ID: nht93-1.39

DATE: February 18, 1993

FROM: Marty D. Pope -- President, Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc.

TO: Walter Meyers -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from John Womack to Marty D. Pope (A40; Std. 120)

TEXT: Per our conversation on Motor Vehicle Safety Standards #120, S5.2, let me take a few minutes of your time to explain how this law is and will be affecting our business. Our company, Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc., refurbishes vast amounts of wheels that we obtain from numerous salvage yards. Most of the vehicles these wheels were removed from range from 1970 to 1993 vehicles. We blast the wheels down so we can put on a new finish on them. To give you an example of the business I have built, in 1992 we refurbished and sold over 100,000 wheels, 1993 promises to be even a better year. The wheels that my company refurbishes are sold to utility trailer manufacturers for use on their utility trailers. We have been in the trailer business for 15 years, in the wheel business for four years, all at the same location. We have over $100,000 in equipment to use to refurbish wheels. I employ eight people in the wheel shop. Our goal is to purchase $200,000 more in equipment. This equipment will employ at least five more people. This law went into effect in 1977, and up to this point I have not had a problem concerning this. This has put a hold on my business.

I am willing to comply to government regulations, but we need to know how to comply and what we can do to bring the wheels manufactured before 1977 up to standards. At the present time we have 10,000 wheels in stock, with 10% of the wheels in stock having the D.O.T. stamping on them. Is it a possibility to stamp the wheels previous to 1977 with a regulation code to approve their usability? In the past week orders have been placed for 24,000 wheels. As you can see my stock of D.O.T. stamped wheels and my orders do not come close. Please, I am needing your input on which avenues to take, and any help you can give us to save what it has taken hard work to build.

Mr. Myers, your immediate attention to this matter is needed and will be greatly appreciated, so I can keep the eight individuals employed and keep my production on line.

If I can offer any further information concerning this, please do not hesitate to call me.

ID: aiam3824

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This is in response to your letter of March 23, 1984, petitioning th Administrator for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, to allow use of the Volvo Child Safety Seat in 2500 of Volvo's 240/260 series vehicles.; Section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac provides authority to exempt only motor vehicles from compliance with any applicable motor vehicle safety standard. This authority does not extend to individual items of motor vehicle equipment. Inasmuch as Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child seating systems for use in motor vehicles but does not require their installation in them as original equipment, it is considered an equipment standard, rather than a vehicle standard. This means that the agency has no authority to grant your petition for exemption. If you wish to pursue this matter further, you may submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552 to amend Standard No. 213 in a manner that would allow the Volvo seat.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3823

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This is in response to your letter of March 23, 1984, petitioning th Administrator for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, to allow use of the Volvo Child Safety Seat in 2500 of Volvo's 240/260 series vehicles.; Section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac provides authority to exempt only motor vehicles from compliance with any applicable motor vehicle safety standard. This authority does not extend to individual items of motor vehicle equipment. Inasmuch as Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child seating systems for use in motor vehicles but does not require their installation in them as original equipment, it is considered an equipment standard, rather than a vehicle standard. This means that the agency has no authority to grant your petition for exemption. If you wish to pursue this matter further, you may submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552 to amend Standard No. 213 in a manner that would allow the Volvo seat.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-5.36

DATE: 04/16/74

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

TO: Domi Racer Distributors, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request to know if aircraft hydraulic hose is suitable for motor vehicle use under Standard 106, Brake hoses.

Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, presently applies to hydraulic brake hose for use in passenger cars, and therefore sale of aircraft hydraulic hose for use in motorcycles is presently legal. However, Standard 106 has been recently amended to require extensive performance testing and labeling of all motor vehicle brake hose manufactured after September 1, 1974. Sale of an aircraft hose manufactured after that date which has not been certified to conform to Standard 106 would violate @ 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. This means that the hose must be properly tested for conformity to the standard, and labeled according to the standard, before it can be sold as motor vehicle hose.

Domi Racer

DISTRIBUTORS, Inc.

MESSAGE

TO NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM. SUITE 214 EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1010 DIXIE HIGHWAY CHICAGO HEIGHTS, ILL 60411

DATE 3-19-74

GENTLEMEN; WE HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO YOUR OFFICE BY THE LOCAL BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY.

OUR PRINCIPAL POINT OF CONCERN AT THE MOMENT IS FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FOR HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES TO BE IMPRINTED WITH AN SAE SPECIFICATION. WE ARE PRESENTLY MARKETING A HYDRAULIC HOSE FOR MOTORCYCLE USE WHICH CARRIES A MILITARY AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATION H-8794, ALSO FAA APPROVED.

SPECIFICALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF AN FAA APPROVED HOSE WOULD NOT BE SUITABLE FOR USE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS AS IT IS A MUCH STRONGER PART THAN THE STANDARD ITEM IT REPLACES.

SINCERELY, J. K. WHITE

REPLY

ID: aiam1736

Dear Mr. Moss: I am pleased to respond to your November 29, 1974, request for ou analysis of Mr. Harris Roseboom's November 8, 1974, suggestion that the 'no lockup' requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, are unnecessary as they apply to trailers used in harvesting crops on dry, level terrain in California.; We understand Mr. Roseboom's concern about the standard as it applie to trailers used for bulk transport of agricultural products. However, Standard No. 121, you will recall, established comprehensive equipment, brake actuation, retardation force, and parking brake requirements for trailers, as well as the 'no lockup' stopping distance requirements to which Mr. Roseboom refers. As a result, any exemption from the standard would mean a loss of *all* of these safety features on those trailers which might qualify for exemption.; Our major concern, of course, is that these trailers could be use during the non-harvest months in regular highway use, or they could be sold for highway use at a future date.; In either case they would operate under the same conditions as an other trailer on the highway. Our authority over them ends at the point of retail sale, and we know of no other way to ensure they are highway- equipped than by mandating it at the time of manufacture.; I would like to note that the delayed effective date for 'heavy hauler trailers is based on the greater complexity of brake system design on vehicles whose function dictates extendable brake lines or a low configuration which limits space for mounting new brake components. The standard becomes effective for these vehicles on September 1, 1976.; As for trucks, the effective date of March 1, 1975, is the earlies date by which adequate supplies of components will be available to build the new systems.; We would appreciate your ideas on how to make provision for specialize use of vehicles like these, while ensuring that they are not operated on the highway under the same conditions as standard highway vehicles.; I am aware of your continued interest in ensuring safety on th highways and hope that you can appreciate our dilemma in cases like the classification of agricultural bulk transport trailers.; Sincerely, James B, Gregory, Administrator

ID: 19948.ztv

Mr. Ron Dawson
4224 Quince Road
Portsmouth, VA 23703

Dear Mr. Dawson:

This is in reply to your e-mail of May 5, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, on kit cars. We had previously written you on this subject on March 29, 1999, and you have two further questions. I apologize for the delay in our response.

In our earlier letter we informed you that we would regard the person installing the engine and transmission of a kit car, whether the kit purchaser or a commercial entity, as the manufacturer of the vehicle and responsible for its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You cite a letter from this Office to Kent Morris, dated April 22, 1991, in which we stated that a manufacturer is any person assembling more than one motor vehicle. Your asked whether we will "consider the kit purchaser who installs an engine and transmission into a single car a manufacturer."

The answer is that the assembler of a single kit car is a "manufacturer." We have reviewed the statement you cited in our April 22, 1991 letter and concluded that it was incorrect. In other letters, we have stated that a purchaser who completes a kit is a manufacturer (see 1979 letter to the Honorable John C. Stennis) and that even if someone produces only a single motor vehicle, that vehicle must be certified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards if its producer intends it to operate on the public roads (see 1997 letter to Mr. Dion A. DeVan).

You note that 49 U.S.C. 30112 states that, with certain exceptions, "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard . . . ." I would point out that driving a vehicle on the public roads would be considered an introduction into interstate commerce. Therefore, a person who assembled a kit car which did not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and then drove the vehicle on the public roads would be in violation of this section.

You also asked whether we would "enforce compliance upon a person who installs an engine and transmission in a kit car and then uses the completed motor vehicle for his/her personal highway use." If we should become aware of an apparent violation in such a situation, we would decide what action to take at that time. I would also note that, in addition to facing a potential Federal enforcement action, such a person might also be in violation of State laws. Moreover, in the event of a crash, there could be potential liability issues both for the assembler of the kit car and for the kit manufacturer. A local attorney could advise you about the laws of your state and potential liability issues.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/20/00

ID: nht78-4.20

DATE: 05/01/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 23, 1978, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation concerning the registration of passenger car tires can be applied to the registration of truck tires. In that interpretation, the NHTSA stated that it was permissible for a tire dealer to allow the tire purchaser to fill out the tire registration form and hand it back to the dealer.

The NHTSA's interpretation is applicable to both truck and passenger car tires. A truck tire dealer may permit a purchaser to fill out the required information rather than completing the registration form himself. However, this all must occur at the point of sale of the tire. The registration forms for both passenger car tires and truck tires are not permitted to be taken home or shipped with the tires to be completed by the purchaser and subsequently returned or mailed to the dealer. This would impair the benefit of mandatory tire registration and make it a voluntary program. This is not the intent of the regulation, and the NHTSA would not consider such a registration program to be in compliance with the tire registration regulation.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS & RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

February 23, 1978

Roger Tilton National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

As you know, NHTSA has issued a interpretation of the regulations regarding tire identification and record keeping, which permits the tire dealer to hand to the consumer of passenger tires a form which the consumer may fill out at the dealers place of business.

Since a similar type of problem now exists in the sale of truck tires the question has been raised on registration there also.

It it permissible for a tire dealer, selling to a trucker, to give the trucker a form to fill out and return to the individual dealer? In some cases truck tires are shipped directly from the manufacturer to the trucker and the dealer may not have even a direct contact on every shipment.

Letting the cards accompany the tires or providing the registration cards to the trucker might be helpful. We would appreciate some guidance on this so we may advise our membership.

Philip P. Friedlander, Jr. Executive Vice President

ID: nht78-2.13

DATE: 06/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Leven, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Minnesota State Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Jim Downey of our regional office has forwarded for reply your letter of May 3, 1978, in which you asked whether a single beam headlighting system is permissible on mopeds.

The answer is yes. The portion of SAE Standard J584 that you have quoted only establishes an option to the specific requirements of J584. Table 1 of J584 permits motor driven cycles to be equipped with a single (upper) beam headlamp. We consider mopeds to be "motor driven cycles" as defined by 40 CFR 571.3(b) and J584 as they are invariably powered by a motor developing less than 5 horsepower.

I hope this answers your question.

SINCERELY

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

May 3, 1978

Jim Downey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Office

Dear Mr. Downey:

We are having difficulty in determining whether FMVSS 108 permits single beam road lighting for mopeds.

Page 32914 of Federal Register 39, No. 178, dated September 12, 1974, contains a reference to NHTSA exploring forward lighting needs of motor-driven cycles and indicates that a decision would be made as to whether a reduced minimum standard would be appropriate.

We are unable to locate any writings as to the conclusions arrived at beyond that point other than reference in FMVSS 108 (S4.1.1) that ". . . each vehicle shall be equipped with at least the number of lamps . . . specified in Tables I and III, as applicable. Required equipment shall be designed to conform to the SAE Standards or Recommended Practices referenced in those tables."

Table III indicates one (1) white headlamp for motorcycles and cites SAE Standard J584. This standard (J584) contains the general requirement of ". . . one 7-inch sealed beam unit or one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam units meeting the requirements of SAE J579 may be used on a motorcycle or a motor driven cycle."

Since compliance with either option of J584 results in having a high beam and a low beam we are unable to conclude that one (1) single beam headlamp on a moped constitutes compliance with FMVSS 108.

Our concern arises from the fact that our state recently adopted moped legislation requiring the same lighting equipment as is required of motorcycles and we must give due consideration to federal requirements in view of the fact that Minnesota law requires motorcycles to have both an upper beam and a lower beam.

Your assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated.

Colonel James C. Crawford Chief Minnesota State Patrol

ID: nht81-2.38

DATE: 06/23/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Midwest Polychem, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have examined the proposed label for "GRC" brake fluid you have submitted to us for comment.

Generally, the label appears to meet the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 (36 F.R. 11937, June 24, 1971, as amended, 36 F.R. 21594, November 11, 1971). The words "or(Illegible Word)" in your conformity statement are redundant; since the standard is a minimum requirement, "conforming to" and "exceeding" it mean exactly the same thing. If the fluid packager is an entity other than Curley, the packager's name or code identification must appear either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can. We assume that the required serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging will be stamped either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can.

GRC

SUPER HEAVY DUTY

BRAKE FLUID DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID 284 degrees F Min. Wet Boiling Point

GRC

HYDRAULIC BRAKE FLUID

DIRECTIONS

FILLING: Check fluid each month or every 2000 miles. Fill Mailer cylinder to within one-half inch of top.

BLEEDING: Remove plug from bleeder screw and insert bleeder hose. Place other and of bleeder in clean container partially filled with G.R.C. Brake Fluid. Lossen bleeder screw and pump brake pedal slowly until air bubbles stop and fluid is clear. Tighten blender screw and follow same instructions on all four wheels, Moster cylinder fluid level must be checked after bleeding each wheel and keep fluid level to within 1/2 inch of top.

CAUTION: FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. Contamination with dirt, water petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

(Illegible Lines) GURLEY REFINING DESIGN GCR SUPER HEAVY DUTY BRAKE FLUID (Illegible Word) 2700-1 S.O. 244-3191 SIZE 211 X 407.5 C.E. 4.595 X 8.364 B.P. DATE 10-19-71

(Illegible Lines) (Illegible Word) AS DETAINED APPROVED AS SUBMITTED CUSTOMER SIGNATURE: DATE NO. PROOFS 20 PROOF DATE 11-3-71 CHANGE A CHANGE B CHANGE C ARTIST D/TCA

ID: nht72-4.48

DATE: 12/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 3, 1972, in which you ask whether a Certification label, a drawing (33-1-78) of which you enclose, will meet both the requirements of the Certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) and those of proposed Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. "Tire and Rim Selection and Rim Performance" (36 F.R. 142730). In our conversation of November 28, 1972, you asked two additional questions -- first, whether GAWR for trailers could be expressed as a single figure when the ratings for each axle are identical, and second, as followed up by your letter of November 30, what is the appropriate method for determining GVWR for a semitrailer having a "sliding-bogie" axle.

The Certification label you have submitted would conform to the requirements of Part 557, and proposed Standard No. 120 if "rim size" is moved from its location following GAWR and GVWR to the bottom of the label, in proximity to the "maximum rim load rating." The Certification regulation does not require rim size to be specified, and rim size would therefore have to appear after the information required by that regulation. The requirements of proposed Standard No. 120 are tentative only, as you must know, and manufacturers should not make permanent plans regarding them until a final rule is issued.

The NHTSA position with respect to GAWR being expressed as one figure when identical axles are involved is that such a method is not consistent with the Certification regulation. Each axle must be listed separately on the Certification label regardless of whether its rating is identical to that of other axles. We have no record of any oral statement to the contrary, and if one was made, as you seem to recall, we regret that it was in error. With respect to specifying GVWR for trailers having sliding-bogie axles, the NHTSA position is that a manufacturer is free to assume the axle to be in either position. If the manufacturer wishes to indicate at which position the rating is based, he may do so on the label, following all required information.