ID: aiam5120

Dear Mr. Palkar: This responds to your letter asking about Federa requirements for the manufacture of brake hose assemblies. I am pleased to provide this 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. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' copy enclosed) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care 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. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hose is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) 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, 'Brake Hoses,' applies to new motor vehicles and to 'brake hoses' (which include plastic tubing), 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 ask that NHTSA 'approve' your assemblies so that you can 'punch DOT on the end fittings of the assemblies.' 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. Your question about 'DOT punching' seems to confuse two options for labeling brake hose assemblies specified in Standard No. 106. The 'DOT' mark is used in the standard to constitute a manufacturer's certification of conformance with all applicable FMVSS's. For hydraulic brake hose assemblies, S5.2.4 of Standard No. 106 requires the DOT mark to be placed on a band (not an end fitting) around the hydraulic brake hose assembly, along with a designation that identifies the assembler. As an alternative to this requirement for a band, S5.2.4.1 permits manufacturers of hydraulic brake hose assemblies to label their assemblies by marking at least one end fitting with the manufacturer designation. Assembly manufacturers choosing to mark their assemblies only with a designation must separately furnish the certification of conformance with the applicable FMVSS's. The certification may be in the form of a label or tag on the completed brake hose assembly or on the outside of a container in which the assembly is delivered. The manufacturer's designation that is marked on either the band or an end fitting of a hydraulic or air brake hose assembly is described in S5.2.4(b) and S7.2.3(b), respectively, of Standard No. 106. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products. You must file your designation (which may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division at the following address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. You may telephone Mr. Richard Carter of the Crash Avoidance Division at (202) 366-5274 if you have questions about filing your designation. 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. You also asked whether you must obtain approval from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to sell your assemblies in this country. The answer is no. You must meet only NHTSA's requirements to sell your product in the U.S. Please note, however, that assemblies used on commercial vehicles operating in interstate commerce are subject to the requirements of our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). If you are interested in the FHWA's requirements for brake hose assemblies, you can write to that agency at the addressed provided in the enclosed information sheet. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam5352

"Dear Mr. Drymalski: This responds to your letter and telephon conversations with David Elias, formerly of this office, asking about a situation you term as the 'cannibalization' of new, unsold vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. The situation involves motor vehicle dealers who remove equipment (e.g., a power steering pump) from new vehicles to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment on previously-sold vehicles. The new vehicles are 'cannibalized' to expedite repairs when replacement equipment for the repair is temporarily unavailable. The new vehicles have their cannibalized equipment replaced when the parts become available, before the vehicles are sold. You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permits dealers to cannibalize parts. As explained below, the answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act') authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ('FMVSS's') applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a new vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. Under 114 of the Safety Act, each motor vehicle must be certified as conforming to the FMVSS's. NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) require any person altering (i.e., performing extensive manufacturing operations on) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle by the consumer to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of 'readily attachable components' (e.g., mirrors or tires and rim assemblies) or by performing minor finishing operations (e.g., painting), are not considered alterers, and need not re-certify the vehicle. Whether modifications involve 'readily attachable' components depends on the intricacy of the installation of those components. 'Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable.' NHTSA letter to Fred Cords, March 4, 1975. Applying these considerations to the situation you present, we conclude that a power steering pump is a readily attachable component. A power steering pump can be installed with extraordinary ease. The pump can be replaced on the dealer's lot in minutes, simply by opening the hood and popping the old pump out and inserting the new one, with no need to use special tools or have special expertise. The pump can be replaced without extensively modifying the vehicle in any manner. Since the power steering pump is a readily attachable component, the dealer described in your letter is not an alterer under 567.7. The dealer can 'cannibalize' the new unsold cars for power steering pumps and install new pumps when they arrive without applying its own new certification label. I emphasize that a dealer would not be considered an alterer only in the narrow circumstances in which the component being 'cannibalized' is readily attachable. If the component is not readily attachable, the dealer could 'cannibalize' the new cars and later repair and sell them if the following requirements are met. First, the dealer would be responsible under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act for ensuring that each new vehicle it sells complies with the applicable FMVSS's. Thus, the new vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's. Second, the dealer would be responsible, as an 'alterer,' for certifying the new vehicles from which it removed and replaced the equipment. The dealer would be an alterer since the work performed would be more extensive than 'the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components' or the 'minor finishing operations' described in 567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label to remain on the vehicle and affixing an additional label of the type and form specified in 567.7. In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used... during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to limit the modifications that a dealer may make to a new or used vehicle. If, in making the temporary repair affecting a new vehicle, the dealer 'renders inoperative' a device or design installed on the new vehicle pursuant to an FMVSS, the dealer must return the vehicle to compliance before the new vehicle can be sold to the public, or even test- driven by a member of the public. Section 108(a)(2)(A) also applies to the used vehicles into which the cannibalized equipment is installed. The dealer must ensure that it does not violate the Safety Act by 'rendering inoperative' equipment or designs on the vehicles in the process of repairing them. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 1983-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Patricia Hill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell, Michigan 48843

Dear Ms. Hill:

This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specific questions relating to Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your questions and their answers are listed below:

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

"Erratic burning," as that term is used in the standard, relates to incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during a compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive ammendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No. 302.

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The material would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302-02.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter requests an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Section 5.1.3 of the subject standard states that a test specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic (emphasis added) burning" is supported by a series of thin, heat resistant wires during testing.

Paragraph 10.2.2 of the NHTSA Laboratory Procedures for Flammability Compliance Tests, TP 302-02 dated June l973 allows a series of "thin (sic) heat resistant wires . . . to support specimens which tend to soften and bend at the flaming end." Paragraph 10.4.1 allows the use of support wires "If bending or curling of the specimen during test is anticipated (emphasis added)." I note that there is no mention of an "erratic-burning" condition in TP 302-02.

In your May l2, l976 letter to Mr. C.C. Setter you stated that the NHTSA intended to issue an interpretive amendment limiting the use of support wires during testing. You also stated that the NHTSA's experience indicated that use of support wires yielded significantly different burn rates. It is axiomatic that use of support wires will yield a slower burn rate. I interpret the text of your letter to mean that support wires could be used in some instances to influence whether a test specimen meets or fails to meet the burn rate requirements of the subject standard. I interpret the intent of your letter in part to counter a 1971 preamble stating that use of support wires had no significant effect on burn rate.

There is reason to believe that most of the domestic automotive manufacturers routinely use support wires for all testing intended to demonstrate or prove compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Rationale to support this practice is apparently based upon a liberal interpretation of "erratic burning" in the subject standard and "anticipated" in the NHTSA test procedure. For instance, it is possible to anticipate bending or curling of the flaming end of a specimen prior to the start of a test without regard for historical data.

I am not aware that the NHTSA has performed any flammability testing for enforcement purposes in recent years.

Following is a list of my specific requests for interpretation.

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

I trust that this letter will be viewed in a constructive light.

Sincerely,

Patricia Hill

ID: aiam3411

Dear Mr. Elkins: This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1981, asking two question with respect to the temporary exemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) and implementing regulations (49 CFR Part 555).; Your first question is: >>>(1) Assuming North American Classics designs the total engineerin of the Thunderbird reproduction, selects all components to be incorporated therein, retains primary control over quality control, testing, FMVSS compliance in design, and manufacturing assembly sequence, and markets the produced vehicles on its behalf to its customers, does North American Classics remain eligible to apply for exemption from meeting certain FMVSS requirements for this vehicle in the event that the actual responsibility for the assembly of the vehicles is contracted by North American Classics to a manufacturer which produces more than 10,000 motor vehicles per year?<<<; Although you have not said so I understand from Taylor Vinson that th manufacturer with whom you would contract is a foreign corporation which has never produced motor vehicles for the American market. We also understand that it may be less expensive to have your car built abroad than at home.; Under the circumstances you describe, the foreign corporation appear to be nothing more than your agent in fabricating the vehicles and returning them for sale. This would not affect your eligibility for exemption. You would retain the responsibility for certification, as we understand it, even though the name of the foreign manufacturer would also appear on the certification label, as required by 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1).; Your second question is: >>>(2) In the event that North American Classics enters into a agreement to have such vehicles produced or assembled by a major automotive manufacturer, who would not be so eligible, and if such agreement provides for the sharing of profits derived from the sales of the finished product between North American Classics and such manufacturer, as a means of providing North American Classics assurance that projected costs of such manufacturer do not increase beyond North American Classics' ability to survive financially, in such event would North American Classics retain its eligibility status, assuming North American Classics retains control of the functions outlined in paragraph?<<<; We do not believe that a profit-sharing agreement *per se* would affec your eligibility for exemption. Were the foreign company to receive a majority share of the profits or to purchase sufficient stock in your company to give it effective control, however, we would have substantial questions about which party actually exercises primary control.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4731

"Dear Mr. Bose: You wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA asking about requirements for 'diesel fuel burning coolant heaters and air heaters' that you import for installation in trucks, buses and school buses. According to the installation instructions for the heaters, they are connected either to the fuel tank of the vehicle or to a separate fuel tank. The FHWA forwarded us your letter with regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for this standard. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSS's applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.) The Safety Act defines the term 'manufacturer' as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' (102(5), emphasis added.) As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for compliance with the Safety Act and applicable regulations. There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the heating unit you describe. Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) applies only to completed new motor vehicles, and not to components of fuel systems. (The standard applies to trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, and to school buses.) However, Federal law may affect the installation of your product, depending on who installs the heating unit and when the work is performed. If the heating unit were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's. If the heater were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed school bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. These certification requirements apply to the vehicle manufacturer and alterer regardless of whether the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system. Of course, if the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system, the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 should be carefully scrutinized. (I have enclosed a copy of our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) for your information.) If the heater were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not be subject to the certification requirements outlined above. Instead, the installer would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. If the modification of the vehicle entailed connecting the heater to the vehicle's fuel system, compliance with Standard No. 301 would of course be especially germane to whether the modification had rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the heater is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5161

"Dear Mr. Bluthardt: This responds to your letter of March 19, 1993 concerning the use of built-up foot operated throttle controls. Your questions and the answers to each follows. 1. Is there a violation of the FMCSR's in conjunction with the FMVSS concerning the modification of a school bus foot operated throttle control or other equipment modifications that may relate to the physical accommodation of a commercially licensed driver to perform his or her duties behind the wheel? My answer is limited to a discussion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's), since NHTSA issued these under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act). The Federal motor carrier safety regulations (FMCSR's) are issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on the FMCSR's you should contact: Office of Motor Carrier Standards Room 3404 Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-1790 The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). Standard No. 124 'establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control.' The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new, completed school bus) prior to the new vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR 567.7.) If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the 'render inoperative' prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business listed in 108(a)(2)(A) from modifying the foot operated throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the foot operated throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition. Please note that the render inoperative prohibition only applies to the named commercial entities. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. 2. If we can modify the foot operated throttle control to the vehicle (school bus), does the modification require specific registration, certification, or inspection prior to the installation? FOR EXAMPLE: Can the modification be made and installed locally, or should the modification be purchased and installed by a certified commercial vendor ie., manufacturer. NHTSA does not limit who may modify vehicles, and does not approve modifications or motor vehicle designs. Thus, the person making the modification does not receive any NHTSA approval prior to making the modification. If the modification is made by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 108(a)(2)(A) would be a factor in how the modification may be performed. As explained above, those persons must not render inoperative any device or design installed pursuant to an FMVSS. State law might affect how a throttle control can be modified on a vehicle. We suggest you consult with your State as to whether its law might affect the registration or inspection of the modified vehicle. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Office of Motor Carrier Standards";

ID: aiam5649

"Dear Mr. Holmes: This responds to your request for an interpretatio whether, if you manufacture a motorcycle helmet for personal use, and ensure that your helmet meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 Motorcycle helmets, you may certify the helmet. Subject to qualifications explained below, the answer is yes. NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the FMVSSs is Standard No. 218. In 49 U.S.C. section 30115, a self- certification system is established whereby the vehicle or equipment manufacturer is responsible for exercising 'reasonable care' in certifying the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. Section 30115 states: 'A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect.' I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities for manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note the discussion on page two concerning manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, as noted on page two, Part 566 of our regulations requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., motorcycle helmets) to submit identifying information to NHTSA, with a description of the items they produce. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 and of Standard No. 218 for your information. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5342

"Dear Ms. Semo: This responds to your request for NHTSA's determinatio that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determination. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a 'motor vehicle' for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)(15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS. Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to buyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: '... S ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards.' Under the Safety Act, any 'motor vehicle,' whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered 'motor vehicles.' 'Motor vehicle' is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as: A ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated. Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle. Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the trucks be imported by a 'registered importer.' The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A 'registered importer' is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them. The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. for modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR 591.5, the importer would file a declaration under 591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3176

Dear Mr. Schang: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of th warning system requirements for seat belts in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The buckles of driver lap belts in all AMC vehicles and most Jeep vehicles are equipped with switches that prevent the audible belt use warning system from operating when the driver turns the ignition on after having fastened his or her lap belt. You ask whether the standard allows removal of the switch and associated wiring. The effect of this step, which would result in a savings of about $1.50 per vehicle, would be that the warning would operate regardless of whether the driver has fastened his or her lap belt. You also ask that your letter be considered a petition for rulemaking if this removal is not permissible.; Paragraph S7.3 of the standard requires a seat belt warning system tha activates a 4 to 8-second warning light when the vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the 'on' or 'start' position (condition 'a'), and a 4 to 8-second audible signal when condition 'a' exists and the driver's lap belt is not fastened (condition 'b'). Under your proposal, the audible signal would be activated when both conditions exist. However, it would also be activated when condition 'a' alone exists.; The functioning of the audible signal when condition 'a' only exists i not permissible under the standard. The rulemaking notices which led to adoption of the current requirement stated that the agency's intent was that the audible signal operate if the driver's lap belt is not in use. The agency expressed that same intent in the standard by specifying the light to function when condition 'a' existed and the audible signal when both conditions 'a' and 'b' existed. To interpret the standard to permit the signal to operate when condition 'a' only existed would be to render purposeless the specification of condition 'b'.; Further, the agency denies your petition to amend FMVSS 208 to permi operation of the audible signal when condition 'a' only exists. A greater limitation was placed on the operation of the audible warning signal in consideration of the irritation factor associated with the signal but not with the light. To provide a reminder and incentive for safety belt use and to avoid subjecting the conscientious belt user to having to hear an audible reminder to do something that he or she has already done, the agency specified that the signal would not function if the driver's safety belt were fastened.; In light of studies concerning the value of a properly designed bel use warning system in improving the rate of belt use, the agency is contemplating including a proposal to amend the FMVSS 208 warning requirements when it issues its forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking on seat belt comfort and convenience. We would welcome your views on the proposal following its announcement.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4905

"Dear Mr. Trueman: This responds to your recent inquiry abou installing your brake equalizer on new school buses and retrofitting this device on used school buses. A brake equalizer is a valve system that proportions the brake pressure between front and rear brakes. After explaining that California law provides that school bus brake systems may be modified only with the written approval of the school bus chassis manufacturer, you asked whether other states have similar requirements about written authorization. You also asked whether there are any special regulations pertaining to school buses that need to be considered prior to installing or retrofitting your product into school bus air brake systems. I regret that we are unable to provide information concerning state requirements in this area. However, you may be able to obtain the information you desire by contacting individual state directors of pupil transportation. I have enclosed a list of those state officials, as published in School Bus Fleet magazine in January 199l. I can, however, explain Federal requirements that are relevant to installing your product in new and used school buses. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about brake equalizers. However, since this device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses (including school buses), and trailers equipped with air brake systems. If your brake equalizer is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including FMVSS No. 121. (see 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. (49 CFR 567.7) If the device is installed on a used vehicle (i.e., retrofitted) by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) You may wish to review the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which sets forth inspection and maintenance requirements for commercial motor vehicles, including some school buses. (49 CFR Parts 393 and 396.) I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";