ID: 04-007667drn

Mr. Eric Lotzer
Precision Equipment Manufacturing
2719 40^th Avenue North
Fargo, ND58102

Dear Mr. Lotzer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements that apply to your companys construction roll-off trailers and to the trucks that pull the trailers.

In your letter, you state that Precision Equipment Manufacturing (PEM) seeks to improve the design and functionality of your trailers, making them more convenient (yet safe) for the customer to control. At present, your trailers can only be operated from outside the truck that pulls the trailers, i.e. , the driver/operator must be outside the cab of the truck to raise, lower, extend and retract the trailer to unload materials. In the future, PEM would like to make the trailers operational from inside the cab of the truck. You wish to know if there are any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that establish requirements for operating controls from inside the cab of a truck pulling the trailer.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

NHTSA has established FMVSSs that apply to trucks and to trailers (See 49 CFR Part 571). However, we have not issued any FMVSSs that specify requirements for in-cabcontrols for operating a trailer. We note that if the in-cab controls are installed in a vehicle by a manufacturer or other business (other than the truck or trailer manufacturer), the business installing the in-cab controls would have responsibilities relating to ensuring that the vehicle met, or continued to meet, all FMVSSs with the in-cab controls installed. The details of these responsibilities are explained in the enclosed fact sheet referred to at the end of this letter.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicles (i.e. , trucks and trailers) have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge. 49 U.S.C. Sections 30118-30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. It appears from the information you have submitted that you have already received a response from the U.S. Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which has jurisdiction over commercial vehicles and interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which your trucks and trailers will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:101#VSA
d.12/22/04

ID: 04-008470drn

N. Martin Stringer, Esq.
McKinney & Stringer
Corporate Tower
101 North Robinson, Suite 1300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-5510

Dear Mr. Stringer:

This responds to the two letters you sent us dated November 2, 2004, concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to school buses that have been promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). One of your letters relates to how State definitions of school vehicles affect NHTSAs requirements to sell certified school buses. The other asks about the permissibility of reclining seat backs on school buses.

You state that the Oklahoma Legislature has created a new category of buses, known as "auxiliary transportation equipment", to be used for transporting students "to and from extracurricular activities, but does not include transportation equipment used for transporting students from their homes to school and from school to their homes". You explain that the legislators and members of the school board believe that the legislation enables school districts to purchase and use "traditional charter-type buses, as well as 10+ passenger vans" for extracurricular activities. You explain that state officials believe that buses (new and used) for extracurricular activities are "exempt from the FMVSSs for school buses". You ask in the one letter: "Under FMVSS, can Oklahoma school districts purchase and use new traditional charter-type buses and/or [used] 10+ passenger vans for use in transporting school children to and from extracurricular activities?" You also ask the same question with regard to used buses.

As you are aware, on July 31, 2003 (68 FEDREG 44892), NHTSA published its final rule creating the multifunction school activity bus (MFSAB) as a school bus category. The MFSAB was established for use in transporting children on trips other than those between home and school. The final rule took effect on September 2, 2003, but manufacturers have had the option of complying with the new rule as of July 31, 2003. As school buses, MFSABs must meet all FMVSSs applicable to school buses except for S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, and FMVSS No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices.

New Buses

We do not regulate which vehicles school districts must purchase, nor do we mandate which must be used. However, we regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. A person may not sell or lease a new "school bus" (as defined under NHTSAs regulations) unless it complies with, and is certified as complying with, all FMVSS applicable to school buses, regardless of how the vehicle would be characterized under State law.

NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling a new vehicle to sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling a new "school bus" must sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applicable to school buses. 49 U.S.C. 30125 defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. (NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events.)This definition was enacted as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

Our "school bus" definition determines which new vehicles sold or leased by dealers are required under Federal law to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. If a State has a different school bus definition, that definition determines the applicability of State "use" requirements for school buses, but it has no effect on the Federal requirement on dealers to sell school buses that comply with the applicable FMVSS. Thus, Oklahomas defining a school bus as "auxiliary transportation equipment" does not affect the obligation of dealers selling the new vehicle for extracurricular transportation to sell a certified school bus. If a dealer sold new "auxiliary transportation equipment" to a school district that did not meet the FMVSSs for school buses when it should have under our requirements, the dealer would be subject to Federal penalties under the statute.

Used Buses

As explained below, we do not regulate the sale of used vehicles. Under Federal law, dealers or other persons may sell a used bus (e.g. , a charter bus or used 10+ passenger van) to a school district for the transportation of students even though the vehicle is not certified to Federal school bus safety standards.

NHTSAs requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith other than for resale" (see 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1)). Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSAs school bus safety standards.

That view is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses". NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses". Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

Reclining Seat Backs

You wish to know whether FMVSS No. 222 prohibits school bus seats from reclining. The answer is no. However, the school bus with such seats must meet all applicable FMVSS No. 222 requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.1/7/05

ID: 04-009159drn

David Ring, Operations Manager
Fluid Connector Products, Inc.
3342 N.W. 26^th Avenue
Portland, OR97210

Dear Mr. Ring:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). In particular, you asked about the most current version of FMVSS No. 106 and FMVSS No. 106 requirements for assemblers of crimp style air brake assemblies for aftermarket customers.

In responding to your letter, I note that 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.

FMVSS No. 106 applies to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. The various requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose fittings are set forth in S7 of FMVSS No. 106.

You ask if FMVSS No. 106 requires your two associate distributors, which are independent contractors, to "register their unique symbols" if they are purchasing materials from Fluid Connector Products to manufacture crimp-style air brake assemblies for their aftermarket customers. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the two associate distributors are not permitted to label the air brake assemblies with "FCP" and that Fluid Connector Products does not assume responsibility for assemblies manufactured by the associate distributors. With this background, the answer is yes, the two associate distributors must "register their unique symbols". FMVSS No. 106 at S7.2.3Assemblies states:

Each air brake hose assembly made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly as specified in this paragraph or, at the option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in S7.2.3.1. The band may at the manufacturers option be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall be etched, embossed, or stamped in block capital letters, numerals or symbols at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the following information:

1. The symbol DOT, constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.
2. A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Vehicle Dynamics Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.

[The mailing address has changed to: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Equipment Division NVS-222, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC20590. This new address is reflected in the December 20, 2004 brake hose final rule and is the preferred address.]

S7.2.3.1 At least one end fitting of an air brake hose assembly made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging shall be etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b).

Where a distributor of brake hose parts assembles them into an air brake hose assembly, the distributor would be the manufacturer of the assembly. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment". The enclosed letter of May 13, 2002 to WIRA Fahrzeug-und Maschinenteile GmbH explains additional requirements for manufacturers of brake hoses.

On December 20, 2004 (69 FR 76298), NHTSA issued in the Federal Register, a final rule updating FMVSS No. 106, including the requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. No changes were made to S7.2.3 or to S7.2.3.1. The final rule takes effect on December 20, 2006. However manufacturers that wish to do so may begin complying with this new rule beginning on February 18, 2005.

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to the above, I am also, enclosing a information sheet for new manufacturers and a copy of the December 20, 2004 final rule updating FMVSS No. 106. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:106
d.1/13/05

ID: 04-009675drn

Mr. Ira Schaffer
State of New York
328 State Street
Schenectady, NY 12305




Dear Mr. Schaffer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether a Type 2 seat belt for the drivers seating position in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds, may be replaced with a Type 1 belt. You write that owner/operators of the school buses are making changes to their own vehicles. The answer is yes, the Type 2 seat belt may be replaced with a Type 1 seat belt.

Requirements for buses (including school buses) with GVWRs over 10,000 pounds are at S4.4.3, Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. S4.4.3.1 provides that each bus with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds shall comply with the requirements of S4.4.2.1 or S4.4.2.2. Most manufacturers meet S4.4.3.1 by installing a seat belt at the drivers position, as provided in S4.4.2.2Second option -belt system- driver only. S4.4.2.2 states in part:

The vehicle shall, at the drivers designated seating position, have either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to 571.209 of this part [FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies] and S7.2 of this Standard. A Type 1 belt assembly or the pelvic portion of a dual retractor Type 2 belt assembly installed at the drivers seating position shall include either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor.

Thus, for a school bus with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds (manufactured on or after September 1, 1991), FMVSS No. 208 permits the drivers designated seating position to have either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly.

As you are aware, after the first retail sale of a vehicle, 30122 of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Therefore, any modifications to the existing seat belt system made by an entity in the categories listed in 30122 must be made in such a way so that the vehicle continues to conform to existing standards. Since FMVSS No. 208 permits either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at the drivers designated seating position, an entity listed in 30122 may install a Type 1 seat belt assembly (in place of the Type 2 assembly). However, the modification must be made such that the Type 1 seat belt assembly meets the FMVSSs for seat belt strength, webbing, positioning, locking, retraction/stowage, latch mechanism, and other requirements.

It is possible the Type 1 replacement seat belts will not have retractors. As stated above, FMVSS No. 208 requires either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor. Without retractors, it is likely the seat belts would also, not meet the latch mechanism requirement of S7.2 of FMVSS No. 208 which states: "The components of the latch mechanism shall be accessible to a seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions".

Section 30122 does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, the operators may install the lap belts without regard to the "make inoperative" prohibition. However, we strongly recommend that modifications be made without degrading the safety of the vehicles.

Even though the safety standards allow Type 1 seat belts under the circumstances discussed above, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been requiring more seating positions to have Type 2 belts in lighter vehicles. In addition, the bus manufacturer determined that the Type 2 seat belt was appropriate for its bus. Therefore, it is not clear this modification is the best for safety.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208#209#222
d.2/9/05

ID: 04-009678drn-2

Mr. Mark Swallen
Design Engineer
Eaton Corporation
1660 Indian Wood Circle
Maumee, WI43537




Dear Mr. Swallen:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). You asked about which set of measurements to use from Table 1 for the expansion test for hydraulic brake hoses when the inside diameter of the brake hose falls between the listings. The answer is provided below.

In responding to your letter, I note that 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.

FMVSS No. 106 at S5.3.2 Expansion and burst strength states:

The maximum expansion of a hydraulic brake hose assembly at 1,000 psi and 1,500 psi shall not exceed the values specified in Table I (S6.1). The hydraulic brake hose assembly shall then withstand water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2 minutes without rupture, and shall not rupture at less than 5,000 psi (S6.2).

In Table 1, the descriptions of the hydraulic brake hose, inside diameter, are: "1/8 inch or 3 mm or less," "3/16 inch or 4 to 5 mm," and "1/4 inch or 6 mm or more". You indicated that the inside diameter of your hydraulic brake hose falls in between the first and second of these sets, and asked which set of measurements should be used.

Reading this provision as a whole, it is our opinion that the second set of hydraulic brake hose (3/16 inch or 4 to 5 mm) covers all hydraulic brake hose with inside diameter greater than that specified for the first set and less than that specified for the third set. In other words, the set covers brake hose with inside diameter greater than "1/8 inch or 3 mm" and less than "1/4 inch or 6 mm". Thus, the inside diameter of your hydraulic brake hose falls into the category described in Table 1 as "3/16 inch or 4 to 5 mm".

I note that on December 20, 2004 (69 FR 76298), NHTSA issued in the Federal Register, a final rule updating FMVSS No. 106, including the requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. The final rule takes effect on December 20, 2006. However manufacturers that wish to do so may begin complying with this new rule beginning on February 18, 2005.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:106
d.1/26/05

ID: 0437

Mr. Bryan J Williams
Director, International Operations
Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co Inc.
1111 East Louisiana Street
Evansville, IN 47711

FAX 812-467-2388

Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your FAX of October 24, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting an interpretation regarding the relationship of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to an AAMVA list.

Your company manufactures UV coatings for polycarbonate headlamp lenses. These "provide abrasion resistance properties as well as protecting the plastic lens from the deleterious effects of outdoor exposure." One of these coatings, UVT200, is used by Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler on headlamp lenses. However, "UVT200 does not appear on the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) 'Listing of Acceptable Plastics for Optical Lenses and Reflectors Used on Motor Vehicles.'" You inform us that some overseas headlamp manufacturers believe that appearance on the list is required by Federal law and is a prerequisite to certification. The question you ask is:

Must a coating for plastic (polycarbonate) headlamp lenses appear on the AAMVA "Listing . . ." in order to meet the requirements of FMVSS 108?

The answer is no. Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that plastic materials used in lenses (which include headlamp lenses) conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts, Such as Lenses and Reflectors of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices, May 1970. Under SAE J576c's outdoor exposure test, the luminous transmittance of the material must not change by more than 25% from its performance before the test. In appearance, the headlamp lens material must not show surface deterioration, crazing, dimensional changes, or delamination. Also, under paragraph S5.1.2(b), after the outdoor exposure test, the haze and surface luster of the material must not be greater than 30

percent haze, as measured by ASTM D-1003-61. Manufacturers have found that a coating is required for the plastics used in headlamp lenses to meet Standard No. 108's outdoor exposure requirements. However, neither SAE J576c or Standard No. 108 require the coating, let alone specify what coating is acceptable. The decision to coat, and the choice of coating, is that of the manufacturer in determining compliance with and certification to Standard No. 108. Therefore, the AAMVA list has no legal relationship to Standard No. 108 and it is immaterial to NHTSA whether the coating used is or is not on the AAMVA list.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/7/94

ID: 0473

Mr. John Sheppard
Sales and Marketing Manager
Reflexite Canada, Inc.
6790 Kitimat Road, Unit 18
Mississauga
Ontario L5N 5L9
Canada

Dear Mr. Sheppard:

We have received your letter of November 2, 1994, asking whether certain conspicuity material could be used on trailers required to meet S5.7 of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed samples of the material.

The material alternates red and white stripes "oriented at a 45 degree angle to the edge of the roll." Rolls are either 6 or 8 inches in width and "will not have DOT-C2 marking." In addition, we note that the horizontal length of the red segments is 5 1/2 inches (and presume an equal length for the white segments). Specifically, you have asked whether this material could "be applied to the lower edge of the vehicle's rear doors as a compliant substitute for the 2" 'block pattern' material currently being used?"

Paragraph S5.7's specifications for conspicuity material are intended to ensure uniformity of treatment in order to enhance the ability of drivers of other vehicles to detect large objects in the roadway under conditions when headlamps are used. While S5.7 does not require that the red and white color segments be rectangular, it does establish requirements for their length and width. Under S5.7.1.3(b), each segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm. The color segment separation of 5 1/2 inches on your sample is approximately 140 mm, and thus below the minimum permitted by the standard. Although currently, under S5.7.1.3(d), three widths of retroreflective material are permissible: 50 mm (DOT-C2), 75 mm (DOT-C3), and 100 mm (DOT-C4) and your widths of 6 inches (150 mm) and 8 inches (200mm) do not conform to these specifications, the agency has proposed that these be minimum minimum widths for the DOT grades indicated. We expect a final rule to be issued on this proposal in the near future.

Because the retroreflective material discussed above would not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for color segment length (and currently width), it could not be used as a substitute for the DOT-C2 material that you currently manufacture. Further, geometrically and photometrically complying material would require the appropriate DOT grade identification marking for use on a trailer required to comply with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/7/94

ID: 0473a

Mr. Steve Brooks
General Manager
IAD West Coast, Inc.
5761 McFadden Ave.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This replies to your letter of November 1, 1994, to John Womack, former Acting Chief Counsel. IAD West Coast ("IAD") is converting a Subaru panel van from internal combustion to electric drive. The vehicle is currently a prototype but "will be modified in the state of California, to OEM build standards." You have asked for help "with the definition of crash testing for front and side impact for the vehicle for current and future production, also with the requirement for dual air bags if necessary."

Because we did not understand what you meant by "definition", Taylor Vinson of this Office spoke with you on January 24, 1995. He learned that IAD is engineering the prototype for production by another company, and that your question related to the extent of crash testing that is required before production. He then explained to you that there is no legal requirement that prototype vehicles be crashed, but that production vehicles must conform with the performance requirements of standards with crash demonstration procedures, and that the manufacturer's certification of compliance may be based upon good faith surrogates to crash testing such as computer simulation, engineering studies, and mathematical calculations. The Department of Transportation, however, tests in the manner specified in a standard, and if there is a test failure, will ask the manufacturer to supply the data upon which it based its certification.

Your letter also asks about "the requirement for dual air bags if necessary in the future." Manufacturers of light trucks will be required to install dual air bags in not less than 80% of vehicles produced between September 1, 1997, and September 1, 1998, and in 100% of production from September 1, 1998, on.

Finally, you have asked whether we have information on approach and departure angles. These are not part of the FMVSS, and are established by the manufacturer in designing a vehicle.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:208 d:3/2/95

ID: 0484

Mary M. Mann, Director
Federal Government Regulations
National Marine Manufacturers Association
Washington Harbour
3050 K Street, N.W., Suite 145
Washington, D.C. 20007

Dear Ms. Mann:

This responds to your letter of September 15, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency. As he has told you, we did not receive a copy of it until around November 9. You ask for confirmation of your understanding of the conspicuity requirements of S5.7.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to large boat trailers, based upon a meeting you had with him and Taylor Vinson of this Office earlier in the summer. We have paraphrased your concerns for conciseness in our discussion which follows.

Side treatment

1. Paragraph S5.1.1.9 allows a double-faced clearance lamp to be mounted at or near the midpoint of wide boat trailers to indicate the extreme width. Paragraph S5.7.1.4, in essence, prohibits retroreflective material from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp. While the closest edge of the fender-mounted lamp will be further than 75 mm from the body-mounted retroreflective material, when viewed from the side the separation distance vanishes and the material appears next to the lamp. You asked whether this configuration complies with Standard No. 108.

NHTSA regards this configuration as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 since the actual physical distance between the closest edge of the lamp and the material is more than 75 mm. But the more important point is that the spacing of side conspicuity material is a consideration only for required side lamps. The amber lamp in question is a front clearance lamp and the proximity of side facing reflectors has no effect on its visibility from the side.

2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires that the material cover at least half the trailer length and that it be distributed as even as practicable. For purposes of calculating the 50 percent minimum, you asked whether the following two applications are acceptable: a) The sheeting can be on the angled portion of the trailer that is the tongue, regardless of its effect on the reflectivity of the tape when viewed from the side.

NHTSA has traditionally included the trailer tongue in determining the overall length of the vehicle for compliance purposes. Therefore, sheeting applied to the trailer tongue may be used in calculating the 50 percent minimum.

(b) The sheeting need not all be on the same horizontal plane.

This is correct. If a manufacturer applies sheeting to the tongue and fender in fulfilling the 50% minimum obligation, the material need not be at the same height as the other sheeting on the trailer. However, wherever applied, each discrete portion of sheeting must be mounted as horizontal as practicable.

Rear Treatment

1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1 specifies the application of three Elements of sheeting to the rear of trailers. However, it excuses container chassis and platform trailers without bulkheads from being equipped with Element 2 treatment, and trailers without underride protection devices from the requirements of Element 3. You asked whether NHTSA would also excuse boat trailers without bulkheads in the same manner as platform trailers, requiring compliance only with Element 1.

This is correct. The configuration of a boat trailer without a bulkhead is essentially that of a platform trailer, and it may also be exempted from providing Element 2 conspicuity treatment. Due to their low heights, boat trailers are not equipped with rear underride devices, and those trailers without underride devices are excluded from the requirement for providing Element 3 treatment.

2. Element 1 retroreflective material is to be applied "across the full width of the trailer" but under paragraph S5.7.1(a) it need not be applied to "items of equipment such as door hinges and lamp bodies." There is a cross member at the rear which will have conspicuity treatment across the full width; however, mounting brackets attached to the cross member obscure portions of the conspicuity treatment. You asked for confirmation that this configuration is in accordance with Standard No. 108.

The exclusionary term "items of equipment" is not limited to the two examples cited in S5.7.1(a), door hinges and lamp bodies. We believe that any equipment to which it is impracticable to apply retroreflective material may be excluded from the requirement. You have not included any pictures of the mounting brackets, but this will confirm that NHTSA regards the mounting brackets as "items of equipment" to which the treatment need not be applied, if it is impracticable to apply material to it. In this event, application of conspicuity treatment across the full width of the cross member meets Standard No. 108 even if the subsequently added mounting brackets without treatment obscure part of it.

3. Does NHTSA interpret "full width of the trailer" to include the rear of the fender assembly, so as to require the application of conspicuity treatment to it? You asked for confirmation that the phrase applies only to the rear of the frame.

NHTSA has defined "overall vehicle width" to exclude flexible fender extensions, but it has not adopted a definition for "full width." We understand from your first question, on the centrally mounted clearance lamp, that boat trailer fenders will be located at or near the center of the trailer rather than at the rear. Under this circumstance, we interpret "full width" to include only the vehicle structure at the rear end of the trailer, including its frame and rear cross members.

4. With respect to the relative location of the edge of retroreflective sheeting to the edge of required lamps, S5.7.1.4(b) prohibits white sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp whether red or amber, while S5.7.1.4(c) prohibits red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required amber lamp only. You asked for confirmation "that the edge of the red portion of the sheeting may abut a rear identification lamp but that the white portion of the sheeting must be at lease (sic) 3mm (sic) from those lamps." (We believe you mean 3 inches).

This is correct. S5.7.1.4(c) does not prohibit red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm (3 inches) to the red rear identification lamp, and the two may abut. However, S5.7.1.4(b) does not allow the edge of white sheeting to be closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of the identification lamp.

Finally, you have asked for confirmation of your understanding "that it is not acceptable for trailer manufacturers to give rolls of reflexive sheeting tape and instructions to dealers regarding its application. Rather, the sheeting must be installed at the factory."

We confirm your understanding. The manufacturer of the trailer is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon its completion and before its delivery for introduction into interstate commerce. As this certification includes compliance with S5.7 of Standard No. 108, the conspicuity treatment must be applied as part of the manufacturing process and not delegated to dealers.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:1/11/95

ID: 05-001084drn

Mr. Jim Kaplan
Cornell Dubilier
140 Technology Place
Liberty, SC 29657




Dear Mr. Kaplan:

This responds to your letter asking a number of questions about the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as applied to your manufacture of pickup truck assemblies. You explain that you want to provide purchasers "all steel cars, with steel panels and steel frames including all the wiring and subassemblies needed for driving with the exception of the drive train". You also explain that you "would like to be able to provide the drive train processing service to the purchaser saving them the trouble of going to two different companies for their finished vehicle".

By way of background, NHTSA has the authority to establish regulations for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, "the Safety Act". ) The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" in part as a vehicle that is "driven by mechanical power" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). The Safety Act defines "manufacturer" as a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or.importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale". 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5).

We have stated in past interpretation letters that a unit would be considered only an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle, until such time as a power source is added. (July 9, 1993, letter to Christopher Banner, copy enclosed. ) We have also stated in past interpretation letters that, if an unassembled vehicle were sold with all of the parts needed to produce a completed vehicle, we would treat the unassembled vehicle as a motor vehicle for purposes of our regulations. (See February 16, 2005, letter to Kevin Alsop, copy enclosed. )

If you did not provide the drive train, you would not be considered as selling a motor vehicle. However, you describe an arrangement in which you would charge the purchaser the total price of the vehicle with a processing fee and engine installation fee. You would have the vehicle sent to the engine installer, and would pay the engine installer its fee for installing the engine. The engine installer would then send the vehicle back to you so the purchaser could pick it up from you. We believe that in this situation, you are providing the power source with the assemblage. You are charging the customer for the complete truck, and the engine installer appears to be akin to just a subcontractor to your company. Accordingly, in this situation, we would consider the unassembled vehicle to be a "motor vehicle" and you to be a motor vehicle manufacturer.

Your first several questions ask about parties responsibilities for complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). Under the Safety Act, manufacturers of motor vehicles have the responsibility to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Note that under 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1)(ii):

If a vehicle is fabricated and delivered in complete but unassembled form, such that it is designed to be assembled without special machinery or tools, the fabricator of the vehicle may affix the [certification] label and name itself as the manufacturer[. ](Emphasis added.)

Your fourth question asked, "Can I provide a vehicle identification number (VIN) for registration purposes?If so, who would provide that, us or the installer?"As the vehicle manufacturer, your company is responsible for assigning VINs to the trucks, and must ensure that the trucks meet all VIN requirements specified in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements.

Your last question asked about supplying a warranty for the vehicle. Our regulations do not govern this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:567
d.3/17/05