ID: aiam0685

Dear Mr. Milby:#This is in reply to your letter of April 19 to Mr Schneider asking for interpretations of the motor vehicle controls safety standard, Standard No. 101.#You have asked that we reconsider our earlier opinion that your heater gate valve is a 'heating and air conditioning system control' for purposes of Standard No. 101. We see no reason to modify our earlier view. A control, as you have described it, that allows hot engine water to flow through the heater cores is clearly a heating system control, requiring identification as such. Table I of Standard No. 101 allows you the option of choosing your own form of identification. Perhaps a legend such as 'Water Control' and a designation of 'Winter' and 'Summer' positions would clarify your intent that the valve not be used as a temperature control device. However, pursuant to paragraph S4.3 this control need not be illuminated, if, as appears likely, it does not direct air directly upon the windshield.#You have also asked if the cable- operated fresh air door whose function is to control the air that passes through the heater cores is also a 'heating and air conditioning control.' It appears that this control serves a function similar to that of the heater valve, and that identification is also required, with words or abbreviation at the manufacturer's option.#Finally, you ask if the defroster identification may be preceded by 'RH' and 'LH' to identify the right hand and left hand defroster systems respectively. The answer is yes, we have no objection to this form of identification.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1997

Dear Mr. Morton: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of April 28 1975, concerning tires used on pull brooms.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires fo vehicles other than passenger cars*, (copy enclosed), specifies labeling and performance requirements for all tires designated for use on pull brooms. This standard applies to all such tires manufactured on or after March 1, 1975. There is presently no requirement, however, that vehicles be equipped with tires conforming to the standard. the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed and is considering the issuance of a new Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars*, which would require all new pull brooms manufactured after its effective date to be equipped with tires conforming to Standard No. 119.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2712

I have received your November 8, 1977, memorandum questioning th applicability of the performance requirements in Section S5.4 of Standard No. 217 to knock-out rear windows. You suggest that these requirements may apply only to push-out windows, not knock- out windows.; It is our interpretation that the requirements of the standard apply t both push-out and knock-out windows. We realize that this may create some difficulty for purposes of conducting compliance testing since knock-out windows must be reinstalled in order to conduct subsequent tests upon them. Nonetheless, the window should be required to comply with the standard.; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

ID: aiam3800

Dear Mr. Barbie: This is in further reply to your phone call of February 13, 1984, t the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, regarding the remanufacture of school buses using older model bus bodies on new chassis. You asked whether the school bus safety standards apply to a school bus manufactured with a 1976 model year body mounted on a new chassis.; The applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards i determined by the date of manufacture of the motor vehicle. For vehicles that are completed in several stages, the manufacturer can treat as the date of manufacture the date of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, as:; >>>an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassi structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.<<<; The effective date of the school bus safety standards was April 1 1977. Since the date of manufacture of the school bus chassis is after April 1, 1977, and the date of completion of the vehicle is after April 1, 1977, the completed school bus must meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards. It is extremely unlikely that the 1976 model year body will comply with the school bus standards since the body was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus standards. If your completed vehicle does not comply with the safety standards, your manufacturer, distributor, or dealer cannot certify it as conforming to such standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5203

Dear Mr. Davis: This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1993 requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206 as it affects the rear doors of ambulances that your company manufactures. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that your ambulances have two rear doors, and that each has locking mechanisms that can be operated both from the outside and inside of the doors. Your specific question is whether you can eliminate the inside locking mechanism on one of the rear doors without violating Standard No. 206. The language in S4.1.3 of Standard No. 206 that you noted in your letter (i.e., 'Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.') refers to side doors, but not to rear doors. Thus, your company's ambulances need not be equipped with locking mechanisms on each rear door. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0001

ID: aiam4941

"Dear Mr. Conway: I have been asked to respond to your letter t Administrator Curry, in which you asked about the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, to van conversions and motor homes with raised roofs. In your letter, you suggested that the currently specified roof crush resistance test procedure is inappropriate for such vehicles because of their unique physical characteristics. Additionally, referring to the greater floor to roof height of a van conversion or motor home as compared to a typical passenger car, you questioned whether the five inch roof displacement pass/fail criteria are appropriate for these vehicles. I am pleased to have the opportunity to address these issues. As you know, on April 17, 1991, NHTSA published a final rule extending the application of Standard No. 216 to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 (56 FR 15510). That rule requires that the roof of any such vehicles be moved not more than five inches when a force of one and a half times the vehicle's unloaded weight is applied to either side of the forward edge of the vehicle's roof. This is the same test procedure specified for passenger cars, with one exception. For passenger cars, the standard specifies applying a force of one and a half times the vehicle's unloaded weight or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less. As indicated above, the alternative 5,000 pound crush force limit that applies for passenger cars was not adopted for light trucks, buses, and MPVs. During the rulemaking process that led to this extension of Standard No. 216, NHTSA received comments requesting that the agency consider modifying the roof crush resistance test procedure to accommodate the particular physical characteristics of some motor homes, vans and van conversions, including those with raised roofs. More specifically, some commenters including RVIA suggested that the specified test procedures could not be used to position the test device on some vehicles with raised roofs. Other commenters, especially Ford, questioned the need for a five-inch roof crush limitation for vehicles with full standing headroom and suggested that NHTSA consider relating the maximum roof crush requirement to the available occupant headroom. After carefully evaluating these comments, NHTSA concluded that, based upon the available information, the roof crush resistance test procedure was practicable, met the need for motor vehicle safety, and was appropriate for MPVs, trucks, and buses, if those vehicles had a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. The issues identified by the commenters were significant primarily for such vehicles with a GVWR of more than 6,000 pounds. NHTSA acknowledged that it was possible that there could be some light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less that would experience the same problems with the specified roof crush resistance test procedure as larger vehicles would. However, the agency had no information showing that those difficulties would actually be experienced by particular light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. See 56 FR 15514, April 17, 1991. In your letter, you raised the same issues that had previously been raised in these comments, that is, you suggested that the test device could not be positioned properly on vehicles with a raised roof and that the five inch crush displacement limit was inappropriate for vehicles with a raised roof. As was the case with those comments, your letter did not provide any specific information identifying particular vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less whose physical characteristics would cause it to experience some particular compliance difficulties or testing difficulties. If you have some information showing compliance or testing difficulties for actual light truck models with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, we would appreciate it if you would forward that information to the agency. At this time, NHTSA is not aware of any compliance or testing difficulties for light trucks subject to the extended requirements of Standard No. 216. Absent such information, NHTSA has no basis for changing its previous conclusion about the specified test procedures and requirements. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2196

Dear Mr. James: This is in response to your letter of January 1, 1976, to Regiona Office V of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning whether your company's spreader product must comply with the requirements of Federal motor vehicle Safety standards and regulations, particularly Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires*.; The NHTSA issues safety standards and regulations for 'motor vehicles. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.' Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work-performing nature, and, as such, their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobil cranes, rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers that travel at a normal highway speed are examples in this area. These motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. On the basis of the information you have sent us your company's towed paver appears to be in this category of vehicles, and would therefore be considered a 'motor vehicle.'; There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicl classification despite their use on the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, *self-propelled* asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 mph and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. Your company's paver would not appear to qualify in this category of vehicles since, as a towed paver, it would travel at a speed greater than 20 mph, at least when moving between job sites. Consequently, your product must comply with the requirements of the Federal standards and regulations. Standard No. 119 does not directly impose any duty on you, because it applies to tires rather than vehicles. However, the NHTSA has recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (copy enclosed). This standard does require, effective September 1, 1976, that your vehicles be equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 119 and are of sufficient load rating.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5653

Dear Mr. Byrne: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses. According to your letter, you plan to sell a brake hose assembly for hydraulic brake systems that you refer to as 'Stainless Steel Braided Brakelines.' You then asked several questions about selling your product in this country. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hose assemblies. Congress has established a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). This process requires each manufacturer to determine that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities you must meet as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above. You first asked NHTSA to 'confirm' that an independent laboratory certification is valid for the United States. As explained above, NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or conduct pre-sale testing of their products. In the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS's. You then asked NHTSA to confirm that such a brake hose assembly can be used with an adapter into the master cylinder or caliper. Your brake hose assembly can be used at any place in a motor vehicle, provided that in installing it, a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business does not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, a vehicle or item of equipment which is in compliance with any applicable safety standard. Specifically, inclusion of your brake hose assembly could not modify a hydraulic brake system subject to FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to the extent that it no longer complies with the standard. Your next question asked whether there are any special marking requirements for brake hose assemblies manufactured for sale in the United States. Section S5.2.4 sets forth labeling requirements for brake hose assemblies. Section S5.2.4 states that Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly as specified in this paragraph or at the option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in S5.2.4.1. The band may at the manufacturer's option be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall be etched, embossed, or stamped in block capital letters, numerals or symbols at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the following information: (a) The symbol DOT constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. (b) A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol. In addition, section S5.2.4.1 provides as an option that at least one end fitting be etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly. I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States. The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information: 1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made, 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer, 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name, 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer, 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation, and, 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. 7. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam0451

Dear Mr. Pieratt: In your letter of September 8, 1971, you ask whether final-stag manufacturers may use the new vehicle certification label required as of January 1, 1972, before that date.; Your members may use the new label before January 1, 1972. Since th two vehicle weight ratings are not required until that date, there is no legal objection either to leaving the appropriate space blank, or to typing the phrase 'NOT REQUIRED UNTIL 1/1/72' in the space provided.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel