ID: 1983-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Liberty Square

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. P. T. Miller 90 W. 79th Avenue Liberty Square P.O. Box G Merriville, Indiana 46410

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Department of Commerce has forwarded your letter of September 27, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office, for our reply. You have asked about Federal standards for motorcycle headlamps in connection with your investigation of an accident in Indiana involving a motorcycle reputedly equipped with "a custom light approximately 2 1/2" by 5"...smaller than a stock light." Indiana Law requires that motorcycles be equipped with headlamps meeting Federal standards.

The principal Federal standard on motorcycle headlighting is SAE Standard J584a, incorporated by reference in 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The standards do not list permissible sizes for motorcycle headlamps that are not sealed beam, specifying only that the light emitted comply with requirements at various photometric test points. Thus, the small size of the lamp in question is not indicative that it failed to meet Federal motorcycle requirements.

However, we are not aware that motorcycle headlamps are available in rectangular sizes smaller than those used on passenger cars, i.e.,4" by 6". Perhaps the lamp in question was intended by its manufacturer for use as a driving lamp on passenger cars; its size is consistent with that type of lamp. But without further information I'm afraid we can be of no greater assistance.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Reference # 3-1538

September 27, 1983

P. T. Miller 90 W. 79th Avenue Liberty Square P. 0. Box G Merriville, Indiana 46410

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to your letter about standards for sizes of motorcycle headlights.

I was unable to locate information on Department of Commerce standards in this area. However, Mr. Taylor Vinson of the Chief Counsel's Office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration advised me that Federal transportation laws and standards have been under the jurisdiction of that agency since 1969. He asked me to send him a copy of your letter so that he could investigate your question and answer you directly.

Any further requests on this matter should be sent to:

Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W.

Washington, D. C. 20590 (202) 426-9511

Sincerely,

Christopher Benya Office of Consumer Affairs

cc: Taylor Vinson

September 9, 1983

Department of Commerce 14th St. East St. Northwest Room 5725 Washington D. C. 20230

Attention: Lee Gray Director of Consumer Affairs

RE: Our File No. 8-309072-1 Our Insured: Thomas Daniels Loss of: 8-12-83

Dear Mr. Gray:

I am investigating a serious accident involving an automobile and a motorcycle and the investigating police officer in his report stated that the light on the motorcycle was a custom light approximately 2 1/2" by 5" and was smaller that a stock light.

A check of the Indiana Statute regarding lamps or reflectors on motorcycles states that no motorcycles shall be operated on public streets or highways by a resident of this state that is not equipped with a lamp or reflectors meeting the standards of the US Dept. of Commerce as amended. You will note that they refer to the standards set by the Department of Commerce.

If you could forward to this office a copy of the directive showing the standards of headlights required on motorcycles that the Indiana Law refers to.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

P. T. Miller Asst. Distr. Claim Manager

66 E. SOUTH WATER ST./CHICAGO, IL 60601/(312) 372-1818

ID: 1985-03.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Warren H. Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 11, 1985 Mr. Warren H. Cox Haynesville Correction Unit #17 Haynesville, VA 22472 Dear Mr. Cox: Thank you for your recent letter to Stephen P. Wood of my staff asking about how our regulations would apply to a wooden structure placed in the bed of a dump truck. You explained that the structure is used to carry prisoners to and from work. I hope the following discussion will explain the effect of our regulations. Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Modify a vehicle before it is first sold. In the case of a "dump truck", the vehicle's manufacturer would have to comply with all our safety standards set for trucks. If the truck were altered prior to its first sale by the addition of seats in the cargo area, then the person performing the alterations would have to ensure that the seats complied with our standards. Once a vehicle is sold, the Vehicle Safety Act has no effect on vehicle modifications, unless the modification is made by a commercial business. Commercial businesses, such as dealers and motor vehicle repair shops, are prohibited from tampering with equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. However, in making modifications to a used vehicle, commercial businesses do have to comply with the safety standards that would apply if the modifications are made before the vehicle is first sold. Furthermore, there are no Federal restrictions on the ability of vehicle owners to make modifications of any sort to their own vehicles, even if their modifications interfere with original safety equipment. The agency does, however, urge all vehicle owners to keep their vehicles safe for their intended uses, but we have no authority to compel them to do so. You asked about the application of several of our safety standards to the modified dump trucks. As discussed above, this agency's safety standards apply only to new vehicles and not to used vehicles that have been subsequently modified. As to the specific requirements you mentioned, roll-over tests apply only to new passenger cars (Standard No. 216) and new school buses (Standard No. 220). Likewise, the occupant crash protection requirements of Standard Nos. 201 and 208 and the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 apply only to new vehicles. You also asked if the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has meet all our safety standards or whether they have been given a waiver. Federal safety standard apply only to vehicle manufacturers and not to State governments. Thus, there is no requirement that States adopt our standards. As discussed previously, Federal law permits vehicle owners, including a State government, to make any type of alteration t their vehicles. They must, however, comply with any restrictions on vehicle modification set by State law. Because we have no authority over owner-made vehicle alterations, we suggest you write to your State corrections or transportation officials to express your concerns. I appreciate your interest in contacting this agency and regret that we cannot be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 2, 1995

FROM: Bonnie Ward -- Director of Transportation, Eagle County School District (Colorado)

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/2/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BONNIE WARD (REDBOOK 2; PART 571); ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/28/85 LETTER FROM DIANE K. STEED TO GEORGE L. SIMONTON

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I am preparing a presentation for our district administrators detailing a comparison of the safety standards for over-the-road passenger buses versus school buses. I requested and received the enclosed letter from Charlie Hott, which is very informat ive about school buses, but gives very little information about over-the-road buses.

In a follow up conversation with Mr. Hott, he assures me that these regulations are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches. I would like this statement in writing. Any additional information you have concerning the safety standa rds for over-the-road coaches would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your information and support.

Enclosure (letter)

Ms. Bonnie Ward Eagle County School District P.O. Box 740 Eagle, CO 81631

Dear Ms. Ward:

Thank you for your recent inquiry about the differences in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) between over-the-road type buses and school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for establishing FMVSSs to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes, including those involving school buses and over-the-road type buses.

You stated in your letter dated March 20, 1995, that you wished a comparison between the crashworthiness of over-the-road buses and school buses. However, in a follow up conversation, you stated that a comparison of the FMVSSs would suffice because of t he lack of crash test data in that area.

In 1974 Congress directed NHTSA to establish or upgrade school bus safety standards in eight areas: Emergency Exits; Interior occupant protection; Floor strength, Seating systems; Crashworthiness of the body and frame; Vehicle operating systems; Windshields and windows; and Fuel systems.

As a result of the 1974 amendments to the Highway Safety Act, three new motor vehicle safety standards were established and four existing standards were amended. Standard No. 220, "School bus Rollover Protection" improved the structural resistance of sc hool buses in rollover-type accidents. Standard No. 221, "School bus Body Joint Strength" improved the strength of the joints between panels which make-up the school bus body. Standard No. 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" improv ed the crash protection provided by school buses through a series of interior changes known as "compartmentalization" -- well padded, well anchored, closely spaced high-backed seats that are designed to absorb energy.

Standard No. 105, "Hydraulic Brake Systems" was amended to upgrade the requirements for hydraulic brakes on school buses. Standard No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors" was amended to establish requirements for cross-view mirrors on school buses. Standard No. 21 7, "Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release" was modified to require all school buses to be equipped with either a rear exit door or a side exit door and rear push-out window. Standard No. 301, "Fuel System Integrity" amended fuel system in tegrity requirements for large school buses. All of these requirements were effective for school buses manufactured after April 1, 1977.

Recently, there have been several additional changes to the FMVSSs for school buses. Additional emergency exits were required, depending on the capacity of the school bus. These exits included emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency e xit windows. A standard that required stop signal arms on all school buses was implemented. The mirror standard was amended to require that the driver be able to see the area directly in front of and along both sides of the school bus. These last two standards were implemented to reduce the number of fatalities that occur outside the school bus, typically in the loading zone. School bus pedestrian fatalities account for the highest number of school bus related fatalities each year.

School buses must meet the above mentioned safety standards in addition to the FMVSSs that are applicable to over-the-road type buses.

In the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety, since such transportation involves the Nation's most precious cargo -- children who represen t our future. As a result, NHTSA believes that school buses should be as safe as possible. Under Federal law, dealers are prohibited from selling or leasing buses for use in transporting students to and from school and school-related activities, unless they comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Federal regulations do not prohibit the use of over-the-road buses by schools, but require any bus sold or leased for use as a school bus to meet the safety standards applicable to school buses.

School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Occupant deaths in school buses per vehicle mile traveled are about one-fourth those for passenger automobiles. Every year, approximately 394,0 00 public school buses travel approximately 4.3 billion miles to transport 23.5 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since 1983, on the average, 11 passengers per year have died in school bus crashes. While each of these f atalities is tragic, the numbers of fatalities among school bus occupants are small when compared to those in other types of motor vehicles. For example, in 1993, 3 children between the ages of 5 and 18 died in crashes of school-bus-body type vehicles. During the same year, 5357 children between the ages of 5 and 18 died as passengers or drivers in all other types of motor vehicles. School bus pedestrian fatalities account for the highest number of school bus related fatalities each year. There are about 30 such fatalities per year, about two-thirds of which involve the school bus itself and about one-third of which involve motorists illegally passing the stopped school bus.

I hope that this information is helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Charles Hott, Safety Standards Engineer, at 202-366-0247.

Sincerely,

Leon DeLarm, Chief Pedestrian, Heavy Truck, and Child Crash Protection Division, NHTSA

ID: aiam5610

"Dear Mr. Nelson: Thank you for your letter asking for confirmatio that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends, but does not require, school buses to be yellow. Your understanding is correct. NHTSA's recommendation that school buses be painted yellow is found in Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, 'Pupil Transportation Safety' (copy enclosed). Guideline 17 consists of recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only if it has been adopted by your State or local officials. We wish to note, however, that there are safety reasons behind Guideline 17's recommendation for the uniform school bus color. Motorists associate the yellow color with school buses, and quickly recognize that a yellow bus is transporting school children. The yellow color is a signal to motorists to be especially alert around the vehicles, particularly when the buses are loading and unloading children. For these reasons, NHTSA believes all school buses should be yellow. We also want to highlight for your information that Guideline 17 is different from NHTSA's school bus safety standards, which by Federal law apply to all new school buses, regardless of State action. The school bus safety standards require new school buses to have safety systems such as energy-absorbing seats, school bus lamps, stop arms, and improved emergency exits and rearview mirrors. These requirements apply to all new school buses, no matter what the States have done to adopt them. The safety record of school buses has improved in the years since buses began to meet the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht76-1.17

DATE: 07/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Parker Hannifin Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter concerning the application of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to thermoplastic tubing of 1/8 inch nominal outside diameter that is used in "auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself."

You have pointed out that it is difficult to label tubing of this diameter with letters that are 1/8 inch high, and requested an amendment of the standard to permit the labeling of such brake hoses with letters that are 1/16 inch high.

Because the tubing that you have described is not manufactured for use in the brake system itself, it is not "brake hose" as that term is defined in Standard No. 106-74 and is therefore not subject to any of the standard's requirements. In fact, although the standard does not prohibit the manufacture of air brake hose of 1/8-inch outer diameter, we are unaware at this time of the existence of any hose or tubing of that diameter that meets the definition of "brake hose". Therefore, the conformity or nonconformity of the tubing in question with the performance or labeling requirements of the standard is a matter of private contract between Parker Hannifin Corporation and those truck manufacturers that are requesting conformity.

In consideration of the possibility that 1/8-inch outer diameter tubing may in the future be used in brake systems, however, the NHTSA has decided to grant your petition to reduce to 1/16 inch the minimum required lettering height on brake hoses of such diameter. Accordingly, a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION

M. Schwimmer -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 24, 1976

Subject: CFR 571, STANDARD 106 SECTIONS 5.2.2 and 7.2 "MARKING"

Gentlemen:

As presently constituted, FMVSS 106 requires that the Department of Transportation marking shall be a minimum of 1/8" high. Note specifically Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.2 (a), 5.2.2 (b), 5.2.2 (c), 5.2.2 (d), and 7.2 We have determined that legible marking of this height cannot be printed efficiently by existing production equipment upon thermoplastic tubing of 1/8" nominal outside diameter. This height of letter would cover a total span of 114.5 degrees if in perfect alignment. Even with a grooved marking wheel, we have established that 60 degrees is the practical upper limit for the lettering height to span. Beyond this span, the skewed movement between type and its own printing at the top and bottom of each letter causes perceptible smudging, so that the printing actually becomes less readable instead of more so.

Major usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter thermoplastic tubing on highway trucks seems to be in auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself. Nevertheless, the truck manufacturers have required that this size conform to FMVSS 106 for safety reasons. If a complete failure of these lines should occur, they reason that the volume of compressed air supply momentarily lost could create a significant adverse effect upon the brake system. Not holding this size to the same requirements as all others would thus be inconsistent with the stated purpose of FMVSS 106:

"To reduce deaths and injuries occurring as a result of brake system failure from pressure . . . lost due to hose or hose assembly rupture."

We wish to make the following two alternative petitions in this regard:

1. We petition that the minimum lettering height of required marking on 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing be changed from 1/8" to 1/16".

2. In the event that it is determined that the usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing lies beyond the scope of FMVSS 106, we petition for a clear directive which excludes this size from the standard and requires that it must not bear the marking called out in the sections of the standard which are referenced above.

Very truly yours,

W. E. Currie -- Chief Engineer

cc: W. Hertel; C. Foote; T. Landy

ID: 77-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 23, 1977, request for an interpretation of paragraph S10.1 of Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, which specifies that motorcycle mirrors shall be adjustable "by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions." Your letter describes a newly designed motorcycle mirror used on Honda's and asks whether the mirror meets the adjustment requirement of paragraph S10.1 of the standard.

According to your description the mirror is adjusted horizontally by loosening a locknut, positioning the mounting bracket and retightening the locknut. Vertical adjustment is accomplished by rotating the mounting bracket of the mirror (the rotation is at an angle of 35 degrees to the vertical plane).

Standard No. 111 requires passenger car mirrors and motorcycle mirrors to be adjustable "by tilting". The agency interprets this adjustment requirement to mean that the mirror must be adjustable by the driver without the use of tools (for example, a mirror mounted on a universal ball joint). The adjustment requirement for mirrors on trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses only specifies that those mirrors be "adjustable in both the horizontal and vertical directions"; there is no requirement that they be adjustable by "tilting". Therefore, mirror adjustment that requires the use of tools is permitted on trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses. The basis for the different adjustment requirement is that trucks, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, and buses are generally driven for longer periods of time by the same driver, than passenger cars and motorcycles.

Since the motorcycle mirror you describe is not adjustable by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions without loosening and retightening the locknuts, it does not appear that the mirror would comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

February 23, 1977

Chief Council -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation regarding the compliance of a new design for a motorcycle rear-view mirror with the requirements of section S10.1 of FMVSS 111 which becomes effective on February 26, 1977.

Section S10.1 states in part, "The mirror shall be adjustable by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions."

The mirror in question is presently used on our model XL100. I am enclosing a brochure which shows the mirror installed on the machine as well as an engineering drawing of the design.

As you will see, the mounting bracket is threaded into the brake or clutch lever mounting and projects outward at an angle of approximately 35 degrees from the horizontal. The mirror holder slips over the end of the bracket and two screws are tightened sufficiently to hold the mirror in place while still allowing it to be adjusted by rotating around the bracket.

The mirror is able to be adjusted horizontally by loosening the locknut, positioning the mounting bracket and retightening the locknut. Vertical adjustment is performed as described above although the mirror does not rotate exactly in the vertical plane but at an angle of approximately 35 degrees to the vertical.

Your earliest response in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or comments please contact me by telephone at (213) 327-8280 extension 372.

Yours truly,

Brian Gill -- Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities

Enclosure

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht93-4.50

DATE: June 28, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-26-93 from Steven Henderson to Howard Smolkin (OCC 8732).

TEXT: This responds to your petition of May 26, 1993, to the Acting Administrator for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to permit use of your motorcycle "horn-activated headlight/signallight flasher system." As you have described it, pushing the horn button "causes the headlight and signal lights to flash 10 times per second." This matter has been the subject of previous correspondence by this Office, specifically letters to you from Chief Counsel Rice dated June 29, 1992, and August 28, 1992.

As Mr. Rice informed you in his first letter, the operation of your device conflicted with several paragraphs of Standard No. 108. First, the flash rate of 10 cycles per second exceeded the maximum of 280 cycles per minute that is allowed under S5.6.1(a) for modulation of motorcycle headlamps. Second, the taillamps would no longer be steady-burning as required by S5.5.10 (d). Further, it appeared that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

You responded on August 11, 1992, that it was improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus, in your view, our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon that section, were misplaced. In his reply of August 28, 1992, Mr. Rice assumed for the sake of argument that your device was not part of a headlamp modulating system subject to S5.6. However, he pointed out that S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits installation of equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, and that the applicability of that paragraph did not affect his previous comments regarding the noncompliances of the flashing taillamps and the turn signal flash rate. He also commented that the device's flash rate of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz, as well as having another undesirable consequence, the triggering of a photic reaction in an observer.

The cover letter to your petition of May 26, 1993, states that the taillamps will now be steady burning. Further, the system has been redesigned so that the turn signal has priority, "so that if the horn button is pressed while a turn is being signalled, the turn signal continues to flash at 2 hz and only the headlamp flickers at the 10 hz rate." Your letter also contains data and arguments indicating that our concern about photic reaction to a 10 hz rate is misplaced. In our view, these modifications and comments have adequately addressed our previous concerns about your system, and no rulemaking is required for its manufacture and sale. For this reason, we see no need for further agency action upon your petition. However, the amendments you have asked for differ in some respects from the redesigned system you have described

(e.g., that both the turn signals and the headlamp be permitted to flash at 10 hz). If you wish to go forward with the redesigned system without an amendment to Standard No. 108, we ask that you withdraw your petition. On the other hand, if you wish us to go forward with consideration of your petition, please inform us.

Your most recent letter raised one further question with regard to S5.1.3, that is, whether the operation of the headlamp at 10 hz impairs the effectiveness of a turn signal operated at 2 hz. We have noted that S5.6 permits simultaneous operation of a turn signal and a headlamp modulating in the range of 6 hz, and have concluded that the difference in flash rate ought not to impair the turn signal function.

Finally, we would like to advise you that usage of the system in the United States is governed by the laws of any State in which the system is operated, and not by any Federal regulation. We are unable to advise you as to the permissibility of use of your system under State laws, and suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

ID: 77-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEMA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking about the applicability of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, to aftermarket rims.

Your first assumption that vans and light truck models are classified as vehicles other than passenger cars is correct. Accordingly, rims manufactured for use on these vehicles must comply with the requirements of the standard. Where the rims may be used in the aftermarket either on passenger cars or vehicles other than passenger cars, they must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120.

On a related matter concerning the aftermarket, you question whether Standard No. 120 has applicability to rims sold for use on used vehicles. Section S3 of the standard states that the requirements apply to motor vehicles other than passenger cars and to rims for use on those vehicles. This indicates that the standard is both a motor vehicle and an equipment standard. Since it is an equipment standard, the requirements apply to all rims manufactured for use on the specified vehicles regardless of whether the rim will be original equipment or sold in the aftermarket.

SINCERELY,

March 24, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Since I have not heard from you in the past few days, I will assume that the enclosed report from the "Consumer Product Safety Guide" is completely fallacious. As I mentioned during our phone conversation, our association is attempting to provide the aftermarket wheel manufacturers in our membership with timely information concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 120, rim marking requirements, and I do have several questions that pertain to the standard.

We have made the assumption that the van and light truck models in the domestic fleet fall under the category of vehicles other than passenger cars, and would like to know if our assumption is correct. Also, in the February 7, 1977 Federal Register, Page 7142, the discussion of rim marking requirements states that "these marking requirements have no bearing on the use of the rim on passenger cars, except as future labeling requirements in Standard No. 110 might prohibit one or more of the items required by S5.2. This eventuality is considered to be extremely unlikely." We find that the most common bolt circle patterns for wheels are common to both passenger cars and light trucks and vans, and the aftermarket generally does not market separate wheels for trucks and passenger cars. We would like to know if the statement quoted above means that a wheel that has a common application for light trucks and passenger cars can, or must, have the rim markings required by FMVSS 120 by August 1, 1977.

We have also noted that the standard is promulgated to fulfill Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which pertains to equipment requirements for new vehicles or vehicles before the first purchase thereof. We, therefore, request a legal opinion on whether the FMVSS 120 can be construed to apply to a true aftermarket wheel which is purchased by the vehicle owner, usually some time after the first purchase.

This may be a moot point, for in fact, the aftermarket manufacturers market the same wheel models for light truck applications, passenger car applications, new vehicle applications (dealership changeover), and aftermarket. But a legal opinion on the questions that I have raised would be most helpful at this time.

Your assistance would be very much appreciated, and I trust that if you have any questions on this matter, you won't hesitate to call on me.

Paul J. Ryan Staff Engineer

Consumer Product Safety Guide

Rim Requirement Repeated, Mobile Homes De-regulated by NHTSA

A requirement that wheel rims of motor vehicles other than passenger cars be labeled as to their normal dimensions manufacturer, and date of manufacture has been withdrawn by the National Highway Safety Administration. The requirement had been previously issued with a delayed effective date. The NHTSA stated that the (Illegible Word) of the requirement had not interfered with certification and defect actions, and because enforcement might lead to economic waste, the agency has decided it is unnecessary. In responding

ID: aiam1283

Dear Mr. Love: This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1973, concernin Standard No. 218, 'Motorcycle Helmets.' The questions you ask are restated below.; >>>1. 'Is the attachment of the symbol DOT sufficient in itself t certify that the helmet meets the requirements of this act or must the manufacturer have independent supporting data available?'; The DOT symbol, when attached to the helmet, is the manufacturer' certification of the helmet's conformity with the requirements of the standard. Accordingly, because the manufacturer is required to exercise due care that such certification is accurate and true in every material respect, he would have the data necessary to support his certification.; 2. 'Is any form of certification filing required by your Department? I so, is the manufacturer's statement alone sufficient or must independent test data be included?'; No certification filing is required by the Department. 3. 'Will your Department undertake or supervise the independent testin of helmets to verify compliance with the Act? If so, will there be a limit on the age of the helmet used? Will manufacturers be asked to supply the helmet for testing or will your Department secure them from other sources and if so, what sources? Will the regulations apply to helmets manufactured prior to March 1, 1974, but yet unsold as of or after the date?'; 4. 'Will manufacturers, distributors, or dealers holding inventorie which do not meet the requirements of the Act because they were made prior to March 1, 1974, be permitted to sell them, be required to dispose of them, be subject to penalty if they do sell them or exactly what?'; Once any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard becomes effective violations of such regulations are federally enforced. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will purchase motorcycle helmets after the helmet standard becomes effective and test them for compliance. The standard will apply only to helmets manufactured on or after its effective date, it will not apply to helmets manufactured before its effective date but sold to the public after that date.; 5. 'Will pressure sensitive labels applied to the exterior of th helmet meet regulations of S5.6.1, 1 through 6?'; The standard requires that the labeling be 'permanently' affixed to th helmet. This language prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals, or that are in a location where it appears that their removal is expected by the manufacturer.; 6. 'What are the penalties for failure to comply and upon wha determination will the manufacturer be deemed to not be in compliance with the Act?'(sic) What form of notice will be given, what procedures shall take place and what burden of proof will be placed upon the manufacturer?'; Under section 109(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, whoever violates any provision of section 108, or any regulation issued under the Act, including selling nonconforming equipment, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation to a maximum of not more than $400,000 for any related series of such violations.<<<; If the NHTSA determines that a case of noncompliance does exist, the the manufacturer is asked by notice letter to show cause (1) why a civil penalty should not be imposed against him and (2) why he should not correct the noncompliance. Most noncompliance matters are settled at this informal stage. However, if the parties do not agree to a compromise settlement, a formal proceeding under section 113(e) of the Act will be commenced. The manufacturer will be furnished all of the evidence upon which the agency's determination of noncompliance is based. At the 113(e) proceeding the manufacturer will be allowed to present his views regarding the agency's position. The entire record, including the agency's investigation file and the submission of the manufacturer will be forwarded to the agency Administrator for final determinitation (sic). If the Administrator determines that the noncompliance exists, he will direct the manufacturer to issue the defect notifications as required by section 113 and 49 CFR Part 577, and to file a defect report as required by 49 CFR Part 573. In addition, the manufacturer will be directed to pay an appropriate civil penalty.; A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 i enclosed for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1281

Dear Mr. Love: This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1973, concernin Standard No. 218, 'Motorcycle Helmets.' The questions you ask are restated below.; >>>1. 'Is the attachment of the symbol DOT sufficient in itself t certify that the helmet meets the requirements of this act or must the manufacturer have independent supporting data available?'; The DOT symbol, when attached to the helmet, is the manufacturer' certification of the helmet's conformity with the requirements of the standard. Accordingly, because the manufacturer is required to exercise due care that such certification is accurate and true in every material respect, he would have the data necessary to support his certification.; 2. 'Is any form of certification filing required by your Department? I so, is the manufacturer's statement alone sufficient or must independent test data be included?'; No certification filing is required by the Department. 3. 'Will your Department undertake or supervise the independent testin of helmets to verify compliance with the Act? If so, will there be a limit on the age of the helmet used? Will manufacturers be asked to supply the helmet for testing or will your Department secure them from other sources and if so, what sources? Will the regulations apply to helmets manufactured prior to March 1, 1974, but yet unsold as of or after the date?'; 4. 'Will manufacturers, distributors, or dealers holding inventorie which do not meet the requirements of the Act because they were made prior to March 1, 1974, be permitted to sell them, be required to dispose of them, be subject to penalty if they do sell them or exactly what?'; Once any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard becomes effective violations of such regulations are federally enforced. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will purchase motorcycle helmets after the helmet standard becomes effective and test them for compliance. The standard will apply only to helmets manufactured on or after its effective date, it will not apply to helmets manufactured before its effective date but sold to the public after that date.; 5. 'Will pressure sensitive labels applied to the exterior of th helmet meet regulations of S5.6.1, 1 through 6?'; The standard requires that the labeling be 'permanently' affixed to th helmet. This language prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals, or that are in a location where it appears that their removal is expected by the manufacturer.; 6. 'What are the penalties for failure to comply and upon wha determination will the manufacturer be deemed to not be in compliance with the Act?'(sic) What form of notice will be given, what procedures shall take place and what burden of proof will be placed upon the manufacturer?'; Under section 109(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, whoever violates any provision of section 108, or any regulation issued under the Act, including selling nonconforming equipment, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation to a maximum of not more than $400,000 for any related series of such violations.<<<; If the NHTSA determines that a case of noncompliance does exist, the the manufacturer is asked by notice letter to show cause (1) why a civil penalty should not be imposed against him and (2) why he should not correct the noncompliance. Most noncompliance matters are settled at this informal stage. However, if the parties do not agree to a compromise settlement, a formal proceeding under section 113(e) of the Act will be commenced. The manufacturer will be furnished all of the evidence upon which the agency's determination of noncompliance is based. At the 113(e) proceeding the manufacturer will be allowed to present his views regarding the agency's position. The entire record, including the agency's investigation file and the submission of the manufacturer will be forwarded to the agency Administrator for final determinitation (sic). If the Administrator determines that the noncompliance exists, he will direct the manufacturer to issue the defect notifications as required by section 113 and 49 CFR Part 577, and to file a defect report as required by 49 CFR Part 573. In addition, the manufacturer will be directed to pay an appropriate civil penalty.; A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 i enclosed for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel