, the "make inoperative" prohibition and associated civil penalty provision do not apply to situations where some items of motor vehicle equipment are only being replaced because they are broken. If you have questions about how NHTSAs requirements would apply to a specific part that you or the company are planning to install, please feel free to contact us with information about the modification.

For your general information, NHTSA has the following FMVSSs that might be relevant to the modification you described:

We believe that safety is best assured if the performance of the original safety systems is maintained on vehicles on the road. NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the performance of the safety systems on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Enclosed is a fact sheet explaining how to obtain copies of all FMVSS. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact Robert Knop of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jaqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:misc.
d.6/11/02

ID: NCC-220316-001 Aircraft Refueler.Beyer.30102

U.S.Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. 

Washington, DC 20590

October 1, 2025

Lawrence A. Beyer 674 Lake Road

Webster, NY 14580 

Lbeyer l@rochester.rr.com

Dear Mr. Beyer, 

This responds to your March 13, 2022 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) inquiring whether a certain aircraft refueling truck would constitute a motor vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act").1 Based on the specific information provided in your request and supporting documentation, we conclude that this aircraft refueling truck would not be considered a "motor vehicle.". Accordingly, the Safety Act would not prevent its importation into the United States. 

In responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter only aims to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Background 

The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to regulate motor vehicle safety by promulgating and enforcing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways."2 The Safety Act prohibits the import of motor vehicles into the United States unless the motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS and bears a permanently affixed label by the vehicle's original manufacturer certifying compliance.3 

According to your letter, in June 1998, Advanced Engineered Products, Limited ("Advanced") manufactured an aircraft refueling truck for Calgary Fuel Facilities Corporation ("Calgary

1 Codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
2 49 U.S.C. § 30102(a)(7).
3 See 49 U.S.C. § 30112(a)(l). 

Fuel") for use at the Calgary airport. In your communications with NHTSA, you included a link to the listing of the unit, which indicates several specialized attributes.4 The three-axle vehicle has a 6,500-gallon tank that, when full of fuel, weighs 44,000 pounds. You noted that airport road surfaces have higher weight capacity than public roads, permitting units to transport heavier loads on fewer axles.
Further, you stated that the unit has a muffler system low to the ground below the front bumper. You explained that the aircraft's safety requires a low muffler system because this ensures that the exhaust remains far enough away from the aircraft's refueling connection. You explained that when the unit is full of fuel, the weight compresses the suspension and reduces the distance between the road surface and the exhaust system. This could be dangerous given potential speedbumps, potholes, or other modifications or impairments on public roads that could damage the required exhaust system. Finally, you stated that the unit has a rear warning guard that is wider than the unit. 

Calgary Fuel used the unit at the Calgary airport from June 1998 until September 2015. In September 2015, Eastway Tank Pump & Meter Limited ("Eastway") bought the unit from Calgary Fuel and shipped the unit within Canada from Calgary to Ottawa on a flat deck trailer. In September 2021, Eastway coordinated the transportation of the unit from Canada to a storage yard in New York. According to your subsequent communications with our office, Eastway was unable to contract for a flatbed trailer to transport the unit. Thus, the unit was operated on public roads for a single time during transport to the storage yard. Eastway provided a warning vehicle containing "Slow Vehicle" signage that followed the unit during transit. 

In October 2021, Eastway attempted to import the unit into the United States. The import process requires submission of a completed Form HS-7.5 Box 2A on the form was checked as the basis for import.6 Officers from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) contacted NHTSA to determine whether the vehicle could be lawfully imported into the United States under the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA under Box 2A. NHTSA responded by stating that the vehicle did not have a certification label permanently affixed by the vehicle's original manufacturer and did not have a correct Vehicle Identification Number

4 htt,ps://usedoilandfiretrucks.com/products/1998-intemational-refueler/
5 Declaration: Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/hs7 rv9-tag.pdf.
6 Box 2A provides:

The vehicle or equipment item conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (or the vehicle does not conform solely because readily attachable equipment items that will be attached to it before it is offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale are not attached), and Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, and bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle or affixed by the manufacturer to the equipment item or to its delivery container in accordance with applicable National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

(VIN) as required by Box 2A. For these reasons, NHTSA stated that the unit was ineligible for importation under Box 2A and CBP seized the unit.7 

Discussion 

In your letter, you asked whether the aircraft refueling truck you reference is a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. We conclude that the vehicle you describe is not a "motor vehicle." In so opining, we distinguish this from our 1972 interpretation letter opining that an airport refueling vehicle is a "motor vehicle."8 NHTSA has previously held that airport runway vehicles, such as airport baggage conveyors, do not meet the definition of a "motor vehicle" and are not subject to FMVSS, even if they are operationally capable of highway travel.9 However, in a 1972 interpretation, NHTSA stated that an airport refueling vehicle would be a motor vehicle because it "may frequently be driven on public roads such as perimeter roads between oil tanks and the airport."10  

The features of the vehicle you describe are substantially different from the features discussed in the 1972 letter. To inform our conclusion about whether your vehicle is a "motor vehicle," we turn to evaluating the design and actual use of the unit at issue. 

More recent interpretation letters analyze the question of whether such a vehicle is considered a "motor vehicle" using a five-factor test.11 We discuss these factors in turn.

1. Whether the vehicle is advertised for use on-road and off-road, or whether it is advertised exclusively for off-road use. 

While Advanced, the original equipment manufacturer for the purposes of this response, has gone out of business, NHTSA examined the advertising of similar businesses that manufacture aircraft refuelers.12 This sample suggests aircraft refuellers are intended exclusively for off­ road use on airport roads to refuel aircraft, contrary to the description described in the 1972 interpretation. Your letter supports this inference, noting that the unit in question was used exclusively at the Calgary airport from June 1998 until September 2015. This factor supports 

7 If you can substantiate that the vehicle was manufactured in 1998, it may be imported today even if it was a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. The prohibition against importing motor vehicles not certified to meet the applicable FMVSSs at the time of manufacture does not apply to vehicles that are 25 years or older. These vehicles can be imported under Box 1 of Form HS-7. Nevertheless, we will opine on the issue of whether this vehicle is a motor vehicle to remove any ambiguity about whether the vehicle could have legally been imported in 2021.
8 Letter to Garsite Prods., Inc., Apr. 17, 1972, https://www.nhtsa.gov/internretations/nht72-52.
9 Letter to Irving Gingold, June 30, 1988, https://www.nhtsa.gov/internretations/2864o; Letter to Mac Yousry, June 10, 2015, https://www.nhtsa.gov/internretations/30102-what-motor-vehicle-mac-yousry-14-000891-5114.
10 Letter to Garsite Prods., Inc., Apr. 17, 1972, https://www.nhtsa.gov/internretations/nht72-52.
11 E.g., Letter to M. James Lester, NaturalForm, Inc., June 26, 2001, https://www.nhtsa.gov/internretations/motorvehicledefinition.
12 Aircraft Refuelers, Advance Engineered Prods., https://advanceengineeredproducts.com/products/aircraft­
refuelers/, Aircraft Refueller Company, https://arc-refuellers.be/, Refuel International, https://refuelin.com/. 

the finding that this aircraft refueler is not a "motor vehicle" as that term is defined in the Safety Act.

2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers assist the vehicle's purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on­ road use. 

We have no evidence to inform whether Advanced assisted Calgary Fuel, the vehicle purchaser, in documentation necessary to register the vehicle for on-road use. You state that the vehicle does not have a vehicle identification number (VIN). Without a VIN, we believe it would be difficult for the vehicle to be registered in any U.S. State. Further, the unit lacked a certification label permanently affixed by the vehicle's original manufacturer. This suggests that Advanced did not designate or register the vehicle for on-road use and weighs against considering this vehicle to be a "motor vehicle."  

3. Whether the vehicles are sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

The manufacturer of the vehicle you ask about has gone out of business. Therefore, we are unable to evaluate this factor. 

4. Whether the vehicle has affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. 

Your letter indicates that the aircraft refueler has a low muffler system that makes it unsuitable for on-road use when it is loaded with fuel because it will not have sufficient ground clearance to navigate ordinary obstacles on public roads. Your letter further indicates that the refueler was transported several times within Canada towed on a flat deck trailer, rather than as a self­
operating unit on public roads. When the unit did travel on public roads for a single time due to an inability to arrange transport, during that trip, Eastway provided a warning vehicle that followed the unit containing "Slow Vehicle" signage. The unit in question has a rear warning guard that is wider than the unit itself. While it is unclear whether the "Slow Vehicle" signage or the rear warning guard explicitly included warning label text, the presence of the signage and guard, and the typical use of the vehicle, suggest that the unit is not intended for use on public roads. 

5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. 

The lack of a vehicle identification number, permanently affixed certification label, the use of a flat-bed trailer for primary transportation, and the use of warning signage when operated on public roads for a single time, suggests that the unit is not independently suitable for public roads. These factors make it unlikely to be registered as a motor vehicle in any U.S. State, and the lack of a vehicle identification number would make it unlikely such a vehicle would be registered for on-road use in Canada. There is no evidence that this vehicle was registered in Canada. This factor suggests that the unit would not be considered a motor vehicle. 

Conclusion 

Based on the considerations in NHTSA's five-factor test and the description of the unit you provided, the aircraft refueler in question would not be considered a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. It is similar to airport runway vehicles discussed in prior NHTSA interpretations in that, while perhaps operationally capable of traveling on public roads, it was manufactured and sold primarily for off-road use. Furthermore, it is distinguishable from the aircraft refueling vehicle that NHTSA considered in its 1972 interpretation. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my staff at interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov.

Sincerely,

Peter Simshauser 

Chief Counsel

Dated: 10/1/25
Ref: Section 30102

ID: 30112 30113 - Goodman

Mr. Timothy H. Goodman
Thomas Hine LLP
1919 M Street, N.W. Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Goodman:

This responds to your October 8, 2021 letter concerning two provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (49 U.S.C.§§ 30101 et seq.) as applied to several automated vehicles your client produces. The vehicles are currently undergoing testing on public roads for testing or evaluation under the non-application provision in 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(10).1 After the testing, your client plans to seek a general exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30113 (regulations codified at 49 CFR part 555) for the sale or commercial deployment of identical vehicles.2 You ask: if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) were to grant the part 555 exemption petition for the identical vehicles, could the grant include the vehicles now undergoing testing on public roads? You believe the answer should be yes.
 
As explained below, NHTSA agrees with much of your analysis regarding the logic in including the nonconforming FAST Act vehicles3 in the part 555 exemption since the vehicles in the two groups would be identical. However, there is tension between 30112(b)(10) and 30113 that must be reconciled, and a provision in part 555 that is contrary to this outcome.4 The part 555 provision could be changed, but changes to the regulations are best accomplished through notice and comment rulemaking. So, while NHTSA agrees with the logic of your interpretation request, we believe that seeking a change via rulemaking would resolve the ambiguity in the applicable laws more definitively and would provide an opportunity for public comment on the issue.

Background
 
The Safety Act directs, in general, that a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS), unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard.5 However, the prohibition is subject to exceptions and exemptions,6 two of which are relevant to your letter.

First, § 30112(b)(10), established in December 2015 as part of the FAST Act, states that the general prohibition in 30112 that a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import, nonconforming vehicles does not apply to the “introduction of a motor vehicle in interstate commerce solely for purposes of testing or evaluation by a [qualifying] manufacturer that agrees not to sell or offer for sale the motor vehicle at the conclusion of the testing or evaluation.”7 This provision allows those qualifying manufacturers to operate, on public roads, nonconforming domestically produced vehicles for testing or evaluation. (The manufacturer you describe in your letter is a qualifying manufacturer under § 30112(b)(10).)

Second, § 30113 authorizes NHTSA to exempt motor vehicles from an FMVSS under defined circumstances, thereby temporarily allowing manufacturers to produce nonconforming vehicles for sale or other commercial deployment. Vehicles may only be exempted under § 30113 under one of four enumerated bases, including a basis that the vehicle for which the exemption is sought offers an overall safety level at least equal to that of a nonexempt vehicle. (49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv), 49 CFR 555.6(d).)

Discussion

The tension between 30112(b)(10) and 30113 arises because the former has language limiting the sale of vehicles introduced in interstate commerce for testing or evaluation after completion of such testing or evaluation, while the latter allows manufacturers a means to sell noncomplying vehicles that are at least as safe as non-exempted vehicles. However, we believe the provisions can be reconciled, as Congress enacted the FAST Act non-application clause after the general exemption provision of 30113 and presumably designed the two provisions to work in concert.
We believe Congress did not envision prohibiting manufacturers from selling or deploying vehicles previously tested or evaluated under 30112(b)(10) if those vehicles are identical to vehicles permitted for sale by 30113; if Congress intended such a surprising outcome under 30112(b)(10), it would have made its intentions clear. Accordingly, we interpret the clause “that agrees not to sell or offer for sale the motor vehicle at the conclusion of the testing or evaluation” as emphasizing Congress’s intent not to permit a later sale or offer for sale of the FAST Act vehicle if it is not at least as safe as a compliant vehicle. Thus, if NHTSA determines that vehicles identical to the 30112(b)(10) vehicles are at least as safe as non-exempt vehicles, it is logical that Congress intended that the 30112(b)(10) vehicles be permitted to be sold or deployed under 30113.
 
There is, however, more to reconciliating the two, as NHTSA’s regulation implementing 30113 bears on the situation at hand. 49 CFR 555.7(f) states: “[u]nless a later effective date is specified in the notice of the grant, a temporary exemption is effective upon publication of the notice in the Federal Register and exempts vehicles manufactured on and after the effective date.” NHTSA explained in the preamble to the final rule that established §555.7(f) that the amendment was “intended to clarify the agency’s policy that exemptions should not have retroactive effect which could serve to excuse manufacture of nonconforming vehicles in violation of […] the Safety Act.”8 We generally agree with your argument that your client’s testing and evaluation vehicles were not nonconforming vehicles in violation of the Safety Act because of the exception in 30112(b)(10) and so 555.7(f)’s focus on nonpermitted actions may not be germane. (Indeed, this is the basis for our position that part 555 could be reconciled with the Fast Act exception.) However, the plain language of part 555 is unambiguous as written; thus, our ability to interpret away from that plain meaning is limited. We believe addressing this matter in rulemaking is appropriate and would provide an opportunity to clarify part 555 as the regulation evolves to include vehicles previously manufactured.
 
To summarize, based on the language of part 555, NHTSA maintains its general position that part 555 is written to provide exemptions for vehicles that have yet to be manufactured. However, in the situation you describe, it would appear logical to allow the former FAST Act vehicles existing at the time NHTSA grants the part 555 petition to be included in the part 555 exemption. In order to remove any ambiguity, we believe that 49 CFR 555.7(f) should be amended, something NHTSA would consider upon receipt of a petition. Persons interested in submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend part 555 should follow the procedures for such submissions in 49 CFR part 552. It is worth stressing, however, that NHTSA’s conclusion in this letter is not a guarantee of a particular response to a petition for rulemaking. Any decision to grant or deny petitions for rulemaking is made in the context of a rulemaking proceeding in accordance with statutory criteria, including opportunity for notice and comment.     

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
 
Sincerely,
 
 Digitally signed by ANN
ANN ELIZABETH ELIZABETH CARLSON

CARLSON
 
Date: 2022.05.19 14:59:50
-04'00'
 
Ann Carlson Chief Counsel
 
Dated: 5/19/22
Ref: 30112 and 30113

1 The non-application provision at 49 U.S.C. § 30112(b)(10) was added in 2015 to the Safety Act by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
2 The basis of the part 555 petition is the exempted vehicles would have an equivalent overall level of safety to a non-exempted vehicle. The exempted vehicles would operate as a single captive fleet; they would not be sold to ordinary consumers.
3 “FAST Act vehicles” refers to vehicles that are tested or evaluated subject to the exception in 30112(b)(10).
4 49 CFR §555.7(f).
5 Section 30112(a)(1) of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.).
6 Sections 30112(a) and (b).
7 Paragraph 30112(b)(10) specifies that the non-applicability only extends to a manufacturer that, prior to the enactment of the FAST Act (December 4, 2015), has (a) manufactured and distributed motor vehicles into the U.S. that are certified to comply with all applicable FMVSS; (b) submitted to the Secretary appropriate manufacturer
identification information under 49 CFR part 566, “Manufacturer Identification;” and (c) if applicable, identified an agent for service of process in accordance with 49 CFR part 551, “Procedural Rules.”
8 39 FR 37988, October 25, 1974.

ID: aiam0382

Dear Mr. Calvin: This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W Toms, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning your revised drawings showing the location of lamps and reflectors on various truck trailers.; Lamps and reflectors mounted as indicated on your three drawings, TTM 42171, would meet the location requirements of FMVSS No. 108.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Motor Vehicle Programs, Office o Operating Systems;

ID: aiam0410

Dear Mr. Phelps: This is in reply to your letter of July 12 asking whether the 'Safet Backing System' can be 'legally installed and operated under the provisions of FMVSS 108.'; As you know, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No. 10 provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. Your system is intended to contribute to the effectiveness of back-up lamps, and its installation is permissible under Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5247

"Dear Mr. Hecker: This responds to your letter concerning our June 29 1993, letter to your associate, Mr. Michael Dunn, about the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R- Bar). The R-Bar, an item of motor vehicle equipment, is a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses to fold down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seats. You have further questions about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA regulations, as applied to R-Bars. In our letter to Mr. Dunn, we addressed several statements that we believed were potentially misleading that Micho made to school officials. These statements include, among other things, that NHTSA has 'approved' R-Bars and that R-Bars are certified as complying with Federal safety standards. We noted that, while Micho indicated that it would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars, we sought assurances that Micho would not continue to represent that it can 'certify' the compliance of R-Bars. You ask for clarification of that letter. You state that there 'appears to be some confusion' resulting from past correspondence with this agency regarding certification of compliance with applicable FMVSSs. You believe, based on previous correspondence, that the R-Bar must comply with FMVSSs that apply to the school bus seat and 'the general safety of school buses,' such as school bus exits and flammability resistance. Accordingly, you believe that Micho can properly 'certify' the R-Bar to these school bus FMVSSs. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our requirements. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system whereby the manufacturer of the vehicle or item of equipment is responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence of the manufacturer. Because of the self-certification system established by law, NHTSA can neither approve, disapprove, endorse, nor offer assurances of compliance for any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification of the product. Rather, this agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing a vehicle or item of equipment in the retail market and conducting the compliance tests specified in the pertinent standards. The agency also investigates safety- related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of its product and remedying the problem free of charge. The recall responsibility for noncomplying or defective vehicles is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a product is installed on a new vehicle by that vehicle manufacturer. As stated in our previous letters to your company, there are no FMVSSs specifically applicable to R-Bars. Our school bus FMVSSs apply to whole vehicles, rather than to individual items of school bus equipment. If R-Bars are installed as original equipment on a new school bus, the vehicle manufacturer is required by the Safety Act to certify that, with the devices installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222), Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (571.217), Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (571.302), and, with regard to small school buses, the pertinent provisions of Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection (571.208). 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1403, and 49 CFR Part 567. Because these FMVSSs apply to the vehicle, there are no standards to which Micho can, or must, certify compliance. If the R-Bars are added to a previously-certified new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person who so modifies the vehicle would be an 'alterer' of a previously certified new vehicle. As an alterer, the person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR 567.7. The vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs an R-Bar may, in order to meet its duty to exercise due care, in part rely on information from you concerning the R-Bar's performance characteristics, to the extent such reliance is reasonable. Since compliance with Standard 222 appears to be a significant concern with respect to the installation of R-Bars, you might wish to test a bus or buses equipped with an R-Bar, using the test procedures set out in Standard 222. The results of such tests might be useful to a school bus manufacturer in determining whether it could certify a school bus equipped with R-Bars as complying with Standard 222. If R-Bars were installed on a used school bus, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would be required to ensure that by installing the R-Bars, the installer did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). In this case, the installer would be responsible for ensuring that the R-Bars did not cause the school bus to fail to comply with any safety standards, including but not limited to the standards enumerated above. This agency has addressed various compliance issues and other safety concerns applicable to R-Bars and similar devices on a number of occasions in the past. As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using 'safety bars' as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of 'safety bars' in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard 208. You asked for our comments on two statements you intend to make to your customers. The first statement is that there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to R-Bars. As discussed above, that statement is correct. The second statement is that, when properly installed, R-Bars will not violate any standard or regulation or render inoperative any safety feature on a school bus. NHTSA lacks information on which to assess the accuracy of that statement. However, it appears unlikely that you could provide such assurances for school buses in general, since the question of whether adding R-Bars would result in a school bus no longer complying with safety standards is likely to depend, at least in part, on factors specific to a particular school bus, such as the seats, floor, etc. Accordingly, absent data to substantiate this statement for all bus configurations and potential installation procedures, we believe that is would not be proper for you to make such a statement. I hope this resolves the issues raised in your letter. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5082

"Dear Mr. Gould: This responds to your letter asking about th dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term 'average deceleration rate' and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as 'only a target' in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force- -relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. With respect to your question about the meaning of 'average deceleration rate,' that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows: For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration. We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are 'only a target' in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates. We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +0.5 ft/s/s. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure: The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam1547

Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of June 27 concerning the location o motorcycle turn signal lamps relative to a combination stop lamp and reflex reflector.; The minimum edge to edge separation distance specified in Table IV o FMVSS No. 108 for motorcycle turn signal lamps is to be measured from the edge of the illuminated surface of both lamps.; The answer to your question 2 is therefore applicable, '2. edge to edg of tail and stop lamp so drawn in sketch C?'; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam4210

Dear Mr. Gough: This is in reply to your letter of August 19, 1986, to this Office asking for confirmation of your understanding 'that other light sources can be added to a replaceable bulb headlamp, such as a parking lamp or signal lamp function, as long as the lamps operate independently of each other and are in full compliance with FMVSS 108.'; Your interpretation is essentially correct, and I am enclosing a cop of a recent letter that we sent to Ichikoh Industries on the same subject. In order to be in full compliance with Standard No. 108, if a replaceable bulb headlamp also incorporates a turn signal lamp, the requisite separation distance or candela ratio specified by the standard must be met.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel