ID: nht75-1.30

DATE: 06/03/75

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

TO: Floyd, Kramer & Lambrecht

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 25, 1975, concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to the Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler.

You have described the Coupler as a device which replaces the glad hand coupler now used by most manufacturers to connect truck tractor and trailer brake lines. Because the brake hose which attaches to the Coupler is equipped with its own end fittings, the Coupler itself is not an end fitting. Therefore, Standard No. 106-74 is inapplicable.

The Coupler is, however, subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 393.45 and 393.46, of which I have enclosed a copy. Please direct any questions you may have concerning interpretation of these requirements to the Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration, at 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

April 25, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: Mark Schwimmer

Re: Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

Reference is made to our telephone conversation on April 11, 1975, concerning the applicability of M.V.S.S. No. 106-74 and Part 566-Manufacturer Identification, to our above referenced product. As indicated, we represent the importer of this equipment in the United States and wish to comply fully with your agency before distribution is begun in this country. Enclosed please find:

1. Three copies of a product description for Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler, Model No. 452 803,

2. Three copies of product description for Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler, Model No. 452 802,

3. Assorted photographs of the coupler showing the unit with and without brake hose end fittings. The black and white picture shows the unit installed on a Norwegian vehicle.

As indicated above, we are interested as to whether the above cited regulations apply to these units. It should be noted that we don't feel this is a "brake hose end fitting", as defined in your regulations, as a fitting is placed on the brake hose prior to the brake hose being attached to our unit. The end fittings are not part of our unit. Our unit simply replaces the "glad hand coupler" now used by most manufacturers to couple the hose end fittings of the tractor and trailer truck units.

We also feel that our units do not constitute a "brake hose assembly" as defined in your regulations, as, again, our unit does not include brake hoses or the end fittings of brake hoses, but merely couples end fittings together between tractor and trailer or between two trailers.

We would also advise you that the above referenced units are used in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand and have been so used in said countries since 1971.

We would request from you the following:

1. Whether the above cited regulations apply to our products.

2. Whether any other regulations of your agency apply to these products.

If any further additional information is required for you to make the above determination, please notify us. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and I remain

Sincerely,

FLOYD, KRAMER & LAMBRECHT -- Kenneth B. Kramer

Encls.

ID: nht76-2.38

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1976, asking for an interpretation of two provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have informed us that "some manufacturers are mounting lamps using lock washers and wing nuts rather than conventional nuts to facilitate the installation of lamps when boat trailers are assembled at the dealer level." S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires that lamps "shall be securely mounted . . . ." and you asked whether wing nuts, used as you described, provide a mounting that complies with S4.3.1. The answer is that this would appear to provide a secure mounting within the intent of Standard No. 108.

S4.3.1.3 requires that front side marker lamps for trailers be located as far to the front as practicable, exclusive of its tongue. You ask whether "the tongue is considered to start where the trailer frame begins to angle inward from its parallel sides . . . ." The answer is yes.

I hope this clarifies Standard No. 108 for you and your members.

YOURS TRULY,

trailer manufacturers association

September 9, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

With regard to Federal Standard No. 108, confusion has arisen concerning the definitions or interpretation of several items in the standard upon which both ourselves, in the administration of our Trailer Certification Program, and our member manufacturers need an official interpretation.

1. S4.3.1 provides that lamps ". . . shall be securly mounted . . ." Some manufacturers are mounting lamps using lock washers and wing nuts rather than conventional nuts to facilitate the installation of lamps when boat trailers are assembled at the dealer level. When properly used, wing nuts provide a secure fastening, yet we have, informally, heard that they may not be considered as meeting S4.3.1. Do wing nuts, used as indicated above, provide a mounting in accordance with S4.3.1?

2. S4.3.1.3 provides for the location of front side marker lights as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue. We have heard, informally, that NHTSA considers that the tongue is considered to start where the trailer frame begins to angle inward from the parallel sides, which location sometimes is quite far to the rear on a boat trailer. If this interpretation is correct, it considerably simplifies boat trailer wiring harnesses and may eliminate the need for angle brackets to mount from side marker lights where the frame is angling inward. Is the above interpretation correct? If not what is the proper interpretation of where the tongue is considered to start?

Executive Secretary DONALD I. REED

ID: nht75-1.38

DATE: 09/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bendix-Westinghouse

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to the question you raised in a September 5, 1975, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this agency, concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

You asked whether the designation "AI & II" is permitted on air brake hose for which the Type I and Type II dimensions listed in the standard are identical. In a letter to the Gates Rubber Company (copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interpreted S7.2 of the standard as not permitting the designation "AI-II". For similar reasons, the designation "AI & II" does not comply with S7.2. The designation "AI & AII" would comply with the standard.

ID: nht91-6.23

DATE: October 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-23-91 from Lawrence A. Beyer to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6507)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 23, 1991, with respect to your representation of clients before this agency.

Specifically, you state that you have been advised "by an office of NHTSA that attorneys cannot submit documentation and make declarations on behalf of clients unless they submit formal power of attorney documentation which authorizes such representation." This representation "includes the preparation and submission of completed documentation on their behalf." You have asked to be advised whether it is NHTSA's policy "that I have to provide proof to NHTSA that my statement that I represent a party is true."

We understand that the Office to which you refer is the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. We further understand that the particular situation that gives rise to your question is your filing of petitions to determine the eligibility of vehicles for importation.

It is not a question of "proof" whether you represent a person, but whether you are purporting to exercise a right or obligation that is not legally yours. By statute, only a manufacturer or registered importer may file petitions for determinations of vehicle eligibility. If a registered importer chooses to have an attorney prepare and submit such a petition, and the importer himself signs the petition, no authorization is required for the attorney to file the petition with NHTSA. We have at hand two petitions you submitted on July 15, 1991, on behalf of G & K Conversions, a registered importer, which meet this criterion; each petition is signed by the president of G & K, and accompanied by your cover letter. This is in accordance with our procedures. If, on the other hand, the importer chooses to have the attorney sign the petition in his place, then a power of attorney is required. Thus, the general rule applicable to a particular situation involving the submission of legal documents to NHTSA is that an attorney may act on behalf of his client without a power of attorney, but he may not assume a legal right or an obligation of the client without the client's explicit authorization.

We find implicit authorization by G & K that you represent them by your filing of documents bearing the signature of its president. By the same token, we find implicit authorization to respond when attorneys reply to the agency's investigatory or civil penalty letters on behalf of companies or persons to which letters have been sent.

ID: nht94-4.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1994

FROM: Ed Irvine -- Midwest Conservation Systems, Inc.

TO: Phillip Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/11/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Ed Irvine (A43; Std. 121)

TEXT: IS IT A REQUIREMENT OF COMMERCIAL UTILITY TRAILERS, THAT FOR EXAMPLE MAY HAVE A BACKHOE TRACTOR, LEAVE THE NEW TRAILER MANUFACTURER WITH A EMERGENCY BREAKAWAY SYSTEM? (SECTION [ILLEGIBLE WORD]) WE HAVE A CORPORATE CUSTOMER WHO IS PURCHASING NEW TRAILERS FROM A MANUFACTURER THAT CLAIMS THEY MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH THEIR BREAKAWAY SYSTEM WHICH IS BASICALLY ONLY A BATTERY IN A BOX. MOST GENERALLY THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM IS NOT CHECKED BY THE OPERATOR AND MOST GENERALLY DEAD WHEN [ILLEGIBLE WORD]. THE CORPORAT E CUSTOMER WOULD LIKE TO BUY THE TRAILERS WITH OUT THEIR BREAKAWAY SYSTEM SO THEY CAN OUTFIT THE TRAILERS WITH OUR SOLAR ENERGIZED BREAKAWAY SYSTEMS. THANKS! ED

Enclosure (Brochure omitted.)

ID: 18891.wkm

Ms. Kristy Harren
R. M. Johnson Company, Inc.
890 Norway Drive
Post Office Box "J"
Annandale, MN 55302

Dear Ms. Harren:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the E-Z Car Crusher and the E-Z Log Baler that your company produces are 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 descriptive brochures showing pictures of the car crusher and the log baler. You stated that axles are installed on these products as a base and as a mode of transporting them from the factory to the customer. You also stated that these units are designed to spend extended periods of time at off-road job sites, although customers will occasionally transport them from job site to job site. You referred to 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30102(a)(6), which defines the term "motor vehicle," in support of your assertion that your equipment is exempt from Standard No. 121 because the primary function of the units is not for use on public streets, roads, and highways. The units are towed to their job sites by a semi-tractor, then detached and left at the sites to perform their primary functions.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. C., hereinafter referred to 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. You correctly cited 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as defining "motor vehicle," which is:

[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.

In reviewing the information you provided, including the informational brochures enclosed with your letter, it is our opinion that the car crusher and the log baler you described and as depicted in the brochures are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. They are designed to be used primarily off-road and although capable of being transported on-road from the factory to the customer and by the customer from one job site to another, their on-road use is only incidental to the primary purposes for which they were manufactured. This contrasts with instances in which vehicles such as dump trucks frequently use the public roads going to and from off-road job sites, but stay there for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act because their on-road use is more than merely "incidental."

In view of the above discussion, your car crusher and your log baler are not considered motor vehicles and are therefore not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121.

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.5/25/99

ID: nht90-2.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/08/90

FROM: JOSEPH R. WHEELER -- CORNELIUS AND COLLINS

TO: KEN WEINSTEIN -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/14/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH R. WHEELER; A35, STANDARD 208

TEXT: As we discussed this morning, I have made an inquiry with your agency concerning action by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49 CFR @ 571.208 S4.1.5.1 (1987). As you know, under this provision, automobile manufacturers would have three options with regard to passenger restraint systems if the Secretary of Transportation determined, by not later than April 1, 1989, that 2/3 of the total U.S. population was subject to mandatory state usage laws.

As I told you, the original version of Tennessee's MUL contained a self-nullifying provision, Tenn. Code Ann. @ 55-9-609, a copy of which is attached for your information.

As you told me, the Secretary of Transportation never made the determination provided for in S4.1.5.1. I would like a brief statement from your agency which simply confirms that this action was never taken by the Secretary of Transportation, and that , therefore, Tennessee's population was never counted. I am not requesting any opinion from your office concerning the effect of this statutory provision, or the legal effect of the fact that the Secretary never made the determination in question.

As we discussed, this letter is needed for a filing which must be made no later than June 15, 1990. Therefore, I would request that you send your original reply federal express or overnight mail to me early in the week. We will be more than happy to reimburse your agency for the overnight mail expenses, and I certainly appreciate your prompt attention and assistance with this response.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Wheeler [TENNESSEE PROVISION CODE]

55-9-609. Legislative intent [Repealed effective June 30, 1990]. -- (a) It is the legislative intent that the passage of Acts 1986, ch. 866 shall include the population of this state towards the required percentage of persons necessary to avoid fede ral regulations mandating the imposition of any federally imposed safety device or regulation pertaining thereto.

(b) The provisions of @@ 55-9-603 -- 55-9-610 shall be null and void if the United States secretary of transportation does not include Tennessee within the population necessary to prevent the requirement that air bags be required in motor vehicles pur suant to federal regulations. [Acts 1986, ch. 866, @@ 9, 14.]

Compiler's Notes. For repeal of this section on June 30, 1990, see @ 55-9-610.

For codification of Acts 1986, ch. 866, see the Session Law Disposition Tables.

ID: nht79-1.8

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. Birch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-3O

Mr. R. Birch Chief Constable P.O. Box 4 Leek Wootton Warwick, England CV35 8QB

Dear Mr. Birch:

This responds to your recent letter concerning a reflective film that is being applied to the windows of some vehicles in the United Kingdom. You ask whether regulations preventing the use of such film have been introduced in the United States.

At the current time, there are no Federal regulations that prohibit the use of reflective films such as you describe. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have no authority, however, to regulate the use of motor vehicles, such as an owner applying reflective film to his car. Further, we have issued interpretations stating that reflective coated polyester films do not qualify as glazing materials and, therefore, do not come within the purview of our Safety Standard No. 205. This interpretation referred only to polyester film sold by itself. Glazing materials that have coated films that were applied by the glazing manufacturer are required to comply with the standard, including the light transmittance requirements.

The agency did receive a petition for rulemaking last year from the California Highway Patrol asking that reflective glazing materials be prohibited (glazing coated with reflective substances by the glazing manufacturer). While use of the reflective coating could reduce the ability of a driver to look through the glazing of vehicles in front of him or her and she the road and vehicles ahead, we denied the petition since we lacked data indicating that there is a safety problem created by the coating. If you have or know of any data indicating a safety problem, we would very much appreciate seeing the data. From a law enforcement viewpoint, the problem posed by the reflective coating is apparently more than theoretical, since officers cannot see inside a vehicle with coated glazing to the extent they deem necessary.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-4.32

DATE: 07/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Armco Recreational Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, referencing a phone conversation with Mr. Vison of my staff. You would prefer to import motorcycles with the lighting equipment unattached and ask whether it is permissible to import them under "Box 4", i.e. 19 CFP 12.80 (b)(2)(iv).

This provision allows importation of certified vehicles that do not conform "because readily attachable equipment items are not attached", provided that a label is attached "stating the safety standard with which and the manner in which such vehicle does not conform and that that vehicle will be brought into conformity by attachment of such equipment items before it will be offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale." Since important of vehicles without required safety equipment is allowed and you intend to attach such a label to the motorcycles you import, there is no legal objection to your proposed plan. Accordingly, the California and Wisconsin interpretation of Federal requirements is incorrect if it is as you describe it.

ID: nht92-8.15

DATE: March 29, 1992

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. H. Munson -- Director, Automotive Safety Office, Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

TEXT: I enclose an order of the Acting Administrator that grants much of Ford's petition for temporary exemption of its Ecostar van from compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The order, however, denies the petition with respect to Standard No. 106 and S7.3 of Standard No. 208.

Even though Ford does not intend to sell the Ecostars but only to lease them, 49 CFR Part 567 nevertheless requires that every motor vehicle bear its manufacturer's certification of compliance. Therefore, in accordance with 49 CFR 555.9(a), we ask that Ford provide the agency with a sample of the vehicles. The windshield label required by section 555.9(b) may be removed when the lessee takes possession of the vehicle.