ID: nht75-1.40

DATE: 03/18/75

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

TO: Central Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 21, 1975 to Mr. Howard Dugoff of this agency, requesting a manufacturer's designation number for the brake hose assemblies which you manufacture.

S5.2.4(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, was amended on January 29, 1974 (39 F.R. 3680; Docket No. 1-5; Notice 9), and again on February 26, 1974 (39 F.R. 7425; Docket No. 1-5; Notice 10).

In place of an assembler's code number, assigned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, S5.2.4(b) of the standard now requires:

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Standards Enforcement, "Brake Hose Identification," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The marking may consist of a designation other than block capital letters required by S5.2.4.

The designation need not include your company's address, or even its complete name, as long as it identifies the company and is filed with the NHTSA as described above. Furthermore, you do not need a separate designation for each of your two stores.

You have also described a Dymo label maker and requested approval of its use as a means of complying with the banding requirement of S5.2.4. The NHTSA interprets a band

as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. Furthermore, all of the label information must remain visible after the band has been affixed. From this discussion, you should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of the specific design.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CENTRAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

January 21, 1975

National Highway Traffic Administration -- Department of Transportation

Attention: Howard Dungoff

Dear Sir:

We are an Aeroquip Distributor and we are contemplating making replacement hose on a very small scale for a few of the trucking companies in our area, and we want to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards, which go into effect March 1, 1975, requiring that all hose be banded when all new material is used.

We have 2 stores, one is Central Electric Company, Portsmouth, Ohio and Central Electric Company, Chillicothe, Ohio.

Will we be assigned one number for both stores or will we have a number for each outlet? If we have to have a number for each store, please assign us one for each store. Also is it necessary to emboss a company name and complete address, plus the number assigned to us by DOT?

We would like to know if it is permissable to use a Dymo tape label maker, which uses 1/2" wide aluminum metal tape, which has a self adhesive material on one side and can be wrapped around the hose, which will adhere itself to the hose?

Your quick reply to this will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

K. L. Hinze, President

ID: 17460.ztv

Mr. John W. Cook
Dir. Materials Mgmt/Product Development
Pace American, Inc.
11550 Harter Drive
Middlebury, IN 46540

Dear Mr. Cook:

This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1998, asking for a "waiver" from a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Pace American manufactures cargo trailers. You would like "to delete the rear clearance light and to cover the requirement as a combination light with the tail light location." You realize that "rear clearance lamps may not be combined with tail lights," but you foresee a "confusing 'stacked' lighting scenario" with your intended location for rear taillamps.

We cannot grant a waiver on the basis of a letter. The procedures to be followed in obtaining temporary exemptions from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard are contained in 49 C.F.R. Part 555, which affords four bases on which a manufacturer may apply for an exemption. We do not view any of these bases as affording a justification for granting an exemption from the prohibition of S5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 against optically combining clearance lamps and taillamps. We have studied the materials you sent. The clearance lamps, mounted on the rear fender, are consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 108 that they be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as high as practicable. We fail to understand why you feel the placement of the clearance lamp in relation to the taillamp would create confusion.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/22/98

ID: 10496

Mr. R.C. Rost
Minnesota Body & Equipment
7380 Highway 101
Shakopee, MN 55379-3097

Dear Mr. Rost:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law requires buses used for Head Start to be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. You stated that the state of Minnesota recently adopted a law that prohibits such buses from being equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. I apologize for the delay in our response.

In an August 26, 1988 letter to you, NHTSA explained that "Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils such as those in Head Start programs." Federal law continues to require such buses to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, the Head Start buses referenced in your letter must be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. We have written to Major Glen Gramse of the Minnesota State Patrol to explain that the Minnesota law is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:4/10/95

ID: nht72-6.21

DATE: 07/25/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 23, 1972, concerning the Certification and related regulations (49 CFR Parts 567. 568). You indicate in your letter that many school bus bodies are exceeding by small amounts the weight ratings specified for the chassis by the incomplete manufacturer, and that increasing the capability of the chassis results in expenditures which you believe are not justified by the additional safety achieved. You indicate also that you believe that section 567.5 requires the final-stage manufacturer to use the incomplete vehicle ratings for his ratings, except when differing tire sizes are specified in accordance with 567.4(h).

You appear to be misinterpreting the regulations. There is no requirement that a final-stage manufacturer use the ratings provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The final-stage manufacturer is free to raise them for purposes of certification, as long as the values he chooses are consistent with the definitions of GAWR and GVWR. If he does raise them, however, he can no longer rely on the assurances of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer as to conformity with the standards, but will be responsible, subject to the Vehicle Safety Act's penalties, for (1) conformity of the vehicle with all applicable standards, and (2) ensuring that no safety problem has been created. If the final-stage manufacturer will not assume this responsibility, in our opinion he cannot reasonably maintain that the limitations imposed by the incomplete manufacturer's ratings are unjustified.

In short, you are free to choose and combine your components as you see fit, as long as you use due care to ensure that the vehicle conforms to the standards and contains no safety-related defects. Observing the component manufacturer's maximum load ratings is usually the easiest way to do this.

ID: 7065

L. Louis Raring, Esquire
Raring & Lipoff
4400 MacArthur Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Dear Mr. Raring:

This responds to your request for information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). Specifically, you were interested in whether this agency "approves" motorcycle helmets pursuant to Standard No. 218. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 218, which applies to all new helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. Standard No. 218 sets forth a series of performance tests to ensure that motorcycle helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head injuries.

When a safety standard like Standard No. 218 is in effect, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motorcycle helmet unless that helmet is in conformity with Standard No. 218 and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403).

This statutory requirement that every motorcycle helmet be covered by a certification pursuant to section 114 of the Safety Act means that the United States follows a different approach to ensuring conformity with its motor vehicle safety standards than do some other countries. In the European countries, for example, a helmet manufacturer would deliver a sample of its helmets to a governmental entity for approval before any of those helmets can be offered for sale. The governmental entity would then conduct testing and, assuming the helmet passed the tests, assign an approval code to these helmets. The manufacturer could offer this type of helmet for sale after it receives this government approval code.

The United States follows a substantially different approach. Instead of putting the burden on the government to initially decide if a motorcycle helmet or other item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, the Safety Act puts the burden on the manufacturer of the motorcycle helmet. It is the motorcycle helmet manufacturer that must, in the first instance, determine whether its helmets conform to Standard No. 218. Once the manufacturer is satisfied that its helmets conform to the requirements of the standard, it certifies that conformity by labeling the symbol DOT on the helmet, pursuant to S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218. The manufacturer may offer its helmet for sale as soon as it has certified the helmet as conforming with Standard No. 218.

For enforcement purposes, NHTSA periodically purchases certified motorcycle helmets and tests them to the specific requirements of Standard No. 218. If, as is the case in the vast majority of instances, the helmets conform to all the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the helmets are determined not to conform to all the requirements of the standard, the manufacturer is liable to notify owners of the noncompliance and to remedy the noncompliance without charge to the consumer, pursuant to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). In addition, the helmet manufacturer would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying helmet it manufactured, pursuant to section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:218 d:5/6/92

ID: nht92-7.13

DATE: May 6, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: L. Louis Raring -- Raring & Lipoff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/25/92 from L. Louis Raring to Jack Rice (OCC 7065)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR S571.218). Specifically, you were interested in whether this agency "approves" motorcycle helmets pursuant to Standard No. 218. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 218, which applies to all new helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. Standard No. 218 sets forth a series of performance tests to ensure that motorcycle helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head injuries.

When a safety standard like Standard No. 218 is in effect, section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motorcycle helmet unless that helmet is in conformity with Standard No. 218 and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403).

This statutory requirement that every motorcycle helmet be covered by a certification pursuant to section 114 of the Safety Act means that the United States follows a different approach to ensuring conformity with its motor vehicle safety standards than do some other countries. In the European countries, for example, a helmet manufacturer would deliver a sample of its helmets to a governmental entity for approval, before any of those helmets can be offered for sale. The governmental entity would then conduct testing and, assuming the helmet passed the tests, assign an approval code to these helmets. The manufacturer could offer this type of helmet for sale after it receives this government approval code.

The United States follows a substantially different approach. Instead of putting the burden on the government to initially decide if a motorcycle helmet or other item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, the Safety Act puts the burden on the manufacturer of the motorcycle helmet. It is the motorcycle helmet manufacturer that must, in the first instance, determine whether its helmets conform to Standard No. 218. Once the manufacturer is satisfied that its helmets conform to the requirements of the standard, it certifies that conformity by labeling the symbol DOT on the helmet, pursuant to S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218. The manufacturer may offer its helmet for sale as soon as it has certified the helmet as conforming with Standard No. 218.

For enforcement purposes, NHTSA periodically purchases certified motorcycle helmets and tests them to the specific requirements of Standard No. 218. If, as is the case in the vast majority of instances, the helmets conform to all the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the helmets are determined not to conform to all the requirements of the standard, the manufacturer is liable to notify owners of the noncompliance and to remedy the noncompliance without charge to the consumer, pursuant to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). In addition, the helmet manufacturer would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying helmet it manufactured, pursuant to section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

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

ID: 18342.wkm

Mr. Scott Rink
OverBuilt, Inc.
780 West Park Avenue NW
Huron, SD 57350

Dear Mr. Rink:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the car crusher your company builds is excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer is yes.

You enclosed a promotional brochure that shows a picture of your car crusher. You described it as weighing 60,000 pounds and is sold either as a stationary or as a portable unit, the only difference being the addition of axles and a fifth wheel. You stated that the equipment is not used to haul anything but itself, and the brochure states that when ready to be transported, the deck is lowered and the equipment towed away. We take that to mean that any cars that have been crushed have been removed and only the crusher itself is transported.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (hereinafter referred as the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S. Code 30102(a)(6).

In reviewing the information you provided, including the brochure enclosed with your letter, it is our opinion that the car crusher you described and as depicted in your brochure is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. It is obviously designed to be used primarily off-road and although it is capable of being transported on-road from the factory to the customer and by the customer from one job site to another, its on-road use is only incidental and not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. Not being a motor vehicle, therefore, your car crusher is not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121.

Moreover, Standard No. 121 applies to "trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems." It does not, however, apply to "Any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating], . . ." Accordingly, since your car crusher is transported by itself with no other cargo or equipment included, it would be excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121 in any case by virtue of paragraph S3(f).

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.12/1/98

ID: nht87-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Tackett

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Tackett 859 South Main Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Tackett:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of December 1, 1986, with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, affects the installation of trailer hitches on cars. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements to reduce fuel system spillage in a crash. If a trailer hitch is installed on a new-car prior to the car being first sold to a consumer, the person installing the trailer hitch would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed, Under Part 567.7, a vehicle alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards.

The installation of a trailer hitch on a used car would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall 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 appli cable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, in installing trailer hitches on a used car, a commercial business must ensure that it has not knowingly compromised the integrity of the fuel system.

In addition, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as a trailer hitch, is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I hav e enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes how our defect regulations affect equipment manufacturers.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: nht89-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/89

FROM: VICTOR CRISCI

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1990 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA TO VICTOR CRISCI; A35; STD. 108

TEXT: I was given your name by a person who's in my motorcycle club.

I intend to install a Safety Light Flasher on my motorcycle and I would like to know whether it would be in conflict in anyway with U.S. DOT regulations.

My motorcycle is now equipped with a headlight on/off switch and a dimmer switch (hi/lo beam).

Operation of headlight with safety flasher installed

If headlight is on, the safety flasher flashes the headlight between high and low beam for 2-4 seconds then returns the light to it's original state (hi/lo beam).

If the headlight switch is off, the light flasher automatically turns the light on, flashes the headlight between hi/lo beam for 2-4 seconds then returns the light to it's original state (hi/lo beam).

In both of the above cases the sequence is initiated by pressing the horn button only. As an option the flasher can be initiated by a seperate non-horn switch.

I want to install this device because it will significantly inprove my rider safety. It will allow me automatic "forward recognition" because the vast majority of accidents occur when bikers are "not visable" to motorists who are making left turns in front of them, pulling out of driveways shopping centers and changing lanes etc.

I feel the device should not be in conflict with DOT regulations because no new switches or lights are added to the vehicle and the operation of the headlight is done automatically in a way which is now done manually and legally.

Your reply will be appreciated.

P.S. Please sent me a copy of STD 108

ID: GF006474

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609




Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in response to your letter in which you requested an interpretation of the new tire information requirements in S4.3.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask if the tire and rim information specified in S4.3.3 of FMVSS No. 110 could be set forth separately from the certification label. As discussed below, the answer is no. However, as we have indicated in the past, it is permissible to provide a certification label in two parts under certain circumstances.

S4.3.3 reads (with emphasis added) as follows:

Additional labeling information for vehicles other than passenger cars.Each vehicle shall show the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for the tire appropriate for use on that vehicle, including the tire installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer, after each GAWR listed on the certification label required by 567.4 or 567.5 of this chapter. This information shall be in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 2.4 millimeters high and in the following format:

Truck ExampleSuitable Tire-Rim Choice

GVWR: 2,441 kilograms (5381 pounds).

GAWR: Front1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.0 rims at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

GAWR: Rear1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.00 rims, at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

The information required by S4.3.3 thus cannot appear separately from the certification label.

We note, however, that as we explained in a May 3, 1984, letter to Takeshi Tanuma of Nissan, NHTSA permits the use of a certification label in two parts, under certain circumstances. We explained that while the Part 567 certification regulations specify that "a label" must be used, the agency has permitted the use of a label in two parts in circumstances which will not lead to confusion and which will satisfy the basic intent of Part 567. Specifically, the two portions of the label must be placed in close proximity to each other, to permit individuals to readily find all the specified information and to leave no doubt as to the significance of either portion of the label. Further, the two portions must be oriented in such a manner that the specified information appears in the required order. As a practical matter, these considerations require that the two portions be affixed to the same vehicle part. While the agency did not specify a particular distance as a maximum permissible separation of the two portions of the label, we stated that the two portions must be located so as to leave the unmistakable impression that they provide related information.

Accordingly, the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be separated from the certification label. However, the certification label may be affixed in two parts under the circumstances described above.

We note that the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be added to the tire information placard required by S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. As the agency previously explained in amending the tire safety information regulations, additional information is not appropriate because it would overcrowd the already content-rich vehicle placard (see 69 FR 31306 at 31311).

Finally, we note that in the end of your letter, you requested that, if a separate label is not permitted, the agency treat your letter as a request for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 110 in order to afford vehicle manufacturers the option of specifying alternative tire and rim information separately from the certification label. However, your letter did not provide sufficient supporting information for us to determine whether rulemaking would be warranted.

If, after reviewing this letter, you still believe that rulemaking is needed, please submit a petition for rulemaking with detailed supporting information. Among other things, the agency would want to examine actual examples (photographs) of vehicles unable to display the information required by S4.3.3 on the usual certification label or a split certification label. We would also want to review additional information about spacing problems, and what location requirements might be appropriate for an additional label.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.11/16/05