ID: 1982-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 19, 1982, letter asking whether the hose that connects the air pressure gauge to the service reservoir system must comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You also ask whether the air pressure gauge is part of the Standard No. 121, Air Brake System.

The air pressure gauge to which you refer is required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 121. Accordingly, it is considered as part of the air brake system. With respect to whether the tubing connecting that gauge to the air supply reservoir must comply with Standard No. 106, that standard defines brake hose as:

"a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes."

The agency has previously determined that hoses connected to air pressure gauges need not comply with Standard No. 106 if they do not transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. To determine whether your system transmits or contains the pressure, you must determine whether a failure of the hose to the gauge would result in a loss of air pressure in the system. If you use a check valve or some other device to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with Standard No. 106. This answer would also apply to other air pressure gauges that you may install to monitor other portions of the brake system performance.

SINCERELY,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

January 19, 1982

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of General Council

Gentlemen:

Subject: Requirements for the Air Brake System Air Pressure Gauge and Supply Line Ref: FMVSS 121 and FMVSS 106

Mack Trucks, Inc., as a major producer of heavy duty vehicles, is in the process of releasing for production a new cab-over-engine vehicle designated as the MH model.

Section S5.1.4 of Standard 121 requires that we install in these vehicles a pressure gauge to monitor the service reservoir system air pressure. Since Standard 121 is entitled "Air Brake Systems", we have considered such a gauge to be part of the air brake system.

In light of the above facts, and since the supply line to the gauge does contain brake system air, we have assumed that the hose or tubing used for the supply line should comply with the requirements of Standard 106, Brake Hoses.

We are, therefore, requesting clarification on the following subjects:

(a) Is the air pressure gauge required by S5.1.4 of Standard 121 considered part of the air brake system?

(b) If the answer to part (a) is yes, must the supply line (hose or tubing) to this pressure gauge comply with the requirements of Standard 106, Brake Hoses?

In a related situation, we will be supplying, as an option, an air application gauge in these new models that will monitor the

Subject: Requirements for the Air Brake System Air Pressure Gauge and Supply Line Ref: FMVSS 121 and FMVSS 106 air being applied to specific parts of the brake system (e.g., front brakes, rear brakes, or trailer brakes). We would assume that if the answer to part (b) above is yes, then the supply line to these gauges would also be required to comply with Standard 106. Is our assumption correct?

We would appreciate a timely response to our questions since the manufacture of certain preproduction MH models is to take place in the very near future.

S. Robson Executive Engineer-Vehicle Regulations

ID: 2813yy

Mr. Wayne Trueman
Plant Manager
BX-l00 International
2550 Appian Way
Suite 2ll
Pinole, CA 94564

Dear Mr. Trueman:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements for items to be placed in a truck's air brake system. You are particularly interested in requirements that would apply to two new products you are developing. According to your letter, the products will "have the BX-l00 Brake Equalizer integrally combined with a Quick Release valve and another with a Relay valve."

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

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering brake equalizers, quick release valves, or relay valves. However, since these devices are tied into a vehicle's air brake system, they could affect a vehicle's compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If one of your devices is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any 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.

You should also be aware of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l06, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. That standard applies to new motor vehicle equipment as well as to new motor vehicles. You should check to see if any parts of your brake devices are subject to the requirements of Standard No. l06.

I am enclosing a copy of an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. I regret that we are unable to provide information concerning regulations other than those of NHTSA which may apply to your products. You may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Standards concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to your products. You may also wish to contact appropriate State authorities, and/or a local attorney, for advice about state and local regulations.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l06#l2l d:ll/20/90

ID: nht95-4.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ben Ray

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/18/95 LETTER FROM Ben Ray to John Womack (OCC 11244)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ray:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for automatic brake adjusters on log trailers. According to your letter, you manufacture log trailers, using used axles that already have what you call "regular" (i.e., manual) brake adjuste rs on them. In an October 13, 1995 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you further stated that the wheels, brakes, and suspension are typically used, but that occasionally you use new brake systems. You also clarified that these tr ailers are used on the public roads as well as in the woods for transporting logs to the mills. You asked whether it is permissible to use manual brake adjusters instead of automatic adjusters. The answer depends it is permissible to use manual brake ad justers instead of automatic adjusters. The answer depends on whether your log trailers are equipped with new or used components and the trailer continues to use the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and to be owned by the user of the reassembled vehi cle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipme nt. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. Once such standard is Standard No. 121, Air brake system, which requires new trailers to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA's regulations specifically address the question of when trailers produced by combining new components and used materials are considered to be new trailers. Section 49 CFT 571.7(f) states that when new and used components are used in trailer manufa cture, the trailer will be considered "newly manufactured" unless each of the following three conditions is true with respect to the trailer. First, the trailer running gear assembly, which includes the axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension, is not ne w and was taken from an existing trailer. Second, the existing trailer's identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the VIN. Third, the existing trailer is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

In other words, a log trailer will generally be considered newly manufactured, unless all these conditions are met. If a trailer is considered newly manufactured, then it must comply with the

P2 current requirements applicable to trailers. Among other things, this means that the trailer must be equipped with automatic adjusters. If a trailer meets these three conditions, then it is considered not newly manufactured and may be equipped with man ual adjusters.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Sahw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-7.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ben Ray

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/18/95 LETTER FROM Ben Ray to John Womack (OCC 11244)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ray:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for automatic brake adjusters on log trailers. According to your letter, you manufacture log trailers, using used axles that already have what you call "regular" (i.e., manual) brake adjusters on them. In an October 13, 1995 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you further stated that the wheels, brakes, and suspension are typically used, but that occasionally you use new brake systems. You also clarified that these trailers are used on the public roads as well as in the woods for transporting logs to the mills. You asked whether it is permissible to use manual brake adjusters instead of automatic adjusters. The answer depends it is permissible to use manual brake adjusters instead of automatic adjusters. The answer depends on whether your log trailers are equipped with new or used components and the trailer continues to use the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and to be owned by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. Once such standard is Standard No. 121, Air brake system, which requires new trailers to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA's regulations specifically address the question of when trailers produced by combining new components and used materials are considered to be new trailers. Section 49 CFT 571.7(f) states that when new and used components are used in trailer manufacture, the trailer will be considered "newly manufactured" unless each of the following three conditions is true with respect to the trailer. First, the trailer running gear assembly, which includes the axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension, is not new and was taken from an existing trailer. Second, the existing trailer's identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the VIN. Third, the existing trailer is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

In other words, a log trailer will generally be considered newly manufactured, unless all these conditions are met. If a trailer is considered newly manufactured, then it must comply with the

P2 current requirements applicable to trailers. Among other things, this means that the trailer must be equipped with automatic adjusters. If a trailer meets these three conditions, then it is considered not newly manufactured and may be equipped with manual adjusters.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Sahw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: 11701DRN

Mr. Ernest Cuff
General Manager
Sputhe Engineering, Inc.
11185 Lime Kiln Road
Grass Valley, CA 95949-9715

Dear Mr. Cuff:

This responds to your letter asking several questions concerning your planned manufacture of motorcycles. You explain that your company presently manufactures Aaftermarket [motorcycle] engine and transmission components@ and is negotiating with an Australian company to manufacture and sell motorcycles in the United States.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, our statute establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer has the responsibility to certify that its product meets all applicable standards.

Your questions are as follows:

1. What if any, standards must be met for U.S. production?

ANSWER: The following Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 C.F.R. Part 571) apply to motorcycles: Standard No. 106, Brake hoses; Standard No. 108 Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; Standard No. 111 Rearview mirrors; Standard No. 115 Vehicle identification number - basic requirements; Standard No. 116 Motor vehicle brake fluids; Standard No. 119 New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars; Standard No. 120 Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars; Standard No. 122 Motorcycle brake systems; and Standard No. 123 Motorcycle controls and displays.

Each motorcycle must be certified by its manufacturer as meeting all applicable safety standards. The certification must be made in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. In addition, if a vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the vehicle manufacturer must notify all owners, purchasers, and dealers of the defect and provide a remedy without charge.

A new manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture (49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification). I am, for your information, enclosing an information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" and another sheet that describes how you may obtain copies of NHTSA=s standards.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established motor vehicle noise and emission standards. For information on EPA's requirements, please contact:

Office of Mobile Sources, ANR-455 Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Telephone (202) 260-7645

2. Is there an annual level of production at which certain rules would apply, or would all rules apply for a production of as low as 2 to 3 units per year?

ANSWER: Each motorcycle must be certified as meeting the safety standards, regardless of production levels. Thus, even if only one motorcycle is manufactured, all the requirements mentioned in our response to question one would apply.

3. Would the Australian certification be accepted here, or would it be necessary to initiate a whole new round of testing to achieve U.S. certification?

ANSWER: As noted above, it is the manufacturer, not NHTSA, who self-certifies its motor vehicles or items of equipment. Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to initiate any kind of testing for their certifications.

Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. However, NHTSA does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

If NHTSA's compliance test were to show an apparent noncompliance of a vehicle with the standard, the vehicle manufacturer would be asked to show the basis for its certification that its vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer would

be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance.

It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that it exercised "reasonable care" if the manufacturer conducted testing that strictly followed a specific standard's compliance test

procedures. However, "reasonable care" might be shown even if modified test procedures were used.

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 at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571.3 d:4/24/96

While the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties for the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance free of charge.

ID: 3262o

Mr. Jack McCroskey
Ms. Glenda Swanson Lyle
Regional Transportation District
1600 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202-1399

Dear Mr. McCroskey and Ms. Lyle:

This responds to your letter of September 13, 1988, asking for our advice on potential safety hazards and legal liabilities that might result from ignoring the speed restrictions on the tires used on your transit buses. You stated that your entity operates three types of bus service in the State of Colorado. The first type is a local bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph); the second type is an express bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 55 mph; and the third type is a regional bus, operated primarily on freeways with speed limits of 55 to 65 mph. You were interested primarily in the tires used on your express buses.

You stated that you use two types of speed-restricted tires "almost interchangeably" on the express buses. One of your speed-restricted tire types is the XT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 55 mph. The other is the DXT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 35 mph. Since the express buses are operated primarily at speeds of 55 mph, you contacted the tire manufacturer to get its advice on the acceptability of using tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on these buses. You enclosed copies of correspondence you received from the manufacturer, stating that its DXT and XT tires are identical, except that the DXT tire has 7/32 of an inch more undertread. The manufacturer's advice was that the tire that is speed-restricted to a maximum of 35 mph "may be used at higher speeds; but not for sustained operation." You asked whether it is advisable for your entity to continue using the tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on your express buses, which operate primarily at 55 mph. We strongly recommend that you not do so.

There are some notable advantages associated with speed-restricted tires, including enhanced load-carrying capabilities and greater resistance to tire damage from hitting objects in the road or curbs. However, the greater undertread on speed-restricted tires also means that the tires will generate higher temperatures at high speeds than a comparable non-restricted tire. Higher temperatures inside the tire increase the chances of a tire failure at high speeds.

NHTSA carefully considered both the advantages of speed-restricted tires and the need to ensure that such tires are properly used when it was developing Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119; copy enclosed). Every new bus tire must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with this standard. This agency decided that Standard No. 119 should permit the continued production of speed-restricted tires, but with appropriate safeguards to ensure that these tires would not be used at higher speeds. Accordingly, Standard No. 119 specifies less stringent high speed and endurance test requirements for speed-restricted tires. Speed-restricted tires for use on vehicles other than motorcycles are exempted from the high speed performance requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 119. This exemption reflects the fact that the tires are not designed for high speed use. For the same reason, the endurance test schedule for speed-restricted tires consists of a lower test speed and fewer total revolutions of the test wheel, as shown in Table III of Standard No. 119. Hence, the manufacturer of these speed-restricted tires has not certified that these tires comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 under conditions exceeding the speed-restriction marked on the tires.

To ensure that the user of speed-restricted tires would not operate the tires at higher speeds than those at which the tires are designed to operate safely, section S6.5(e) of Standard No. 119 requires every speed-restricted tire to have the marking "Max speed mph" on the sidewall. This marking is intended to alert the tire user of the limitations of this tire, so that it will not be repeatedly used at higher speeds. Since your express buses operate primarily at speeds of 55 mph, we urge you not to equip those buses with tires labeled "Max speed 35 mph." Similarly, since your express and regional buses typically operate at speeds exceeding 55 mph on their routes, we recommend only tires without speed restrictions for these buses.

With respect to your question about potential legal liabilities in the event one of these speed-restricted tires fails while in service on one of your express buses, that is a question of State law. Since I am not familiar with the Colorado law on this subject, I must decline to offer an opinion. However, the Attorney General for the State of Colorado or other local counsel would be able to accurately advise you on Colorado's law in this area.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:119 d:l2/9/88

ID: 3313o

Mr. Jack McCroskey
Ms. Glenda Swanson Lyle
Regional Transportation District
1600 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202-1399

Dear Mr. McCroskey and Ms. Lyle:

This responds to your letter of September 13, 1988, asking for our advice on potential safety hazards and legal liabilities that might result from ignoring the speed restrictions on the tires used on your transit buses. You stated that your entity operates three types of bus service in the State of Colorado. The first type is a local bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph); the second type is an express bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 55 mph; and the third type is a regional bus, operated primarily on freeways with speed limits of 55 to 65 mph. You were interested primarily in the tires used on your express buses.

You stated that you use two types of speed-restricted tires "almost interchangeably" on the express buses. One of your speed-restricted tire types is the XT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 55 mph. The other is the DXT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 35 mph. Since the express buses are operated primarily at speeds of 55 mph, you contacted the tire manufacturer to get its advice on the acceptability of using tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on these buses. You enclosed copies of correspondence you received from the manufacturer, stating that its DXT and XT tires are identical, except that the DXT tire has 7/32 of an inch more undertread. The manufacturer's advice was that the tire that is speed-restricted to a maximum of 35 mph "may be used at higher speeds; but not for sustained operation." You asked whether it is advisable for your entity to continue using the tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on your express buses, which operate primarily at 55 mph. We strongly recommend that you not do so.

There are some notable advantages associated with speed-restricted tires, including enhanced load-carrying capabilities and greater resistance to tire damage from hitting objects in the road or curbs. However, the greater undertread on speed-restricted tires also means that the tires will generate higher temperatures at high speeds than a comparable non-restricted tire. Higher temperatures inside the tire increase the chances of a tire failure at high speeds.

NHTSA carefully considered both the advantages of speed-restricted tires and the need to ensure that such tires are properly used when it was developing Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119; copy enclosed). Every new bus tire must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with this standard. This agency decided that Standard No. 119 should permit the continued production of speed-restricted tires, but with appropriate safeguards to ensure that these tires would not be used at higher speeds. Accordingly, Standard No. 119 specifies less stringent high speed and endurance test requirements for speed-restricted tires. Speed-restricted tires for use on vehicles other than motorcycles are exempted from the high speed performance requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 119. This exemption reflects the fact that the tires are not designed for high speed use. For the same reason, the endurance test schedule for speed-restricted tires consists of a lower test speed and fewer total revolutions of the test wheel, as shown in Table III of Standard No. 119. Hence, the manufacturer of these speed-restricted tires has not certified that these tires comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 under conditions exceeding the speed-restriction marked on the tires.

To ensure that the user of speed-restricted tires would not operate the tires at higher speeds than those at which the tires are designed to operate safely, section S6.5(e) of Standard No. 119 requires every speed-restricted tire to have the marking "Max speed mph" on the sidewall. This marking is intended to alert the tire user of the limitations of this tire, so that it will not be repeatedly used at higher speeds. Since your express buses operate primarily at speeds of 55 mph, we urge you not to equip those buses with tires labeled "Max speed 35 mph." Similarly, since your express and regional buses typically operate at speeds exceeding 55 mph on their routes, we recommend only tires without speed restrictions for these buses.

With respect to your question about potential legal liabilities in the event one of these speed-restricted tires fails while in service on one of your express buses, that is a question of State law. Since I am not familiar with the Colorado law on this subject, I must decline to offer an opinion. However, the Attorney General for the State of Colorado or other local counsel would be able to accurately advise you on Colorado's law in this area.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:119 d:12/9/88

ID: 1985-01.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Director of Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/2/69 letter from Charles A. Baker to Reliance Trailer and Truck Company Inc.; 11/10/81 letter from F. Berndt to Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TEXT:

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Director of Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria, VA 22314

This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1984 asking our "concurrence that the front clearance lamps on a trailer with a low front end or one designed to be equipped with a tarpaulin...may be mounted at the trailer frame level ( about 50 inches above the ground), to avoid these lamps reflecting into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror."

You thoughtfully attached a copy of my letter to you of November 10, 1981 in which I advised you that "the determination of practicability is one that is made by the manufacturer of the trailer", and that "NHTSA will accept a determination that mounting of clearance lamps at the top...is not practicable if such lamps are reflected into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror." That remains our view if the configuration of any the side view mirror." That remains our view if the configuration of any trailer is such that location of clearance lamps at or near the top of the trailer results in the reflection of the light into the eyes of the driver of the truck tractor.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association ALEXANDRIA, VA. 22314 December 7, 1984 Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel NHTSA, NOA-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation of the Height of Front Clearance Lamps on Trailers with Effective Low Front Ends

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We request your concurrence that the front clearance lamps on a trailer with a low front end or one designed to be equipped with a tarpaulin which would necessicate mounting the clearance lamps low may be mounted as the trailer frame level (about 50 inches above the ground), to avoid these lamps reflecting into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror.

In your letter of May 2, 1969 to Reliance Trailer and Truck Company, you stated that, "the front clearance lamps should be mounted as high as practicable to clear the bottom edge of the tarp." In your letter of November 10, 1981 to TTMA you stared that with regard to low front bulkheads on platform trailers that, "NHTSA will accept a determination that mounting of clearance lamps at the top or the bulkhead is not practicable if such lamps are reflected into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror."

With your concurrence, the sketch in our Recommended Practice No. 9, "Location of Lighting Devices for Trailers", will be revised as shown in the attachment.

Sincerely yours,

Donald W. Vierimaa Director of Engineering Attachments: Interpretations(Letters referenced above) - see 5/2/69 letter to Reliance Trailer and Truck Co., and 11/10/81 letter to Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association RP No. 9 with Drawing - Omitted.

cc: TTMA Engineering Committee

ID: nht89-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: P.H. MOES -- PRESIDENT U.S. TRADE CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/27/88 FROM P.H. MOES TO NHTSA RE INTERPRETATION CAFE REGULATIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES; OCC 3479

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moes:

This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1989, requesting as interpretation of your company's obligations and responsibilities when importing and converting motor vehicles for use in the United States. Specifically, you asked about the effects of the differing practices of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to indicating the importer of record on their respective import forms, form HS-7 and form 3250-1. You also asked about your obligat ions for annual CAFE reporting.

Your understanding that the vehicle owner is normally shown as the importer of record on DOT form HS-7 is correct. EPA, on the other hand, requires that for purposes of certification under EPA from 3520-1, an independent commercial importer (ICI) regist ered with EPA must be shown as the importer of record. You indicated that these two different designations of the importer of record have caused confusion in your dealings with U.S. Customs officials. You state that those officials have sometimes requi red customs brokers to list your company as the importer of record on the DOT forms as well as on the EPA form.

The Customs Service headquarters office has recognized that there has been some confusion in the past, but has indicated to NHTSA that it intends to clarify this matter with its field offices. You should thus instruct your brokers to continue to indicat e the vehicle's owner as the importer of record on the DOT importation declaration, form HS-7 and the checklist of conformance operations, form HS-189, if submitted.

With respect to CAFE reporting, section 501(9) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, (MVICSA, 15 USC 1901 et seq.) defines the term "manufacture" as meaning "... to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States, or to import" (emphasis added). Thus, under MVICSA, an importer is clearly a manufacturer for purposes of

CAFE requirements. Section 502 of MVICSA requires all manufacturers to comply with the CAFE standards for their vehicles, and section 505 sets out CAFE reporting requirements for such manufacturers. (See also, 49 CFR @ 537.5). As with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391 et seq.), it is the importer of record, as shown on form HS-7, who must comply with these reporting requirements. Your firm, however, may be required to report fuel economy data to EPA. See, 40 CFR @@ 85.1510(f), 600.312-86.)

I hope you have found this information helpful.

Sincerely,

ID: 1887y

Mr. P.H. Moes
President
U.S. Trade Corp.
1661 Katy Lane
Fort Mill, SC 29715

Dear Mr. Moes:

This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1989, requesting an interpretation of your company's obligations and responsibilities when importing and converting motor vehicles for use in the United States. Specifically, you asked about the effects of the differing practices of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to indicating the importer of record on their respective import forms, Form HS-7 and Form 3250-1. You also asked about your obligations for annual CAFE reporting.

Your understanding that the vehicle owner is normally shown as the importer of record on DOT Form HS-7 is correct. EPA, on the other hand, requires that for purposes of certification under EPA Form 3520-1, an independent commercial importer (ICI) registered with EPA must be shown as the importer of record. You indicated that these two different designations of the importer of record have caused confusion in your dealings with U.S. Customs officials. You state that those officials have sometimes required customs brokers to list your company as the importer of record on the DOT forms as well as on the EPA form.

The Customs Service headquarters office has recognized that there has been some confusion in the past, but has indicated to NHTSA that it intends to clarify this matter with its field offices. You should thus instruct your brokers to continue to indicate the vehicle's owner as the importer of record on the DOT importation declaration, Form HS-7 and the checklist of conformance operations, Form HS-189, if submitted.

With respect to CAFE reporting, section 501(9) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, (15 USC 1901, at 200l(9)) defines the term "manufacture" as meaning "... to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States, or to import" (emphasis added). Thus, under the Cost Savings Act, an importer is clearly a manufacturer for purposes of CAFE requirements. Section 502 of the Cost Savings Act (l5 USC 2002) requires all manufacturers to comply with the CAFE standards for their vehicles, and section 505 (l5 USC 2005) sets out CAFE reporting requirements for such manufacturers. (See also, 49 CFR /537.5). As with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391 et seq.), it is the importer of record, as shown on Form HS-7, who must comply with these reporting requirements. Your firm, however, may be required to report fuel economy data to EPA. See, 40 CFR //85.1510(f), 600.312-86.)

I hope you have found this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:CSA d:6/22/89