ID: 7981

Emmett Koelsch Coaches
ATTN: Kim Welsh
926 Delaware
Longview, WA 98632

Dear Sir/Madam:

Your letter of November 5, 1992 addressed to the Department of Transportation Publications Department was forwarded to this office for response. In your letter you requested a copy of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards pertaining to school buses "and other Transit type vehicles."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), apply to all classes and categories of motor vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, buses of all types including school buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and the like. Excluded from the definition of motor vehicles are such vehicles as farm tractors, earth-moving equipment, and other off-road vehicles. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Also enclosed are copies of two fact sheets issued by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

You did not elaborate on what was meant by "Transit type vehicles." If you were referring to intercity buses, you should contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Room 3404, this address for information on their pertinent standards and regulations. For information on intracity buses, you should contact the Federal Transit Administration, Room 9328, this address. Finally, for information regarding implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you should contact the Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

I hope this information is helpful. If after examining this material you have more specific questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:571 d.12/10/92

ID: 7996

Mr. Rodney T. Nash, P. E.
Vice President Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
421 East 30th Avenue
Hutchinson, KS 67502-2493

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your letter to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), received in this office on November 18, 1992, and your telephone conversation of November 30, 1992 with Walter Myers of this office, regarding the proper classification of an ambulance.

You indicated that Wheeled Coach Industries of Orlando, Florida, a subsidiary of Collins Industries, produces ambulances that are built on truck chassis. You stated that in the past those vehicles have been classified as trucks, but that Ford Motor Company auditors told you that they should be classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV). You said that you needed to know how to classify ambulances, observing that it appeared to you that the final stage manufacturer was free to choose between the two classifications, truck or MPV.

NHTSA has long considered ambulances to be multipurpose passenger vehicles, which are defined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Your company's ambulances fit this definition very well: they are mounted on a truck chassis and are designed to carry ten persons or less.

As you pointed out in your letter, it is true that an ambulance may carry more weight in special equipment than it carries in patients, and it may operate half its life with no patient on board. Nevertheless, NHTSA believes that whether or not a patient is on board or how much equipment is carried, the vehicle is primarily designed for the transportation and/or care of ill or injured persons, as well as the transportation of paramedic personnel to wherever they are needed. This is in contrast to a truck which is defined also in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment". Thus, although an ambulance carries special purpose equipment, NHTSA believes that the equipment is only ancillary to the primary function of an ambulance which is the transportation of persons. Accordingly, an ambulance falls within the definition of MPV rather than truck.

I hope this will help clarify this issue for you. Should you have any further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

ref:571 d.12/30/92

ID: 8-29-02Johnsonltr

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice President
Nichirin Inc.
139 Copernicus Boulevard
Brantford, Ontario
CANADA N3P 1N4




Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter, which we received on June 3, 2002, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 106, Brake Hoses. Specifically, you ask whether stainless steel braided brake hoses must meet the striping requirements of S5.2.1, Labeling. The answer is yes, unless the hoses are either sold as part of a motor vehicle or manufactured for use only in an assembly whose end fittings prevent the hoses from being installed in a twisted orientation.

S5.2.1 requires that "[e]ach hydraulic brake hose, except hose sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opposite sides of the brake hose parallel to its longitudinal axis." 49 CFR 571.106. In addition, S5.2.1 provides that "hydraulic brake hose manufactured only for use in an assembly whose end fittings prevent its installation in a twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle, need not" meet the striping requirement. 49 CFR 571.106.

You indicate in your letter that Honda is proposing to use stainless steel braided hoses in a "new vehicle program" and you ask whether the outer mesh of these hoses needs to be striped. As indicated above, the requirements of S5.2.1 apply to all hydraulic brake hoses, not only those made of rubber. S5.2.1 does not exclude stainless steel braided brake hoses from the striping requirement. (See also May 12, 1994 letter to Mr. Jim Davis, Russell Performance Products, copy enclosed.) Accordingly, the stainless steel braided hose about which you inquire must be striped unless they meet either of S5.2.1's two exceptions.

If you supply brake hoses to Honda and the hoses are only installed on newly-manufacured vehicles, then the hoses would not need to be striped under S5.2.1. However, if Honda were to sell any of the brake hoses as replacement parts, and therefore they are not installed on a new motor vehicle, then they would need to be striped unless they are constructed in such a way or have unique features that would prevent their being installed in a twisted manner when they are put on the vehicle as replacement brake hoses.

Finally, we note that the agency has been petitioned by Parker Hannifin to update FMVSS No. 106. NHTSA granted the petition and is now evaluating the issues raised therein. If you are interested in reviewing a copy of this petition, you may access it at the following web address:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=46189&docketid=4367

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jaqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:106
d.9/6/02

ID: 8001

Mr. Guy Mozzicato
Meridian, Inc.
140 Rye Street
South Windsor, CT 06074

Dear Mr. Mozzicato:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on November 16, 1992.

You explained to Mr. Myers that your company, Meridian, Inc., exports used tires and casings from the United States to other countries. You stated that although your company endeavors to export only good quality tires, other used tire exporters are not so quality-oriented and export defective or otherwise unserviceable tires. You further stated that as a result of such unscrupulous practices, the country of Venezuela has asked you what the requirements are for importation of used tires into the United States.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S. Code, 1381 - 1431, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act), provides at Section 1397(a)(1)(A): "No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . ." The effect of that language is to require that motor vehicle tires, whether new or used, manufactured on and after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be imported into the United States. Manufacturers must certify such compliance by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Therefore, to be legally imported into the United States motor vehicle tires must either display the DOT symbol or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before the effective date of the applicable safety standards.

The only exception to the above requirement is that used truck tires which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are being imported for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the DOT symbol. This exception is explained in a June 18, 1981 letter addressed to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA (copy enclosed).

The standards that apply to passenger car tires are Standard 109, New Pneumatic Tires, and Standard 110, Tire Selection and Rims, found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.109 and 571.110 respectively. The standards applicable to tires for vehicles other than passenger cars are Standard 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.119; and Standard 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.110. Other regulatory requirements pertinent to tires are Standard 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires; Standard 129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars; 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires; 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping; and 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations. For your information, I am enclosing a fact sheet prepared by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations which explains how and from where the full text of our safety standards and regulations may be obtained.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding any of these matters, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-5830.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

7NCC-20 WMyers:mar:12/2/92:OCC 8001 Ref: #109#110#119#120 U:\NCC20\INTERP\MIS\8001.WKM Coord: NEF; NRM Interps: 109; 119; Redbook (4)

ID: 8002

Mr. Wayne Malbon National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc. 1250 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D. C. 20005

Dear Mr. Malbon:

This responds to your November 17, 1992 telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office regarding a shipment of truck tire casings being imported into the United States but held up in customs because the casings do not have the DOT symbols molded onto the sidewalls. You asked for a letter from this office setting forth the requirements for the importation of truck tire casings which do not display the DOT symbol, saying that you would use such a letter to show the U. S. Customs Service (USCS)in order to secure the release of the casings.

You will find enclosed a letter from this agency to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA, dated June 18, 1981, in which we explained at length the requirements for importation of truck tire casings and the rationale behind those requirements. The information contained in that letter is still fully applicable, except that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety referred to on page 2 is now the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration. Also, the reference on page 3 to Mr. Harrison Feese of the USCS is no longer valid. Point of contact in USCS is now Mr. Gary Manes, same address, (202) 927-1133; or Mr. Jeff Laxague, same address, (202) 927-0402.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

cc: Mr. Jeff Laxague U.S. Customs Service 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W. Room 4119 Washington, D. C. 20229

ref:571#117#119 d.12/11/92

ID: 8021

Mr. David M. Hart
President
Flushsaver
5440 W. Century Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90045-5992

Dear Mr. Hart:

This responds to your letter of November 16 asking for "feedback" on your plan to market a decal called "Flashit" for installation over a center high-mounted stop lamp.

I enclose a copy of an agency letter representative of our advice to inquirers on this subject. Though this letter, to David M. Romansky, dates from September 3, 1987, it remains the agency's position today.

Should you wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators on this subject, please note that its new address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:12/10/92

ID: 8023-2

Mr. Terry Wagar
Technical Services Bureau
State of New York
Department of Motor Vehicles
Division of Vehicle Safety Services
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228

Dear Mr. Wagar:

This responds to your letter asking about the repair of glazing in in-service motor vehicles that were originally designed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). You were specifically concerned about the safety of a repair process known as "Ultra B-O-N-D" which you explained involves injecting a liquid through a crack in a windshield. The repaired area is then exposed to a lamp, scraped with a razor blade, and cleaned. You explained that after this process is completed, the crack is "not as visible."

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, the agency has issued Standard No. 205, which establishes performance requirements for all windows (called "glazing" in the Standard) in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement windows for motor vehicles.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles and motor vehicle equipment after their first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include a provision that prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, that provision does not require those entities, in repairing a damaged vehicle, to restore it to its original level of performance.

The States do have the authority to regulate motor vehicle repairs and the condition of in-service vehicles, and this agency encourages them to take steps to ensure the safe operating condition of vehicles-in-use. (The Federal Highway Administration has in-service requirements for commercial motor vehicles used in interstate commerce.) I regret that we are unable to provide any information concerning the safety of the "Ultra B-O-N-D" process. We suggest that, in developing criteria for the condition of in-use glazing, including the permissibility of certain types of repairs, that you consider such factors as whether particular damage, even after repair, would adversely affect driver visibility, would likely become more serious during normal use (e.g., a small crack becoming a large crack), would reduce the ability of the windshield to retain unrestrained occupants in the vehicle, or would otherwise adversely affect vehicle safety. In addition, if the windshield is so extensively damaged that it cannot be repaired using the "Ultra B-O-N-D" process, and must be replaced, the new windshield should be installed in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's instructions. In the event of an accident, an improperly installed windshield may allow unrestrained occupants to be ejected from the vehicle with resulting personal injury.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d.1/22/93

ID: 8026-2

Mr. Bill Dobberteen
Product Launch Engineer
Prince Corporation
35 Madison - Beechwood
Holland, MI 49423

Dear Mr. Dobberteen:

This responds to your letter that requested information about how the regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. According to your letter, your company is developing an overhead storage compartment bin to be secured to the interior roof of a utility vehicle behind its rear seat. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that you anticipate that this product will typically be installed in motor vehicles prior to their first consumer purchase. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering a rear overhead storage bin. However, it is possible that the installation of such a product could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your storage bin is installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if your storage bin is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have responsibilities under the Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151, et seq., of the Safety Act, such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge.

In order to determine how installation of your storage bin could affect the compliance of a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to Standard No. 216 which addresses roof crush resistance and Standard No. 302 which addresses the flammability of interior materials. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#567 d.2/4/93

ID: 8027

Mr. Patrick R. Smorra
Group Vice President
Chrysler Corporation
38111 Van Dyke Avenue
Sterling Heights, MI 48312

Dear Mr. Smorra:

This responds to your letter of November 12 to the Administrator asking for a variance from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for vehicles that Chrysler Corporation would like to sell to foreign nationals for their use on vacation in the United States. You have inquired whether additional information is required.

The agency would be willing to consider Chrysler's request through the medium of a petition for temporary exemption from one or more specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The temporary exemption, two years in duration, permits a manufacturer to sell up to 2,500 exempted vehicles in any 12- month period during the term of the exemption, subject to such terms and conditions as the agency deems appropriate. These exemptions are renewable. Indeed, NHTSA has already provided exemptions to General Motors for the same purpose as Chrysler's, pursuant to 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(d). For your guidance, I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice that granted GM's original petition in 1988. Because of the necessity to afford the public an opportunity to comment, a petitioner should anticipate an elapsed time of approximately four months between the agency's receipt of its petition and a determination on it. Should you have questions on the exemption process, Taylor Vinson of this office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

You have also asked "[i]f, upon expiration of the variance, the vehicle has not left the U.S. who is responsible for the delinquency?" This is an interesting question. The exemption is not provided directly to the purchaser. Instead, it is provided to a manufacturer to allow it to sell nonconforming vehicles to foreign nationals without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, subject to the purchaser's agreement to export the vehicle when (s)he leaves this country. Should a manufacturer sell an exempted vehicle to a foreign national knowing, or in the exercise of due care having reason to know, that the purchaser did not intend to export it, the manufacturer would have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against sale of nonconforming vehicles, notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle had been exempted. Moreover, if the manufacturer did not take appropriate steps to assure that the purchaser honored his or her commitment to export the vehicle, the agency could find that continuation of the exemption was no longer in the public interest, and cancel it. However, if the manufacturer did not know or in the exercise of due care have any reason to know that its exempted vehicles would not be exported, it would appear to have incurred no liability under the Act.

As for a foreign national purchaser who fails to export a vehicle in conformity with the terms of the condition imposed by the manufacturer under the exemption, it appears that the purchaser could be deemed to have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against introduction into interstate commerce of a nonconforming vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that the manufacturer had received an exemption for the manufacture and sale of the vehicle. Finally, depending on the safety standards from which the vehicle had been excused, the owner of the vehicle might find it difficult to register it in a State without bringing it into full compliance with the safety standards.

You have also asked, "[I]n the unlikely event that this vehicle has an accident in which it is deemed undriveable, who is responsible for its disposition." The answer to this question would appear to turn on the ownership of the vehicle. Since Chrysler does not intend to lease the exempted vehicles, we assume that it will transfer all right, title, and interest in them to the foreign national purchasers, and we assume that those owners will be responsible for the disposition of wrecked vehicles deemed undriveable.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref.555 d:2/9/93

ID: 8033

Ms. Joanna L. Campfield
Vice President
Ultra B-O-N-D, Inc.
11151 Pierce Street
Riverside, CA 92505

Dear Ms. Campfield:

This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue an "approval" letter for your method of repairing cracks in windshields. As explained below, this agency does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, this letter does discuss Federal safety requirements in connection with windshield repairs.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicle 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 our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205) which establishes performance and location requirements for glazing used in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement glazing for motor vehicles. Neither Standard No. 205 nor any other FMVSS establishes performance requirements for repair kits, such as the Ultra B-O-N-D method, used to repair cracks in broken glazing. However, use of such a material or process in a new windshield prior to the first consumer purchase which requires repair, for example, as a result of damage sustained in shipment would be affected by Standard No. 205. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. If a windshield is repaired prior to the new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulations (Part 567). As an alterer, the person would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205.

In the case of a used vehicle, use of a windshield repair kit could potentially be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In discussing the applicability of section 108(a)(2)(A) to the repair of windows in used vehicles, NHTSA has said that the prohibitions of that section do not apply to use of a product or process used in the repair of a windshield which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the windshield, and not any subsequent action by the person repairing the damaged window in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the glazing with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. I note, however, that if the repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield that is installed in a vehicle renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop would violate section 108(a)(2)(A).

In addition, the manufacturer of the windshield repair kit is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, it is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Please be aware that the laws of the individual States may be relevant to the repair of motor vehicle glazing. For more information about these laws, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205 d.2/1/93