ID: 8601

Mr. Steve Reeder
President & General Manager
Trails West Manufacturing
P.O. Box 67
Preston, ID 83263

Dear Mr. Reeder:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, in which you ask questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the livestock trailers that you manufacture.

The trailer box is 78 inches wide, but the overall vehicle width exceeds 80 inches when the fenders are added. You have asked whether such trailers must be equipped with lamps required of vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more (clearance and identification lamps) as they will be installed on the trailer box. In an interpretation published in l976 which remains valid today, the agency stated that "overall width" refers to "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle . . . exclusive of flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps . . . ." The trailers you manufacture do not appear to be equipped with "flexible fender extensions", according to the literature that you supplied, and therefore the fenders would be included in determining the overall width. Accordingly, they would be required to be equipped with clearance and identification lamps. Although the clearance lamps will be located on the box, they should be placed, as nearly as possible, to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as near the top as practicable, as Table II of Standard No. 108 requires. Thus, to answer your second question, side marker lamps would be located as required by Table II rather than Table IV.

In determining whether the overall length of the trailer is 30 feet or more for purposes of installation of intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors, you ask whether "the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer which extends over the tow vehicle" should be included. The agency has not adopted a definition of "overall length." However, with respect to a trailer that is less than 6 feet in overall length, paragraph S5.1.1.15 requires that "the trailer tongue" be included in the measurement. Therefore we believe that the calculation of overall length for longer trailers should also include the trailer tongue or equivalent connector to the towing vehicle.

You have also asked if "front clearance lights [would] be required where the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer extends over the tow vehicle." The answer is yes. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that amber clearance lamps be located "on the front" and as near the top as practicable, which we interpret to be the foremost, highest part of the trailer.

Your final question relates to regulations for "safety chains" for your products. We are unaware of any Federal requirements that apply to this item of equipment. States may have adopted specifications such as VESC Regulation V5, or SAE Recommended Practice J697 MAY88, which would apply to vehicles operated within their borders. However, we are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you contact, for an opinion, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/28/93

ID: nht93-4.12

DATE: May 28, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Steve Reeder -- President & General Manager, Trails West Manufacturing

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-21-93 from Steve Reeder to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8601)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 21, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, in which you ask questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the livestock trailers that you manufacture.

The trailer box is 78 inches wide, but the overall vehicle width exceeds 80 inches when the fenders are added. You have asked whether such trailers must be equipped with lamps required of vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more (clearance and identification lamps) as they will be installed on the trailer box. In an interpretation published in 1976 which remains valid today, the agency stated that "overall width" refers to "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle . . . exclusive of flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps . . . ." The trailers you manufacture do not appear to be equipped with "flexible fender extensions", according to the literature that you supplied, and therefore the fenders would be included in determining the overall width. Accordingly, they would be required to be equipped with clearance and identification lamps. Although the clearance lamps will be located on the box, they should be placed, as nearly as possible, to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as near the top as practicable, as Table II of Standard No. 108 requires. Thus, to answer your second question, side marker lamps would be located as required by Table II rather than Table IV.

In determining whether the overall length of the trailer is 30 feet or more for purposes of installation of intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors, you ask whether "the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer which extends over the tow vehicle" should be included. The agency has not adopted a definition of "overall length." However, with respect to a trailer that is less than 6 feet in overall length, paragraph S5.1.1.15 requires that "the trailer tongue" be included in the measurement. Therefore we believe that the calculation of overall length for longer trailers should also include the trailer tongue or equivalent connector to the towing vehicle.

You have also asked if "front clearance lights (would) be required where the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer extends over the tow vehicle." The answer is yes. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that amber clearance lamps be located "on the front" and as near the top as practicable, which we interpret to be the foremost, highest part of the trailer.

Your final question relates to regulations for "safety chains" for your products. We are unaware of any Federal requirements that apply to this item of equipment. States may have adopted specifications such as VESC Regulation V5, or SAE Recommended Practice J697 MAY88, which would apply to vehicles operated within their borders. However, we are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you contact, for an opinion, the American Association of

Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht75-5.17

DATE: 03/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Andrew G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Brockway Motor Trucks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in acknowledgment of your quarterly report submitted on January 31, 1975, in accordance with the defect reporting regulations, Part 573. Enclosed with your report were copies of the owner notification letters, service bulletins, and other information concerning your safety campaign (your #218) involving some 700 Series L and LL model trucks which may experience automatic application of the spring brakes caused by use of an air line which is too large.

This office has no record of this campaign and did not receive knowledge of it prior to your January 31 report. Since your owner letters and service bulletins were mailed in October of 1974, it appears that you did not comply with the 5 working day time limit for submitting defect reports specified in Part 573 (49 CFR). You are therefore cautioned that all future reports must be submitted on a timely basis. A failure to do so may result in the imposition of civil penalities and injunctive sanctions against your company.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identification number 75-0024 has been assigned to this campaign. Please refer to this number in all future correspondence concerning this campaign. The second quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by May 6, 1975. A full and complete Defect Report in accordance with Part 573 must also still be submitted for this campaign.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht70-1.47

DATE: 03/20/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: A.L. Clark

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1970, to Mr. Jones Forrester, Deputy Director, Office of Standards Praparation, that has ben referred to this office.

The information that you have attained from a firend, that a car built for you for your personal use and imported for purposes other than resale does not have to have a certification label, is correct. It should be noted, however, that the important criteria here is the matter of compliance with standards that are applicable on the date of manufacture.

Section 108(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-563, states:

"A motor vehicle . . . offered for importation in violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be refused admission into the United States under joint regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary; except that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary may, by such regulations, provide for authorizing the importation of such motor vehice . . . into the United States upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to insure that any such motor vehicle . . . will be brought into comformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this title, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States." A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.

To augment this Section of the Act, 19 C.F.R. 12.80 has been established. This regulation states in essence that no vehicle shall not be refused entry if it bears a valid certification label. In the event the vehicle does not have a valid certification label other provisions for inportation are provided. A copy of that regulation is also enclosed. Iso Automotovcicoli held an Iteriam Temporary Exception Number 68-6, Public Law 90-283, that expired on December 19, 1968. This exemption covers passenger cars manufactured by that firm up to that date.

This company subsequently filed another petition for temporary exemption and was granted Temporary Exemption Number 68-for thair Rivolta model only. Exemption(Illegible word) the Grifo model was withheld because it lacked certain technical information. We are currently in communication with Iso over this matter.

The steps that you should take to free the ear from bond would be for you to contact Iso Automotoveicoli and establish the date of manufacture. If that date is sometime prior to December 19, 1968, an affidavit should be presented to Customs. If on the other hand the car was manufactured after that date, you should seek their advices as to what could be done to bring the vehicle into conformity commensurate with any temporary exemption that might be granted in the mean time. The regulations do not provide any other recourse other than corportation or abandonent to the United States.

ID: nht76-4.1

DATE: 01/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Timpte, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Timpte's December 10, 1975, question whether modification of a certified trailer prior to retail sale constitutes the manufacture of a vehicle subject to applicable safety standards such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The answer to your question is no. From your description, it appears that the proposed modification would be an alteration of a certified vehicle subject to @ 567.7 of NHTSA certification regulations (49 CFR @ 567.7) (copy enclosed). Under that section, conformity of the vehicle as altered need only be to standards in effect at the time the originally certified trailer was manufactured.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

TIMPTE, INC.

December 10, 1975

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

As a manufacturer of semi-trailers we have just been approached with a condition that I am unable to determine our particular status if we were to proceed with the modification requested. Let me explain the situation to you.

Two years ago, we manufactured 6 semi-trailers which were 26' long, single axle, dry freight vans. They were intended to be put in use as "doubles". Our order was from one of our distributors who is a separate entity from our Company. We built these trailers, delivered them to him and he has paid us for them. We furnished him with Statements of Origin on these units. However, two of them did not get sold to his customer and these have not been titled in any way at this time.

Now, our distributor has the opportunity of selling these trailers. However, a modification will have to be made to the extent that the trailers each would need to be lengthened to 45' in overall length and the single axle would be replaced by a tandem axle sliding bogie. The overhead rear doors would be replaced by swinging rear doors. Now, in one context, this is a modification where we are utilizing the entire frame and side structure of the present trailer and adding on to it in so far as length is concerned. We are, however, making a tandem out of it with a sliding bogie as opposed to a fixed single axle. Its GAWR rating for each of the axles would remain the same; however, the GVWR would increase. These trailers are not used trailers and they presently carry our plate showing manufacturing date of 1974.

Can this be considered a repair or is this a modification to the extent of a rebuild where we would be required to furnish 121 brake equipment on the units and how, in either case, would we go about certifying them if, in fact, certification would be required to particularly the FMVSS 121?

I grant that this is an unusual request and yet it is entirely valid in that the distributor, not having had a sale for these trailers for a long period of time, now sees an opportunity to dispose of them if, in fact, a modification of this degree could be made reasonably and without necessity of probably adding the 121 axles and brake equipment. From a structural standpoint, we would have no concern since we would be doing the work here in our plant and making appropriate accomodations so that the trailers would be as structurally sound as if they had originally been made in the configuration of 45' in lieu of the 26' length.

Since a sale is pending based on the decisions in this letter, I would appreciate the earliest possible reaction from you so that we, in turn, may know how to advise our distributor and proceed accordingly.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Jack Gromer -- Vice President - Engineering

ID: 14270.wkm

Arthur N. Arschin, Esq.
Attorney at Law
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2803
New York, NY 10123

Dear Mr. Arschin:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter requesting DOT identification numbers for Union Autoparts Manufacturing Company, Ltd.(Union). Please be advised that Union is not required to have a DOT identification number, as discussed below.

You stated that Union, a Thailand company, manufactures steel wheel rims for motorcycles and bicycles, as well as steel spokes and steel nipples for motorcycle and bicycle tires. Union wants to export some of its wheel rims and parts to the U.S. and for that purpose, wants to obtain DOT identification numbers for their rims. You further stated that Union's motorcycle rims bear the words "Union Cycle" on the weather side, and that bicycle rims are marked "UAB." Finally, you stated that you have been designated Union's resident agent in the U.S. for the service of process.

Unless equipped with a motor, bicycles and bicycle equipment are not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a DOT identification number is not necessary for importation and sale of bicycles and related equipment. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued regulations relating to bicycles, however, which can be found at 16 CFR 1512, including requirements for tires (1512.10), wheels (1512.11), and wheel hubs (1512.13).

With respect to motorcycle rims, paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120), specifies rim marking requirements applicable to all rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Subparagraph (d) requires rims to be marked with "A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol." This information allows this agency and the public to identify the manufacturer of the rim should the need arise. The use of a trademark or symbol instead of the manufacturer's name is permitted because the agency can determine the identity of the manufacturer from the trademark or symbol. Domestic manufacturers' trademarks and symbols are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Foreign manufacturers are required by 49 CFR 551.45 to include in their resident agent designations a list of the "marks, trade names, or other designations of origin" that appear on any of their products in lieu of their legal names. Thus, the assignment of an individual DOT identification code, as the agency does for tire manufacturers, is not required for rim manufacturers. In that respect, Union's continued use of "Union Cycle" and "UAB" is acceptable.

It should be noted, however, that in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed), if it has not already done so, Union will be required to provide NHTSA the information called for therein.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:120

d.9/22/97

ID: nht94-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gene Byrd -- Anderson Technology

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 7/20/94: Letter from Gene Byrd to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 10206)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to former Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice asking about the requirements of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses, for reusable air brake hose end fittings. You indicate that you intend to produce these end fittings for use with SAE J844 pl astic tubing. You also state that you have filed a manufacturer's designation with NHTSA, in accordance with S7.2.2(b) of Standard 106.

You asked for confirmation that seven requirements in FMVSS 106 apply to reusable end fittings. The requirements you listed were: S7.2.2 (labeling); 7.3.1 (constriction); 7.3.8 (air pressure); 7.3.9 (burst strength); 7.3.10 (tensile strength); 7.3.11 (w ater absorption and tensile strength); and 7.3.13 (end fitting corrosion). Your understanding is essentially correct, with the following clarification.

You are correct that each of these sections specifies a level of performance which is dependent on the performance of the end fitting. However, other than for S7.2.2 and 7.3.13, these requirements apply to air brake hose assemblies, and not to end fitti ngs. This is relevant for purposes of determining the requirements for which an end fitting manufacturer would have to certify compliance. If you were only manufacturing and selling the end fitting, you would be responsible for certifying only to S7.2. 2 and 7.3.13, since these requirements apply to end fittings (and not to "assemblies"). As a practical matter, however, the assembly manufacturer would probably seek assurances from you that your end fitting will perform in a manner that will enable the manufacturer's assembly to meet the air brake hose assembly requirements of the standard.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's regulation for "Manufacturer Identification" (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hose end fittings) to submit its name, add ress, and a brief description of the

items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it begins manufacture. I have also enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes other responsibilities for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equip ment. n1

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

I hope this answers your question. If you need other assistance, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht90-1.69

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 14, 1990

FROM: Daniel L. Giles -- Christianson, Stoneberg, Giles & Myers, P.A.

TO: Steven P. Wood -- Acting Chief, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Western Community Action, Inc./Head Start Busettes

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from P.J. Rice to D.L. Giles (A36; Std. 108; VSA 103(3)); Also attached to letter dated 3-8-90 from D.L. Giles to D. Baker; Also attached to memo dated 3-6-90 from B. Wilson to D. Giles; Also attached to memo dat ed 2-22-90 from D. Baker to B. Wilson; Also attached to letter dated 3-18-88 from R.C. Rost to Chief Council, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 8-26-88 from E.L. Jones to R.C. Rost

TEXT:

Western Community Action, Inc. provides community services, including head start services in the Marshall, Minnesota area. They recently purchased two Wayne Busettes for use in transporting children to and from the head start facility. These buses carr y 23 children passengers or 16 adult passengers. The chasse is less than 10,000 pounds GVWR. The buses are blue in color with white lettering. As delivered by Minnesota Body and Equipment Company, each bus is equipped with an amber warning light syste m.

Western Community Action, Inc. has been warned by the Minnesota State Highway Patrol that the amber warning lights are illegal equipment in Minnesota because these vehicles are not "school buses" under Minnesota Statutes. No citation has been issued as of the date of this letter, but my client has been told that citations will issue if the amber warning light system is not removed or disabled.

I am enclosing the following documents:

1. March 8, 1990 letter to Dave Baker from Daniel L. Giles

2. March 6, 1990 letter from Bev Wilson to Dan Giles.

3. February 22, 1990 Memorandum from Dave Baker to Bev Wilson including copy of Minnesota Statutes.

4. March 18, 1988 letter from Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. to N.H.T.S.A.

5. August 26, 1988 letter from N.H.T.S.A to Minnesota Body & Equipment Co.

Mr. Dave Baker, Law Compliance Representative of the Minnesota State Highway Patrol has been provided with copies of the March 18, 1988 correspondence of Minnesota Body and Equipment Company and the August 26, 1988 correspondence from the N.H.T.S.A. Aft er reviewing this correspondence he has advised me that my client must remove or disable the amber warning light system from the Wayne Busettes it owns, or be in violation of Minnesota Statutes. Mr. Baker suggested that because these busettes are being used entirely within the State of Minnesota, they are not subject to regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Would you kindly review the correspondence and advise me at your

earliest convience whether the Wayne Busettes used in the head start program by Western Community Action, Inc. must be equipped with the amber warning light system, and if so, when the system is to be used. I would appreciate your response by fax, if po ssible.

ID: nht94-1.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1994

FROM: David A. Scott -- President, RKS International L.L.C.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to David A. Scott (A42; Part 591)

TEXT:

After contacting your Chicago representative, I was informed that you were the authoritative person qualified to respond to my inquiries.

RK Technologies, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation. We deal mostly with China. We are presently considering importing from China to the United States fiberglass kit cars. Our consideration is to import the cars either disassembled or partially assembled in China. We will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S., for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires,etc. The cars will be sold in the United States.

Please provide us with the information guidelines and/or restrictions that will have to be met to ensure compliance with the possible imports and with the assembling and circulation of cars in the U.S.

I would appreciate your prompt attention and response and I thank you in advance.

ID: nht94-8.1

DATE: March 8, 1994

FROM: David A. Scott -- President, RKS International L.L.C.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to David A. Scott (A42; Part 591)

TEXT:

After contacting your Chicago representative, I was informed that you were the authoritative person qualified to respond to my inquiries.

RK Technologies, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation. We deal mostly with China. We are presently considering importing from China to the United States fiberglass kit cars. Our consideration is to import the cars either disassembled or partially assembled in China. We will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S., for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires,etc. The cars will be sold in the United States.

Please provide us with the information guidelines and/or restrictions that will have to be met to ensure compliance with the possible imports and with the assembling and circulation of cars in the U.S.

I would appreciate your prompt attention and response and I thank you in advance.