ID: nht94-3.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/18/94 from Federico Trombi to Taylor Vinson

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter of July 18, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to whether the headlamp system you describe complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The system is comprised of two headlamps. In each lamp, the lower beam will be provided by a gas discharge unit and the upper beam by either one European H-1 unit, or by the H-1 together with the gas discharge unit (or, alternatively, by two gas dischar ge units). Both lamp units would be sealed in a "box" so that they could not be replaced by the vehicle owner. The "box" would also contain a third light source, mounted outboard of the lower beam gas discharge unit, to be used for purposes other than headlighting.

As you note, this assemblage is an "integral beam headlamp" as defined by S4 of Standard No. 108 because it contains light sources that are neither sealed beam nor replaceable. Thus, it must conform with the requirements of S7.4 Integral Beam Headlighti ng System. You have noted that the lamp, in fact, will "comply with S7.4(a)(2) and the photometric requirements of either (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii)", which apply to two-lamp integral beam headlighting systems.

In your view, the lamp meets the requirement of Table IV that the lower beams be mounted "as far apart as practicable" because the configuration of the car body does not permit mounting the gas discharge unit any farther outboard. Further, the lamp "wou ld be in conformity with S7.4(b) as the lamp would have 2 light sources and the lower beam would be provided by the most outboard light source [of those regulated

2

by Standard No. 108] . . . and the upper beam would be provided by either the most inboard light source or both the gas discharge" and H-1 light sources.

We concur in your conclusion that this system is permissible under Standard No. 108.

ID: 101xx

Mr. Lance Tunick
1919 Mt. Zion Drive
Golden, CO 80401

FAX 303-279-9339

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter of July 18, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to whether the headlamp system you describe complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The system is comprised of two headlamps. In each lamp, the lower beam will be provided by a gas discharge unit and the upper beam by either one European H-1 unit, or by the H-1 together with the gas discharge unit (or, alternatively, by two gas discharge units). Both lamp units would be sealed in a "box" so that they could not be replaced by the vehicle owner. The "box" would also contain a third light source, mounted outboard of the lower beam gas discharge unit, to be used for purposes other than headlighting.

As you note, this assemblage is an "integral beam headlamp" as defined by S4 of Standard No. 108 because it contains light sources that are neither sealed beam nor replaceable. Thus, it must conform with the requirements of S7.4 Integral Beam Headlighting System. You have noted that the lamp, in fact, will "comply with S7.4(a)(2) and the photometric requirements of either (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii)", which apply to two- lamp integral beam headlighting systems.

In your view, the lamp meets the requirement of Table IV that the lower beams be mounted "as far apart as practicable" because the configuration of the car body does not permit mounting the gas discharge unit any farther outboard. Further, the lamp "would be in conformity with S7.4(b) as the lamp would have 2 light sources and the lower beam would be provided by the most outboard light source [of those regulated

by Standard No. 108] . . . and the upper beam would be provided by either the most inboard light source or both the gas discharge" and H-1 light sources.

We concur in your conclusion that this system is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:7/28/94

ID: 17175.drn

Mr. Vincent P. Schulze, Chief
Commercial Bus Inspection and Investigation
Motor Vehicle Services
New Jersey Department of Transportation
CN 160
Trenton, NJ 08666
Ref: MC#26-98

Dear Mr. Schulze:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, bus⁽¹⁾ emergency exit windows may be designated with international symbols and have operating instructions labeled with international symbols instead of English instructions. You state that a bus manufacturer, Motor Coach Industries (MCI), "presented four buses in New Jersey for inspection using international symbols in lieu of English language on the emergency exit window." You provide no description or other information about the "international symbols."

Standard 217 includes S5.5, Emergency exit identification, which specifies in S5.5.1 that each emergency exit door shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit," and every other emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit," followed by "concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 16 centimeters of the release mechanism." Examples of operating instructions are provided in S5.5.1, as follows: (1) Lift to Unlatch, Push to Open; and (2) Lift Handle and Push out to Open.

With regard to designating the exits, S5.5.1 is explicit with regard to how emergency exit doors or other types of emergency exits must be designated. "[E]ach emergency exit door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit,' and every other emergency exit shall have the designation 'Emergency Exit'. . . ." Use of the quotations in S5.5.1 indicates that the exact words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" are what are required to designate these emergency exits. We are unable to conclude by interpretation alone that a symbol is commensurate with the quoted language. Thus, a symbol cannot be provided in lieu of the words.

With regard to the operating instructions, S5.5 does not set forth explicit language that must be used to provide the required operating instructions (unlike the provision relating to the designation of an exit), nor does it otherwise expressly prohibit the use of symbols to provide the required information. However, the section requires that "concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit" must be provided. Since we do not know what the international symbols look like, we are unable to provide an opinion at this time as to whether the symbols at issue are explicit enough to instruct a frightened passenger how to open the emergency exit. Our Safety Assurance office will be contacting your office to obtain further information to help the agency decide whether to commence an enforcement proceeding regarding a possible noncompliance with Standard 217.

If you have any questions, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.6/22/98

1. For purposes of your inquiry, I will assume that you ask about buses other than school buses, and thus the sections in Standard 217 that apply to non-school buses are the relevant requirements.

ID: 7383

Mr. Steven Henderson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield
Montreal PQ H3A 1B1
Canada

Dear Mr. Henderson:

This responds to your letter of August 11, 1992, commenting on my response to you of June 29 with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions regulating the modulation of motorcycle headlighting systems.

In my letter, I informed you that the device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108, and would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with the standard. I also advised you that if a motorcycle owner could install the device, there would be no violation of Federal law, and that the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states.

In your latest letter, you "agree that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands." However, "if the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case," you believe "that the granting of an exception should be considered by the NHTSA."

As I understand it, your principal argument as raised on page 2 of your August 11 letter is that it is improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon the specifications of that section, are misplaced.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, your device becomes subject to another provision of Standard No. 108 that I did not mention in my June letter. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the installation, as original equipment, of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. Application of paragraph S5.1.3 returns us to my comments in June that your device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Thus, under paragraph S5.1.3, installation of the device as aftermarket equipment, if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would continue to be prohibited by Federal law.

Your latest letter also addresses the issues of taillamp and turn signal conformance. You argue that

"a taillight's purpose is to mark the rear of a motor vehicle during nighttime driving when it would otherwise be invisible. For this reason the law requires that taillights be lit at night. The law makes no such requirement during the day. The law does require that motorcycle headlights be lit during the day. * * * At night the taillight will always be steady-burning as required by S5.5.10(d) because the flasher device is only able to induce taillight flicker during daylight hours due to the photocell circuitry incorporated to prevent the headlamp from generating strobe effects at night. Therefore, the device is in compliance with S5.5.10(d) as it will cause the taillight to flash only at times that it is not required by law to be lit."

The law that applies to your argument is Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.7(b) states in pertinent part that "On each . . . motorcycle . . . when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps . . . shall also be activated." Thus, under Standard No. 108 the taillamps must always be activated when the headlamps are activated.

The device also functions through the horn button to cause the turn signal lamps to flash at a rate higher than the maximum permitted by Standard No. 108. In your view, the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are in simultaneous use will be rare. However, if they are used together, "the SAE-specified turn signal flash of 1-2 hz will be perceptually present, the hazard signal flash of 10 hz will also be perceptually present at the same location, and the two signals will not interfere."

We consider that paragraph S5.1.3 applies here as well, and that a flash of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz. There could be another undesirable consequence as well. When NHTSA proposed allowing modulating headlamps, commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction, akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. NHTSA observed that the reaction was most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Although your device does not operate at night, its frequency is at the threshold where photic reactions can occur, and we want to bring this fact to your attention.

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders. You have suggested writing an "exception" in Standard No. 108 for a period of one or two years so that the safety benefits of the device can be evaluated. We have a procedure under which a manufacturer of motorcycles can petition for a temporary exemption of up to two years, applicable to 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that it would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Perhaps you can interest a manufacturer in petitioning for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 108 on this basis.

You may also petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety. The agency has no plans to initiate rulemaking on its own initiative to permit your device.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/28/92

ID: nht92-4.23

DATE: August 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/11/92 from Steven Henderson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 11, 1992, commenting on my response to you of June 29 with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions regulating the modulation of motorcycle headlighting systems.

In my letter, I informed you that the device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108, and would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with the standard. I also advised you that if a motorcycle owner could install the device, there would be no violation of Federal law, and that the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states.

In your latest letter, you "agree that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands." However, "if the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case," you believe "that the granting of an exception should be considered by the NHTSA."

As I understand it, your principal argument as raised on page 2 of your August 11 letter is that it is improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon the specifications of that section, are misplaced.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, your device becomes subject to another provision of Standard No. 108 that I did not mention in my June letter. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the installation, as original equipment, of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. Application of paragraph S5.1.3 returns us to my comments in June that your device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Thus, under paragraph S5.1.3, installation of the device as aftermarket equipment, if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would continue to be prohibited by Federal law.

Your latest letter also addresses the issues of taillamp and turn signal conformance. You argue that

"a taillight's purpose is to mark the rear of a motor vehicle during

nighttime driving when it would otherwise be invisible. For this reason the law requires that taillights be lit at night. The law makes no such requirement during the day. The law does require that motorcycle headlights be lit during the day. *** At night the taillight will always be steady- burning as required by S5.5.10(d) because the flasher device is only able to induce taillight flicker during daylight hours due to the photocell circuitry incorporated to prevent the headlamp from generating strobe effects at night. Therefore, the device is in compliance with S5.5.10(d) as it will cause the taillight to flash only at times that it is not required by law to be lit."

The law that applies to your argument is Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.7(b) states in pertinent part that "On each...motorcycle...when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps...shall also be activated." Thus, under Standard No. 108 the taillamps must always be activated when the headlamps are activated.

The device also functions through the horn button to cause the turn signal lamps to flash at a rate higher than the maximum permitted by Standard No. 108. In your view, the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are in simultaneous use will be rare. However, if they are used together, "the SAE-specified turn signal flash of 1-2 hz will be perceptually present, the hazard signal flash of 10 hz will also be perceptually present at the same location, and the two signals will not interfere."

We consider that paragraph S5.1.3 applies here as well, and that a flash of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz. There could be another undesirable consequence as well. When NHTSA proposed allowing modulating headlamps, commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction, akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. NHTSA observed that the reaction was most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Although your device does not operate at night, its frequency is at the threshold where photic reactions can occur, and we want to bring this fact to your attention.

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders. You have suggested writing an "exception" in Standard No. 108 for a period of one or two years so that the safety benefits of the device can be evaluated. We have a procedure under which a manufacturer of motorcycles can petition for a temporary exemption of up to two years, applicable to 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that it would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Perhaps you can interest a manufacturer in petitioning for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 108 on this basis.

You may also petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety. The agency has no plans to initiate rulemaking on its own initiative to permit your device.

ID: 17893a.df

Mr. Bobby Puett
President
Diversified Testing Laboratories, Inc.
336 West Front Street
P.O. Box 4004
Burlington, North Carolina 27215

Dear Mr. Puett:

This responds to your letter concerning the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. I apologize for the delay in my response.

You explain that you tested a lightweight coated fabric both with and without support wires and had dramatically different test results. You state that when you tested the fabric without the support wires, the fabric burned at a rate of 15 inches per minute and failed the test (the standard limits the burn rate to not more than 4 inches per minute). In addition, the testing specimen bent slightly during the test. You explain further that when you tested the fabric with support wires and a U-shaped frame as specified in Standard 302, the fabric "ignited but self-extinguished upon contact with the second cross wire from the end of the frame" and passed the test. You express concern over the variation in test results and ask when to use a frame with support wires and where to place the support wires during testing.

Section S5.1.3 of Standard 302 states, in relevant part, that:

A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an additional U-shaped frame, wider than the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 10--mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cannot specify, outside of the context of a compliance test, whether it will use support wires to test your material. As a matter of policy, a decision to use wires is made only in the context of compliance testing. The agency decides to use wires based on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with components that are highly similar to a test specimen. We note that the test condition noted in S5.1.3 should be read as a whole. Thus, the supplemental supports are only to be used if the specimen (1) softens and bends at the flaming end (2) so as to cause erratic burning. The agency does not use support wires in situations of erratic burning alone.

If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Fradette at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:302
d.11/24/98

ID: 17539.wkm

Mr. C. Thomas Terry
Director, Safety Affairs and Regulations
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Box 9010
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Terry:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Mr. John Womack of this office in which you stated that General Motors (GM) is considering the use of dual vacuum hoses between the engine manifold and the booster unit to meet the failed power-assist requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 135, Passenger car brake systems.

You stated that the hoses would be connected to the manifold at two separate locations and to two separate non-removable check valves at the booster unit. Thus, failure of one hose would not affect system performance since the other hose would continue to provide vacuum to the booster unit. The check valves would prevent loss of vacuum from the booster in the event of failure of one of the hoses. You asked our agreement that in such a system, only one hose at a time need be disconnected when conducting the failed power-assist test of Standard No. 135, specifically subparagraphs S7.11.3(g) and (h). We have carefully considered your suggested interpretation but, for the reasons discussed below, we do not agree.

Subsection S7.11.4 establishes the applicable performance requirement as follows:

The service brakes on a vehicle equipped with one or more brake power assist units or brake power units, with one such unit inoperative and depleted of all reserve capability, shall stop the vehicle as specified in S7.11.4(a) or S7.11.4(b).

(a) Stopping distance from 100 km/h test speed: 168m (551 ft).

(b) Stopping distance for reduced test speed: S0.10 + 0.0158V.

In testing for this requirement, subparagraph S7.11.3(g) provides:

Disconnect the primary source of power for one brake power assist unit or brake power unit, or one of the brake power unit or brake power assist unit subsystems if two or more subsystems are provided (emphasis added).

Subparagraph S7.11.3(h) provides:

If the brake power unit or power assist unit operates in conjunction with a backup system and the backup system is automatically activated in the event of a primary power service failure, the backup system is operative during this test.

The agency does not consider the use of hoses from the engine manifold to the booster unit as the primary source of power for the brake power-assist system. The power or medium used to operate the brake power assist system is vacuum, the primary source of which is the engine. Thus, the "primary source of power" of a vacuum-operated brake power-assist system is the engine intake manifold, which provides vacuum to the power assist unit regardless of the number of vacuum hoses used to transmit the vacuum. Loss of vacuum generated by the engine constitutes a loss of the primary power source. That is what the failed power-assist test of S7.11 seeks to replicate, that is, the standard seeks to ensure that in the event of loss of power assist, the driver will still be able to bring the vehicle to a stop in the required distance of 168 meters (551 feet) with the prescribed brake pedal force of 500 Newtons.

In this test, therefore, all hoses from the engine intake manifold to the booster unit are disconnected and the system is depleted of vacuum. The stopping tests are then conducted without reconnecting the brake power assist unit to the vacuum source. This is not to imply that the engine is turned off for this portion of the testing, but rather that the source of power, the engine manifold, is disconnected from the power assist unit. I note that with respect to S7.7, Stops with Engine Off, the difference is that residual vacuum remains in the system to be used to power the brake assist unit. For the inoperative brake power assist test, the system and any subsystems must be depleted.

A "backup" system as provided in S7.11.3(h) would be a separate electric or vacuum accumulator that would automatically activate in the event of failure of the primary power source. Thus, the dual hose system you described in your letter would not constitute a backup system. Rather, it would be no more than components of the primary power source.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/15/98
ref:105#135

ID: nht88-3.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/02/88

FROM: STEVEN W. CROWELL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM D. FALCON; REDBOOK A 35; STANDARD 201; 202; 205; VSA 108[A][2][A]; LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM WILLIAM D. FALCON TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 3107; LETTER FROM STEVEN CROWELL DATED 06/02/88 TO ELIZABETH DENNISTON -- EGOH BITTNER COMMISSIONER WALTHAM MASSACHUSETTS

TEXT: (Illegible Words)

It has come to my attention that (Ilelgible Word) 71.4.1 guidelines issued by The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies may be in need of amendment in order to reduce risk of injury and suit. The following information may be of ass istance to you.

This is a quote from a letter to me dated 9/13/85 from the Chief Counsel for The United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Jeffrey R. Miller. "The National Highway Traffic Safety Act of 1966 authorize s this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment (sect. (Illegible Word) prohibits the sale or manufacture of new vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (sect. 108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for n on-complying vehicles and equipment (sect. 109 (a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (sect. 154 (a))."

"In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (sect. 114). This requirement applies to the manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment and to vehicle manufacturers, with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if the auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to the first sale, the equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufactur er must certify that the entire vehicle (including the items of equipment) complies with all applicable standards."

If you refer to the Act (Illegible Word) C.P.L. 89-562 sect. 567.7) you will find the following:

[A person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified shall affix to the vehicle an additional label containing the following information; the statement: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in whi ch alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year)."]

In light of the preceding information I wish to make the following recommendation. Rather than 71.4.1 reading "The safety barrier may be of wire mesh or heavy guage plastic. . .", I suggest it read; "The safety barrier must be one which has had a lab el or tag affixed to it which certifies compliance with all applicable safety standards and requirements established by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966."

Your perspective on this recommendation will be appreciated.

ID: nht71-3.23

DATE: 06/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Coach Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1971, requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation to the mobile home and recreational vehicle industry.

You have asked if there is a specific regulation requiring the motor vehicle dealer to report tire data to the motor vehicle manufacturer when the vehicle is sold equipped with new tires installed by the manufacturer. There is no requirement that the vehicle dealer report tire data to the vehicle manufacturer, however, in the event the vehicle is sold with tires different from those shipped on or in the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle dealer would have to report the name and address of the purchaser along with the tire identification number to the tire manufacturer.

You have asked if the Administrator would apply section 113(f) of the Act to require vehicle dealers to provide tire data to the vehicle manufacturer when the vehicle is sold equipped with tires installed by the vehicle manufacturer. The vehicle manufacturer is required to keep records of tires shipped on or in his vehicles as well as the name and address of the first purchaser. It is doubtful that any additional requirements will be considered unless this system appears to be ineffective.

Regarding your question whether there is a regulation requiring the vehicle manufacturer to report tire data to the tire manufacturer, there is no requirement that vehicle manufacturer report tire information to the tire manufacturer because the responsibility for issuing defect notification to the first purchaser of the vehicle rests with the vehicle manufacturer and not with the tire manufacturer.

You have also asked, in a situation where a vehicle dealer refuses to provide "tire records" to the vehicle manufacturer, would this constitute a "due care" defense for the vehicle manufacturer who would be unable to maintain the records required by the regulation. Because each enforcement action is handled separately, it is impossible to determine in advance whether this would be considered a "due care" defense in the situation you describe, however, it would be taken into consideration before an enforcement action would be initiated. If vehicle dealers refuse to cooperate and provide first purchaser information which section 113(f) of the Act requires vehicle manufacturers to maintain, the Administration would consider issuing a regulation making this mandatory.

If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write.

ID: Roseman_ltr

Mr. Robert A. Roseman
Load Rite Trailers, Inc.
265 Lincoln Highway
Fairless Hills, PA 19030-1193





Dear Mr. Roseman:

This responds to your letter to Stephen P. Wood of my staff asking two questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). Both of your questions are answered below. You explain that your company manufactures boat trailers and that you have questions about a brake hose assembly "that does not meet Standard No. 106." You ask for confirmation of information you were given that "DOT doesn't apply to boat trailers because they are not for commercial use." As explained below, the information you were provided is incorrect.

Question 1: Does 49 CFR 571.106 apply to boat trailers that are used on the public highways for non-commercial use?

The answer is yes. All trailers, including boat trailers, manufactured for use on the public highways and all brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and end fittings used on trailers and boat trailers must comply with FMVSS No. 106. (See S3 of FMVSS No. 106 regarding the applicability of the standard.) The term "boat trailer" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3, as "a trailer designed with cradle-type mountings to transport a boat and configured to permit launching of the boat from the rear of the trailer." (Emphasis added.) As a subcategory of "trailers," boat trailers must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to trailers, including FMVSS No. 106. We note that our answer would be the same even if the boat trailers you manufacture were used on the public roads for commercial rather than non-commercial purposes.

Question 2: What would my exposure for correction be if I simply began using the lower cost brake hose assemblies until the issue is clarified? Would I have to replace all those that I supplied?

Under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (the Safety Act), you must use brake hose, end fittings and assemblies that comply with Standard No. 106. 49 U.S.C. 30112. Under 30115 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to certify that their motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. Section 30115 prohibits any person from issuing such certification "if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect." Persons who knowingly certify compliance of vehicles containing non-compliant equipment are subject to the Act's civil penalty provisions. 49 U.S.C. 30165. Under 30165, anyone who violates 30112 or 30115 is subject to a civil penalty up to $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $15,000,000 for a series of related violations. In addition, the Act prohibits the sale of non-compliant vehicles or equipment. The statute also requires manufacturers to notify consumers that a motor vehicle or item or equipment they purchased fails to comply with the FMVSSs or contains a safety-related defect, and requires manufacturers to remedy such noncompliances and defects without charge. We have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes these and other manufacturer responsibilities.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:106
d.5/3/02