ID: nht93-9.15

DATE: December 15, 1993

FROM: Ted H. Richardson -- Fleet Coordinator, Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Division)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from John Womack to Ted H. Richardson (A42; Std. 120; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

Please forward opinion on "FMVSS No. 120" concerning new trailers with used tires. Per a conversation that I had with Mr. Walter Myers on 12/13/93, he felt that with the description of our product (over the phone) it would not apply. I am enclosing a product catalog that contains pictures and descriptions of the two pieces of equipment in question. I also request a copy of your definition of a trailer and a copy of FMVSS #120.

Thank you and please handle as expeditiously as possible.

ID: 001059GF

Mr. David Regan
Trecan Combustion Limited
4049 St. Margarets Bay Road
Hubley, NS, B3Z IC2
Canada

Dear Mr. Reagan:

This is in response to your fax of February 21, 2003, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) regulations governing vehicle certification found in 49 CFR 567. In your fax, you stated that your company manufactures trailers and intends to import them into the United States. You have enclosed a photocopy of a sample certification label that you intend to attach to your trailers. During a subsequent phone conversation, you indicated that the sample label is for a single axle trailer. You asked us to determine whether your sample certification label would be acceptable for use in the United States.

By way of background, 49 CFR Part 567 specifies content, location and other requirements for the certification label or tag to be affixed to motor vehicles as required by section 49 U.S.C. 30115, 32504, and 33108. By affixing the label, the manufacturer certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards.

567.4(g) specifies the contents of the certification label or tag, which must include the following, in the order shown (emphasis added):

(1) Name of manufacturer.
(2) Month and year of manufacture.
(3) "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" or "GVWR."
(4) "Gross Axle Weight Rating" or "GAWR," followed by the appropriate value in pounds for each axle, identified in order from front to rear (e.g., front, first intermediate, second intermediate, rear).
(5) The statement: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above." The expression "U.S." or "U.S.A." may be inserted before the word "Federal".
(6) Vehicle identification number.
(7) The type classification of the vehicle as defined in 46 CFR 571.3 of this chapter (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer).

The enclosed sample label contains all the information required by 567.4(g). However, some of the information in your label is out of order. As previously stated, 567.4(g) specifies that the information on the certification label must appear as it is listed in the standard. Therefore, the items within your sample certification label must be rearranged in order to comply with 567.4(g). An example of the appropriate arrangement of the information found on your sample label appears below:

MANUFACTURED BY: TRECAN COMBUSTION LIMITED DATE   DECEMBER 2002 GVWR   6,500 KG (14,335 LB) GAWR ALL 5,806 KG (12,800 LB) TIRES   275/70R22.5 H RIMS   22.5X8.25 COLD TIRE INFL   827 kPa (120 PSI) SINGLE THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE US FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE. VIN   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX TYPE:   TRAILER

Please be advised that your certification label need not look exactly like the example above. However, the information within your label must appear in the exact same order. Because we are unsure whether the enclosed sample label is a scaled copy or a life-size representation, we note that 567.4(g) requires that the label be lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than three thirty-seconds of an inch high.

For additional information for trailer manufacturers please visit our web site at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/maninfo/trailer002.pdf. If you have any further questions regarding NHTSA's certification requirements for trailers, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.4/11/03

ID: 2798o

Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott
90 Horace Street
Stratford, CT 06497

Dear Mr. Cameron-Nott:

This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1988, with reference to importation of motor vehicle equipment included in an incomplete vehicle.

You have stated that the kit will include brake hoses, brake fluid, and glazing, and that these items will conform with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 106, 116, and 205 respectively, and that they will all carry the DOT symbol certifying compliance. You ask whether these items may be entered under Box 2 on the HS-7 importation form.

The answer is yes. Box 2 (implementing l9 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(l)(ii)) allows importation without bond of motor vehicles and equipment manufactured to conform with, and certified as conforming to, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:MIS d:8/l0/88

ID: 11684ZTV

Cybernet Services Incorp.
704 Edgewater Drive
Dayton, TN 37321

Gentlemen:

Gilbert Lenkiewicz of Cleveland asked that we respond to you with respect to his letter to us of March 14, 1996, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. He asked whether it is permissible to add a flashing strobe light into the existing assembly for the center highmounted stop lamp, as he is investigating "the possibility of marketing this idea to the general public as an after-market, owner-installed addition in kit form."

The answer is that Federal law does not prohibit owners from adding a strobe light into the center stop lamp of their vehicles but it does not allow other persons to add the strobe light. However, you should consult local laws to see whether such a modification is permissible because local laws govern the legality of owner modifications.

To explain, were the strobe light to be added to the center lamp as original equipment, before the first sale of the vehicle, it will create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 which requires all stop lamps to be steady burning. Whether it is permissible to add the strobe light after initial sale is governed by Title 49 United States Code Section 30122 "Making safety devices and elements inoperative." Under this section, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" Federally-mandated safety equipment such as the center stop lamp. Because addition of the strobe lamp would create a noncompliance in a new motor vehicle, and its operation could draw attention away from the vehicle's other required stop lamps, we view its addition to a vehicle in use as making this equipment inoperative within the intent of Section 30122. The prohibition does not extend to vehicle owners, however, and an owner may install the strobe light in the center stop lamp of his or her vehicle without violating Section 30122. But the seller of the device may not do so.

Even though the owner may install the strobe light under Federal law, the acceptability of using it is governed by the laws of the individual states. We are unable to advise you on state law, and recommend that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22303.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:3/25/96:62992:OCC 11684 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron interps. std. 108, VSA 30122 ztv; 11684; U:\ncc20\interp\108\11684.ztv

ID: 12391.MLS

Mr. Dick Grimsley
United States Marine Corps
Assistant Chief of Staff, Logistics
Motor Transport Department
Box 555014
Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5014

Dear Mr. Grimsley:

This responds to your letter asking whether recertification is required for compressed natural gas (CNG) containers used as a vehicle fuel tank. You state that you have several CNG containers that are marked "3 year recertification" that soon must be recertified.

As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment. Since NHTSA has no authority to regulate the reinspection of CNG containers, we cannot answer the other questions in your letter.

Please note that NHTSA recently issued a notice modifying the labeling requirements for CNG containers. (61 FR 47086, September 6, 1996). Containers manufactured on and after December 2, 1996 will be required to be labeled with the following statement: "This container should be visually inspected after a motor vehicle accident or fire and at least every 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, for damage and deterioration."

I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:303

d:10/9/96

ID: wastec.ztv

Mr. Gary Satterfield
Vice President
Waste Equipment Technology Association
4301 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20008

Re: Request for Interpretive Letter TREAD Act Regulations

Dear Mr. Satterfield:

This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 2003, received on March 26, asking several questions about the status of members of the Waste Equipment Technology Association (WASTEC) under the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations (Subpart C, 49 CFR Part 579). You presented five possible scenarios in seeking our guidance. Your first scenario is:

1. A customer . . . purchases a chassis . . . and arranges delivery of the chassis to the waste vehicle equipment manufacturer. Th[is] . . . manufacturer builds a . . . body and mounts [it] onto the chassis. . . . The chassis manufacturer is responsible for vehicle certification under 49 C.F.R. Part 567. Under this scenario, WASTEC . . . suggests that the waste vehicle equipment manufacturer should be classified as an "equipment manufacturer" for TREAD Act purposes.

As we read your letter, the second scenario is identical to the first scenario except that the waste vehicle equipment manufacturer, rather than its customer, is the purchaser of the chassis. We have not defined "chassis" for purposes of compliance with either the early warning reporting requirements or the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For the purpose of answering your questions, we shall assume that a chassis is an "incomplete motor vehicle" as defined by 49 CFR Part 568.

Furthermore, under these first two scenarios, we interpret the words "is responsible for vehicle certification" as meaning that the chassis manufacturer, as an "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" and as permitted by 49 CFR 568.7(a), assumes responsibility for certifying compliance of the completed vehicle in the manner specified by Part 567. Where a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, we regard the manufacturer that certifies the completed vehicle as the one who must report as a vehicle manufacturer for purposes of the EWR regulation. If they produced 500 or more vehicles

per year, such manufacturers would be subject to the reporting requirements of Section 579.22 , applicable to medium/heavy truck manufacturers, or Section 579.21, applicable to light vehicle manufacturers, as discussed below. The waste vehicle equipment manufacturer therefore would be regarded as a manufacturer of original equipment, subject to the reporting responsibilities of 49 CFR 579.27.

Under the third scenario, the waste vehicle equipment manufacturer certifies compliance of the completed vehicle as its manufacturer. You believe that "the waste vehicle equipment manufacturer should be classified as a "Medium/Heavy Truck Manufacturer" for EWR purposes. You have not provided the GVWR of a representative certified vehicle, but a vehicle is classified as a "medium/heavy vehicle" for purposes of early warning reporting by its manufacturer if the vehicles GVWR is greater than 10,000 lbs. If the completed vehicle certified by the waste vehicle equipment manufacturer has a GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs, then the manufacturer would report as the manufacturer of a "medium-heavy vehicle." See Section 579.22. If the GVWR is 10,000 lbs. or less, the manufacturer would report as the manufacturer of a "light vehicle." See Section 579.21.

The fourth scenario is similar to that of the first two scenarios in that the waste vehicle equipment manufacturer manufactures a body and the chassis manufacturer certifies the completed vehicle. However, in this scenario, the distributor of the vehicle mounts the body to the chassis. In this case, the distributor would be the vehicle manufacturer, and the waste vehicle equipment manufacturer that provides a body but does not certify the completed vehicle would be a manufacturer of original equipment that would report under Section 579.27.

Under the fifth scenario:

5. A waste vehicle equipment manufacturer purchases a chassis from a chassis manufacturer [and] manufactures a trailer unit that includes a compaction system, and installs it onto the chassis. The chassis manufacturer is responsible for vehicle certification under 49 C.F.R. Part 567. Under this scenario, WASTEC respectfully suggests that the waste vehicle equipment manufacturer should be classified as a "Trailer Manufacturer" for TREAD Act purposes.

As with earlier scenarios, this scenario concerns a vehicle manufactured in two stages, in this instance, a trailer. Part 568 allows certification of the completed trailer by either the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle or by the final stage manufacturer. In your scenario the trailer would be certified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, i.e., the chassis manufacturer. Therefore, it is the chassis manufacturer who would report as a trailer manufacturer under the early warning regulation, not the waste vehicle equipment manufacturer, even though the latter completed the assembly of the vehicle. A final stage manufacturer that does not certify the vehicle is, as in the other scenarios, a manufacturer of original equipment under Section 579.27.

You have also presented a hypothetical situation under all five scenarios in which some chassis components might be modified during the assembly process either by the waste vehicle equipment manufacturer or by a third party under contract with it. You believe that "the waste equipment manufacturer should continue to be classified as suggested in scenarios 1 through 5 above." We note that our opinion regarding scenario 3 differed from your suggested resolution. However, our previous answers remain valid, and are not affected by the hypothetical in which chassis components are modified either by the waste equipment manufacturer or its agent.

Finally, you have asked whether these interpretations would change if less than 500 vehicles are "produced, offered for sale, or sold during the applicable calendar year." The answer is no; the relationship between the incomplete and final stage manufacturers (for EWR purposes as, respectively, a vehicle manufacturer and an original equipment manufacturer) would not change unless the final stage manufacturer assumed the obligation to certify the vehicle. However, the chassis manufacturer-certifier, as a manufacturer of fewer than 500 vehicles in each of the categories of the early warning rule, would need to report only the information required by Section 579.27.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/29/03

ID: nht76-4.10

DATE: 02/06/76

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

TO: Davidge Warfield

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 21, 1976, request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires.

You asked whether a retreaded tire may be manufactured with a casing from which the original manufacturer's tire identification number (required by 49 CFR Part 574 and Standard No. 109) has been buffed off, provided the original DOT symbol remains. The answer to your question is yes. The only items of information that are required to be retained from the original casing are the following:

(a) the symbol DOT;

(b) the size of the tire; and

(c) the actual number of plies or ply rating.

A retreaded tire must also, of course, be labeled with the DOT-R symbol and with the retreader's tire identification number, pursuant S6.1 of Standard No. 117 and 49 CFR Part 574.

ID: 003258drn

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. You wish to confirm that portions of joints outside of the passenger compartment or that otherwise do not "enclose bus occupant space" are excluded from FMVSS No. 221. In particular, you ask about joints that are below the level of the floor line.

You described the portions of joints at issue as follows:

the top edge of the outside side panels on Blue Bird school buses start at the bottom of the side window openings and [the panels] continue down the side of the bus body, terminating with a bottom edge approximately 18 inches below the floor line. There are vertical joints between these panels and between these panels and other body components such as roof bows. The upper portions of these vertical joints are above the floor line while the lower portion of the same joint is below the floor line. [I]t is our understanding that the vertical joints between these side panels that lie above the floor line are subject to the joint strength requirements of FMVSS 221 (because the portions of the joined panels above the floor line serve to "enclose bus occupant space") while the portions of those joints below the floor line are excluded from the requirements (because the portions of the joined panels below the floor line do not "enclose bus occupant space").

You cite our April 26, 1976, and August 20, 1981, letters to Blue Bird and conclude from these letters that all joints below the "floor level" are exempt from FMVSS No. 221.

Generally speaking, joints below the floor line are excluded from FMVSS No. 221. However, in a letter of January 14, 1991, to Blue Bird, the agency clarified that the April 26, 1976, letter excluding joints below the floor line was predicated on the assumption that there is a body panel (i.e., a floor panel) at floor level that encloses the occupant space, and that is located between the occupant space and that portion of the bus excluded from the standard.Thus, the agency did not agree with Blue Birds view that stepwell-to-floor panel joints were below the floor level and excluded from FMVSS No. 221s joint strength requirements.

Accordingly, while we concur generally that joints below the floor line are excluded from FMVSS No. 221, we believe that there could be misinterpretation by a manufacturer as to whether a particular joint is considered such a joint. For example, we have enclosed two photographs on which we have superimposed the floor line on the bus exterior. The section of the circled joint above the line is subject to FMVSS No. 221; the section of the joint below the line is not. While we cannot provide you with a general response to your question, we will review more detailed information about a specific joint that might fall below the floor line of the bus to determine the applicability of FMVSS No. 221.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Should you choose to submit more detailed information for review, please submit it to Ms. Nakama.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:221
d.8/13/03

ID: nht74-1.4

DATE: 10/03/74

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

TO: Guy Malleret

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

N40-30 (ZTV) OCT 3 1974

Mr. Guy Malleret Director General Officine Alfieri Maserati S.p.A. Modena Italy

Dear Mr. Malleret:

This is in reply to your letter of September 13, 1974 expressing support for the petition by Citroen for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 105-75.

We have responded to Citroen by letter of September 19, 1973 asking for additional technical information and available accident statistics. Since certain models of Maserati vehicles are equipped with the Citroen full power braking system and NHTSA's ultimate decision will affect you. I enclose a copy of our letter with the thought that you may wish to provide us with Maserati's answer to these questions.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: nht94-4.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 11, 1994

FROM: Barbara Kise

TO: Chief Consul

TITLE: Air bag in 1994 automobile

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/9/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Barbara Kise (A43; Std. 208; VSA 108 (9)(2)(A))

TEXT: Sir:

On July 27, 1994 I purchased a 1994 Oldsmobile with an air bag installed I am concerned about the powder that is ejected as a result of an accident.

I am a COPD patient and am on oxygen for this disease. I wonder if the air bag could be disconnected and just rely on my sear belts for safety purposes? With my emphysema and chronic bronchitis, I don't think my lungs could tolerate the residue from th e air bag. I would be willing to sign papers releasing everyone from responsibility of disconnecting the air bag

Sir, I would appreciate it very much if you could help me with this problem. Thank you for your cooperation

Sincerely,

Ms. Barbara Kise