ID: 1982-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Sidecar Association, Inc. -- H. A. Kendall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D. United Sidecar Association, Inc. 1621 Palomino Lane Kingwood, Texas 77339

This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1982, with respect to pulsating headlamps.

You have interpreted my letter of February 9, 1982 as stating that "for daytime operation of a motorcycle headlight, the light may be permitted to pulsate or modulate from one level of brightness to another." On the contrary, I stated that "a lamp whose intensity varies from a higher output to a lower output...would be prohibited." However, I also said that, if complete deactivation occurs (i.e., from a higher output to no output), then that mode of operation is permissible.

With respect to your latest letter and the problems of headlighting in older motorcycles, there would be no need to have the smaller bulb illuminated, and the "definite on/off/on/off sequence" you mention is sufficient for compliance with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 20, 1982

Dear Mr Berndt:

My interpretation of your response of February 9, 1982 is that, for daytime operation of a motorcycle headlight, the light may be permitted to pulsate or modulate from one level of brightness to another.

Many of the older motorcycles with only marginal charging systems simply cannot cope with continuous lights on operation without frequent battery charging, externally, or without operating the engine at a very high speed in lower gears to keep the battery charged. However, almost all of the earlier machines have a nonsealed beam headlight containing a minor running (or parking) light in addition to the main twin filament.

As far as NHTSA is concerned, it would appear that as long as the smaller bulb was left on at all times (to provide the lower light output) that the main beam could be operated at some fractionally lower duty cycle, say, about 25%, at say 1.5 to 4 Hz, and still comply with NHTSA's ruling. If this is so, then it would be possible to allow older motorcycles to operate with a relatively simple inexpensive mechanical device to reduce headlight daytime consumption instead of using the very expensive solid state circuitry now available.

The main headlight would have a definite on/off/on/off sequence, however, the small continuous light would prevent the lamp from being extinguished at any time.

Please advise a ruling on this type of device for motorcycle headlights for daytime operation only.

Sincerely,

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D.

HAK/lk

ID: 1982-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sure-View, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mar 25, 1982

Mr. M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridan Street Wichita, KA 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of February 8, 1982, concerning compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, in particular compliance with Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors.

You are correct that section 102(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(2)) defines; in part, a motor vehicle safety standard as "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance...." Thus, each of the agency's safety standards sets a minimum level of performance which must be met by every manufacturer. Manufacturers are free to utilize designs that exceeds the minimum level of performance set by a standard as long as their products still comply with the standard. Thus, in the case of schoolbus rearview mirrors, a manufacturer must at least comply with the requirements of section 9.1 of Standard No. 111 regarding mirror size, and may voluntarily provide a mirror of a larger size. As explained in the enclosed letter, the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the agency to regulate aspect of design, such as mirror size.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 8, 1982

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to direct your attention to the enclosed copy of a letter from the State of Texas.

It is my opinion and belief standards established by the NHTSA are minimum and should not probibit the use of an item that is Superior in Safety Performance.

This Design Standard requires 50 square inches of flat glass mounted firmly on each side of a Van Type vehicle in such a manner that if any portion of each mirror is visible to the driver, it meets the requirement of the NHTSA.

In the interest of Safety, the mirror system should minimize the obstruction of the forward view to the driver--NO more than you need and NO less than you need. The driver and children riding scbool buses should not be subjected to the hazards involved with separately adjustable flat and convex mirrors and/or mirrors reflection rearward that may reflect false and/or mis-leading information to the driver.

I cannot agree this Design Standard is in accord with the intent of The Congress. I believe it was the intent of The Congress to make a contribution to the Prevention of Accidents as clearly defined in Section 102(2) of the Transportation Act.

Please advise the position of the NHTSA as to permitting the use of items Superior in Safety Performance when a Design Standard of this type has been issued.

Sincerely,

SURE VIEW, INC.

M. W. Urban

MWU/h1 Encl.

cc: Congressman Dan Glickman 1507 Longworth Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515

February 4, 1982

Reference: 070-36-1D

M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 North Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Gentlemen:

This is in response to your letter of February 1, 1982 about rearview mirrors and Your sample mirror model number 3004.

We are familiar with the revision of section 393.80 issued on April 13, 1979 and published in the Federal Register May 1, 1979. This revision amends the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and not FMVSS 111. In addition, this revision speaks to the number of rearview mirrors required and not their dimensions. The language in section 393.80 clearly requires conformance with FMVSS 111.

Section S9.1 of FMVSS 111 requires rearview mirrors on both sides of all school buses and these mirrors must contain 50 square inches of flat reflective surface.

He are therefore required to withdraw approval of your 3000 series mirrors for use on Texas buses.

Please advise what disposition you wish made of the sample mirror you sent.

Yours truly,

Don Miller, Specification Technician Specification Section (512)475-2231

DM/dh cc: Max Walton

ID: 1982-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Iveco Trucks

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

TWO VERSIONS OF NHTSA LETTER:

Eldridge G. Pentheny, Jr. Administration Engineer Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc. 1730 Walton Road P.O. Box 1102 Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422

Dear Mr. Pentheny:

This responds to your letter asking whether your auxiliary heater toggle switch design meets the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

On the top of the switch is the fan symbol specified by Table 1 of the standard and an arrow pointed upward. When the top of the switch is depressed, the heater fan is activated to recirculate cab air without heating it. On the bottom of the switch is a flame symbol and an arrow pointing downward. When the bottom of the switch is depressed, the heater, including the heater fan, is activated. As explained below, use of the flame symbol for the heater does not meet the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

Section S5.2.2 states:

Identification shall be provided for each function of ...any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. if color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold - [NO FURTHER TEXT AVAILABLE]

Dear Mr. Pentheny:

This responds to your letter asking whether your auxiliary heater toggle switch design meets the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act pt be identified by words or color coding. I will separately discuss the identification required for the two functions of the auxiliary heater toggle switch.

Depressing the top of the switch activates the fan in order to recirculate air without heating it. This function may be characterized either as recirculation of air or as an on-off switch for the fan. Under the latter characterization, the fan symbol should be used since Table 1 specifies that symbol for a heating and/or air conditioning fan. Thus, the identification on the top of the toggle switch meets the requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

Depressing the bottom of the toggle switch activates both the fan and the heater in order to circulate and heat air. Since neither Table 1 nor Table 2 specify identification for the heating function, it must be in word form. (As explained below, color coding is not appropriate in this instance.) Use of the fan symbol in addition to words identifying the heating function is not necessary, even though the fan operates as part of the heating function, since there is no separate control for the fan. Since the bottom of the toggle switch does not identify the heating function by using words, it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that you desire to use the flame symbol for purposes of international harmonization, noting that is the symbol specified by ISO for heat. While Standard No. 101-80 specifies a number of other ISO symbols, it does not specify that symbol. Section S5.2.1(a) of the standard does permit the use of additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity, so long as the words or symbols specified by the standard are used. Thus, you may use the ISO flame symbol if you also identify the bottom of the toggle switch by using words. Since you indicated that you are already producing the vehicles in question, we suggest that you consider simply adding a label with the words "AUX. HEAT" (or other identifying words) adjacent to the bottom of the toggle switch.

In the above-mentioned telephone conversation, you asked whether coloring the bottom of the toggle switch "red" would be considered color coding as that phrase is used in S5.2.2. The answer is no, since the use of any one color by itself does not constitute color coding. We interpret section S5.2.2 (quoted above) to require that color coding must be readily understandable. Although there may be other appropriate uses of color coding, the standard's example of using red and blue to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control is the only one that comes to mind. The use of red for the hot extreme is readily understood only when used in conjunction with blue for the cold extreme.

As you may know, it is the policy of this agency to both promote international harmonization and avoid unnecessary design restrictions. If you wish to produce vehicles using ISO symbols not specified by Standard No. 101-80, you may wish to consider filing a petition for rulemaking on that issue.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 8, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Frank Berndt

Subject: 49 CFR 571.101-80 Controls and Displays File: S.203.101

Dear Mr. Berndt:

IVECO Trucks of North America is installing an auxiliary heating system, which is completely independant of the standard heater, in some units of our vehicle line. Please find enclosed a drawing of the control switch that is used to activate the different auxiliary heater functions. The control button, when depressed in the upper mode, operates the fan only for recirculation of in cab air when the control button is depressed in the lower mode, the fan and heater are both activated.

Per FMVSS101-S5.21 (Identification) "Any hand operated control listed in column 1 of table that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol."

Per S5.2.2 "Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed control and any heating and air conditioning system control...."

We believe the control button shown on the attached drawing meets both of the requirements as stated above, since the fan symbol applies to par. S.5.2.1 and the flame symbol applies to par. S.5.2.2.

Our only question relates to the "heat and fan" condition where only the ISO symbol for flame (the auxiliary heater is a flame burner type) is shown. We believe that since this is one multi-function switch, (off, fan on only, fan and heater on) another fan symbol in the lower section would be redundant although the fan must be operating when the flame is on.

Would you please confirm our opinion in this matter.

Respectfully yours,

Eldridge G. Pentheny, Jr. Administration Engineer

EGP:smt

Attachment

Eberspacker Auxiliary Heater Toggle Switch

Depress top of toggle switch to activate heater fan only to recirculate in cab air.

Depress bottom of toggle switch to activate both the heater and the heater fan.

ID: 18967.ogm

Daniel J. Selke, Manager
Safety Engineering
Mercedes Benz of North America
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Re: Extended Length Seat Belt Request

Dear Mr. Selke:

This is in response to your letter regarding your company's inquiry as to whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would exercise its enforcement discretion and not institute enforcement proceedings with respect to a special seat belt installation for an overly large customer who had a 300 millimeter seat belt extension installed on a 1998 model year ML 320. You correctly observe that a letter dated March 10, 1993, from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel of NHTSA, to Mr. Thomas Baloga of Mercedes-Benz of North America, indicated that in regard to the installation of extended seat belts for particularly large persons, NHTSA would consider certain violations of Safety Act provisions as purely technical ones justified by public need and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. You also note that the letter requested that NHTSA be notified of each such special seat belt installation.

We acknowledge receipt of your letter and that Mercedes-Benz of North America has provided the agency with notice of this extended seat belt installation. We note that the materials provided indicate that the standard belt provided with this vehicle was too short to allow the purchaser to fasten the belt. We would also like to reiterate our earlier statement contained in the March 10, 1993, letter that if Mercedes-Benz wanted to provide extra long seat belts on a routine basis, that the agency would expect it to provide a design that fully complies with Standard No. 209.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.4/30/99

ID: 18981.wkm

Mr. Clive Glanville - PM
Italamec
Direzione Tecnica
Via R. Geymet, 25
10060 Campiglione Fenile (Torino)
Italy

Dear Mr. Glanville:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter telefaxed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked us to analyze the configuration of your back door latch system and provide you a "conformance certificate." You enclosed drawings of your latch system. Following a telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on February 12, 1999, you sent him another telefax in which you stated that you need "confirmation that when two tailgate latches are fitted to a tailgate, as to whether they both must have two safety positions and must meet the strength requirements." You further stated in this telefax that both latches are identical, therefore they do not constitute a "primary and secondary latch system." You attached a drawing to the February 12 letter depicting the back door of a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The drawing shows the latches located on either side of and near the bottom of the door. We have reviewed your latch system as you requested, but are not able to provide you a "conformance certificate," as discussed below.

This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The basic statute, commonly referred to as the Safety Act, establishes a self-certification system in which the manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment themselves certify that their product complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA checks compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them. The agency also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Because of that self-certification system, NHTSA cannot issue certificates of conformance.

Paragraph S4.4.1, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (copy enclosed), requires that "[E]ach back door system shall be equipped with at least one primary latch and striker assembly" (emphasis added). Also with respect to a back door or a back door system, a "primary door latch," as defined in S3, means "the latch or latches equipped with both the fully latched position and the secondary latched position"(emphasis added). The "fully latched position" is described in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991, as "[T]he attitude that exists between the latch and striker when the door is securely positioned in the fully closed position." The "secondary latched position" is described in SAE J839 as "[T]he attitude that exists between the latch and striker when the latch holds the door in a position less than fully closed." The secondary latched position serves as a backup to the fully latched position in the event the latter is not properly engaged, and adds an additional level of protection in the event the latch fails while in the fully latched position.

Back doors may, but are not required, to have one or more auxiliary latches, which is a latch other than the primary latch or latches in a multi-latch door system. ⁽¹⁾

Auxiliary latches are typically used in double cargo door systems where the primary latch or latches directly connect the left and right segments of the door system to each other while the auxiliary latch or latches secure one segment of the door system to the roof and/or the floor of the vehicle.

Since a back door latch system is only required to have one primary latch, your dual latch system may consist of a primary latch and one or more auxiliary latches. However, if you have two primary latches, that is, ones with both the fully and secondary latched positions, then both must meet the strength requirements in both the fully latched and secondary latched positions as specified in S4.4.1.1 through S4.4.1.4.

I am enclosing for your additional information copies of fact sheets prepared by this agency entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief counsel
Enclosure
ref:206
d.7/15/99

1. Standard No. 206 does not refer to multiple latch systems as "primary" and "secondary" but, as discussed above, to "primary" and "auxiliary." We assume, therefore, that you mean that your latch systems do not fall into the categories of "primary" and "auxiliary."

ID: 19011.drn

The Honorable Dave Weldon
U. S. House of Representatives
2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Building C
Melbourne, FL 32940

ATTN: Mr. Terry Mulford, Senior Caseworker

Dear Congressman Weldon:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Mr. David Thatcher and Ms. Janice Pound, of the Indian River City United Methodist Church, concerning Federal regulations for school buses. Your letter was referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency responsible for administering Federal school bus requirements.

Your letter explains that the Indian River City United Methodist Church plans to start an after school child care program, and plans to purchase vans for use in transporting the children in the program. Your constituents have heard that "the state will be attempting to outlaw passenger vans for transporting children to/from school." They ask whether the church may use a passenger van and have other questions about school bus requirements.

I appreciate this opportunity to explain our school bus requirements. As explained below, our statutory authority applies to dealers that sell new vehicles. We do not regulate the use of vans, but we do require persons to sell school buses if the seller is selling a new "bus" (which includes a 10+ passenger van) and knows that the new bus (van) will be used to transport children to or from school or related events.

NHTSA's statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal safety standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is any bus which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary students "to or from school or an event related to school" (emphasis added). Thus, a large van (such as one designed for 15 passengers) that is likely to be used significantly to transport students to or from school or school-related events is a "school bus." If a dealer sells a new bus (van) knowing that the bus is likely to be used significantly for such transportation, the seller must sell a bus that has been certified as meeting comprehensive Federal school bus safety standards.

This means that, with regard to your constituents' planned purchase of a bus (van), if a dealer knows that a new bus it is about to sell is likely to be used significantly (e.g., on a regular basis) to carry children to or from school or school-related events, the dealer must sell a bus that has been certified as meeting Federal school bus standards. A failure to sell a school bus in this situation can subject the dealer to substantial civil penalties from NHTSA.

Because use of a vehicle is regulated by the individual states, Florida may have requirements that could affect your constituents' use of the van. For information on Florida's requirements for transporting children to or from school, Mr. Thatcher and Ms. Pound can contact Florida's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Charles F. Hood, Director
School Transportation
Florida Department of Education
Suite 824, Fla. Educ. Ctr.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Telephone number: (904) 488-4405

Florida may have a school bus definition that is used to determine which vehicles are subject to the state's school bus use requirements. Florida state administrators can answer Ms. Pound's question about the definition of a school bus, and the date by which school bus operators must comply with any prohibitions against using passenger vans for transporting children to or from school.

In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used significantly to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 10+ passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, your constituents may wish to consult with an attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing our publication, "Frequently Asked Questions About School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.11/20/98

ID: 19019.wkm

Ed Leboeuf, Legal Assistant
Office of the Chief Counsel
Kansas Department of Transportation
779-S, Docking State Office Building
915 SW Harrison
Topeka, KS 66612-1568

Dear Mr. Leboeuf:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff, subject: Approval of a new type of stud tire. You stated that an inventor in Oklahoma, Mr. Allen D. West, acquired a patent on a stud tire in which the studs do not contact the road when the tire is fully inflated, but the studs are exposed when the tires are deflated to a certain pressure. You enclosed a copy of Mr. West's letter to your office and a copy of a letter to Mr. West from the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. He stated in his letter to your office that he saw a Kansas statute giving the state the authority to approve such tires. You stated that the Kansas Department of Transportation does not do this, however, and you wanted to give Mr. West another place to turn to.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S.C., commonly referred to as the Safety Act, gives this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which the manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment themselves certify that their product complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA enforces compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them. The agency also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Because of the self-certification system, NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, endorse, or determine compliance of any motor vehicle or item of equipment prior to the product's introduction into the retail market.

NHTSA has issued six FMVSSs applicable to tires, found at 49 CFR 571.109, 110, 117, 119, 120, and 129. Stud tires must meet the same requirements as non-stud tires. State laws may apply to the use of stud tires. We regret that we cannot provide information on the laws of individual states.

I am providing Mr. West a copy of this letter for his information.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Mr. Allen D. West, P.E.
Drawer 310
Catoosa, OK 74015-0310
ref:109
d.4/16/99

ID: 19023.ztv

Herr Olaf Schmidt
Manager, R &D
Hella K.G. Hueck & Co.
Rixbecker Str. 75
59552 Lippstadt
Germany

Dear Herr Schmidt:

We apologize for the delay in answering your letter of March 27, 1998, on headlamp labels, but this Office did not receive a copy of it until November 3. If you wish to communicate with us by fax, we recommend that you mail a hard copy at the same time to minimize the possibility of lost correspondence.

You report that "modern headlamp designs have the approval markings for the USA as well as for the European market on the lens as it is required by the relevant laws." In order to minimize confusion as to whether a headlamp has been designed to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, or to conform with ECE requirements, Hella would like to place the words "Not D.O.T. approved" or "Not D.O.T. certified" on the bottom line of the labels that the company places on the rear of the headlamp housing of ECE headlamps. You have asked that we agree with your plan.

We cannot agree with your plan. We understand that, under this plan, the "DOT" symbol would appear on each lens. S7.2(a) of Standard No. 108 requires that the lens of each original and replacement headlamp manufactured for sale in the United States must be marked with the symbol "DOT." This symbol is the certification required by 49 U.S.C. 30115 that the headlamp meets Standard No. 108. It cannot be qualified by a disclaimer placed on a label on the rear of the headlamp housing. A manufacturer must not mark a headlamp lens with the DOT symbol if the headlamp does not comply with Standard No. 108.

A manufacturer who applies the DOT symbol to the lens of a headlamp that meets ECE requirements but does not comply with Standard No. 108, in our view, has provided certification that is materially false and misleading, and the manufacturer may be liable for a civil penalty. The maximum civil penalties authorized are $1,100 for importation of a single noncomplying headlamp, and $1,100 for each instance of false and misleading certification. We may impose a penalty up to a total of $880,000 for any related series of violations.

Should it come to our attention that noncomplying headlamps with dual ECE/DOT markings are being imported into the United States, we will investigate the matter with a view towards seeking a civil penalty from any responsible headlamp manufacturer doing business in the United States. In addition, if nonconforming headlamps with dual ECE/DOT markings have previously been imported and sold, our laws require the importer to notify purchasers of the noncompliance, and to remedy the noncompliance at no charge.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108#VSA
d.2/26/99

ID: 19024.wkm

Mr. William E. Daniels, Jr.
Precision Husky Corporation
P.O. Box Drawer 507
Leeds, AL 35094-0507

Dear Mr. Daniels:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the tub grinders your company produces would constitute motor vehicles. The answer is no.

You stated that the purpose of the tub grinders is the processing of organic waste materials. The grinders are used at composting facilities and land fills world-wide. You stated that normally, a customer will purchase a grinder at the factory, after which it is transported to the distributor for final inspection, then delivered to the customer's work site. Once there it typically remains at that site for its useful life, considered to be approximately 5 to 7 years. The grinder may be towed over the public roads on rare occasions, however, such as from job site to job site, back to the factory for rebuilding, and resold and towed to the next buyer. You also referred to a problem with shipping a grinder into Canada.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act, at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6), defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

Based on your description of your tub grinders and the product brochures you enclosed with your letter, it appears that the grinders are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition quoted above. They obviously are designed to be used primarily at off-road job sites for extended periods of time, although they are capable of being towed to other locations. In such cases, the on-road transport of these items is merely incidental and not the primary purpose 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 at the sites for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since their on-road use is more than merely "incidental."

With respect to shipping grinders to Canada, since they are not "motor vehicles" within the definition of the Safety Act, they are not required to comply with the FMVSSs. They may, however, be driven, towed, or otherwise transported to the U.S. border or to a U.S. port for further shipment to a foreign market so long as they are labeled on the vehicle or equipment clearly indicating intent to export. There is no prescribed form or format for the export label, but the label must be legible, obvious, and clearly indicate "For Export Only."

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 fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.2/3/99

ID: 19033.drn

Mr. Steven Butcher
Vice President, Technical and Standards
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K St, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Butcher:

This responds to your request for clarification of marking requirements for tires in Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. In a final rule of May 27, 1998 (63 FR 28912), Standard No. 119 was amended to convert English measurements in that standard to metric measurements. Since a five year lead time was provided, the final rule is effective on May 27, 2003. You wish to know whether pound designations for markings specified in Standard No. 119 (at S6.5 Tire markings) may be designated as "lbs" rather than "lb", and whether it is "acceptable to use either upper or lower case letters."

With respect to your question concerning "lb" vs. "lbs", we note that, as a general matter, the examples and language specified in the final rule must be followed exactly. However, given that "lb" and "lbs" represent very minor variations of the same abbreviation, and the standard has in the past used "lbs" instead of "lb", it is our interpretation that either variation may be used.

Standard No. 119 does not specify whether upper case or lower case letters must be used. However, please note that S6.5 states in part: "Except as specified below, each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section." (Emphasis added). S6.5 further specifies permitted locations of the markings, the height of the markings' letters and numerals, and how high above or sunk below the tire surface the markings must be. S6.5 does not specify the case (upper or lower) of the markings that are used. Thus, since S6.5 specifies that the tire must be marked with "the information" specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) and does not further specify whether the information provided must be in letters that are upper or lower case, a manufacturer may use either upper or lower case letters.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:119
d.4/21/99