ID: nht94-2.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- U.S. DOT, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Ray Paradis (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Per my discussion with Taylor Vinson, I have enclosed an overall side view of Dakota Manufacturing Companies 24 ton ramp trailer.

The question is whether a center side marker light is required. The overall length is 30'8" including the ramp in transport position.

In reviewing competition, I cannot find any center lights being used.

ATTACHMENT

Drawing of Trail-Eze, model D20R24. (Drawing omitted.)

ID: 86-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Bentsen -- U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Senator Bentsen:

Thank You for Your recent letters to Administrator Steed on behalf of your constituent Mr. Joe M. Rutland. I apologize for the delay in our response. Mr. Rutland asked why this agency requires safety warnings be lithographically marked on brake fluid containers. He believes that this requirement causes undue hardship on small businesses that package brake fluid. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Mr. Rutland's concerns and to clarify our requirements for brake fluid container labeling.

Some background information on NHTSA's authority to regulate in this area might be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Vehicle Safety Act") authorizes us to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake fluid. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid (49 CFR 571.116), has been in effect as a motor vehicle safety standard since the passage of the Vehicle Safety Act. In 1971, Standard No. 116 was amended to establish requirements for the labeling of brake fluid containers. The rule required certain safety information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container.

Brake fluid containers must be labeled with specific safety warnings, in addition to other general information. The warnings serve as a safeguard against failures in hydraulic braking systems that might result from the use of improper or contaminated fluids. The warnings also help to prevent improper storage of the brake fluid which could contaminate the fluid or cause it to absorb moisture. Avoiding the absorption of moisture is extremely important since moisture in a brake system degrades braking performance and safety by lowering the brake fluid's boiling point, and increases possibilities of vapor lock and brake system component corrosion.

Thus, packagers of brake fluid have been required since 1971 to furnish the safety information clearly and indelibly on each brake fluid container. In response to a request for an interpretation of Standard No. 116 in 1984, NHTSA ruled that the use of labels affixed to brake fluid containers would not comply with the labeling requirements of the standard. However, Standard No. 116 does not mandate that lithography be used to mark the containers, as Mr. Rutland seems to believe. Any technology, whether lithography or otherwise, may be used if the resultant marking on a brake fluid container is clear and indelible and directly on the container itself.

The agency has recently been made aware of the concern that the 1984 interpretation of Standard No. 116's labeling requirements may be causing undue hardship for packagers of brake fluid. In response to those concerns, we have been examining Standard No. 116 to assess its current labeling requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Dianne Steed, Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

I recently received the enclosed constituent inquiry, and I would very much appreciate your providing me with any pertinent information you might have regarding the matter.

Your kind assistance is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Bentsen

Enclosure

PLEASE REPLY TO:

1100 Commerce, Room 7C14, Dallas, Texas 75242

October 4, 1985

TO: Automotive Chemicals Division Scientific Committee

FROM: Stephen S. Kellner Vice President Legal Affairs

RE: Notice of Meetings

Previously, we notified your office that two meetings are scheduled concerning ethylene glycol antifreeze and brake fluid. The purpose of this correspondence is to reiterate and confirm the substance of our phone conversation.

Both meetings will be held on October 11, 1985 at CSMA headquarters in Washington, D.C. The morning meeting will commence at 10:00 a.m. and will adjourn at noon. The subject matter of this meeting involves Union Carbide's intentions to revise its ethylene glycol antifreeze labels to reflect what it terms as new data which shows ethylene glycol to be an animal teratogen when ingested orally. This meeting is being organized by CSMA at the request of Union Carbide and is meant to serve as a forum for the exchange of information on the matter.

The afternoon meeting is scheduled to start at 1:30 p.m. and is expected to end at approximately 3:30 p.m. CSMA is calling this meeting to bring to the membership's attention recent advisory opinions issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (an arm of the U.S. Department of Transportation) advising industry that labels permanently glued to brake fluid containers do not meet the "clearly and indelibly marked" requirement of 49 CFR S571.116, SS5.2.2.2.

It is NHTSA'S opinion that relevent information must be directly marked on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label, whether paper or of some other material, that is affixed to the container. Obviously, such an interpretation will cause great economic hardship to those companies which package brake fluid under various private labels and, therefore, depend on the use of paper or other labels. At this meeting, we need to address the issue of brake fluid labeling and NHTSA's advisory opinions. In addition, CSMA has tentatively arranged a meeting on October 18, 1985 with NHTSA's legal and technical staff to share our concerns with their interpretation of the brake fluid labeling regulation.

October 29, 1985

Senator Lloyd Bentson 703 Hart Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Lloyd,

Since we consider you a friend of the small business man, I'm enclosing a legal opinion from an attorney of the CSMA in reference t labeling of brake fluid containers. Their interpretation of this law will require that brake fluid containers to be lithographed will have to be purchased in large quantities which cause undue hardship as well as cost on the small business man.

I would like to suggest that your office contact the NHTSA and find out why brake fluid is being singled out for this interpretation, while apparently no such interpretation exists for insecticide, which I would think would be more dangerous than brake fluid.

Your useful help will be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Joe M. Rutland

JMR:lc enc

ID: nht69-2.3

DATE: 05/08/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Kentucky Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 7, 1969, to Mr. Frank Turner, Federal Highway Administrator, concerning your request for a clarification of the requirements of rear lights on Drop Frame Trailers.

In determining compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, requirements for tail, stop, and turn signal lamps on this type of vehicle will be predicated on the normal driving, or closed tailgate, position. These lamps should therefore meet the requirements of the referenced SAE Standards in Table I and be mounted per the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108, a copy of which is enclosed.

Thank you for your interest in meeting the intent of the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: 11552ZTV

M. Guy Dorleans
International Regulatory Affairs Manager
Valeo
34, rue Saint-AndrJ
93012 Bobigny
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

We have received your letter of January 31, 1996, asking for confirmation that certain motor vehicle equipment being manufactured by Valeo is considered a replaceable headlamp lens for purposes of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed drawings to assist us in this interpretation.

The drawings show that the "replaceable lens" as you term it is a bonded assembly of an opaque device and a translucent device. The translucent device seems intended to be placed in front of two unidentified light sources (we assume that at least one of these provides headlighting). The opaque device serves as the spacer to locate the translucent device as just stated. We confirm that this equipment is a "replaceable lens" within the meaning of Standard No. 108 even though it does contain opaque material.

You have stated that the markings required by S7.2(e) (for a replacement headlamp lens with seal are "placed on the upper flange of the opaque part." In this position, it appears that the markings will not be visible when the headlamp is installed. Paragraph S7.2(a) requires that the lens of each replacement equipment headlamp be marked with the symbol "DOT" which constitutes the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable standards. For purposes of complying with S7.2(a), and to reassure the public of the

compliance of the headlamp, we urge that Valeo ensure that the DOT marking is applied to the front of the lens where it will be visible to an observer after it has been installed.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/14/96

ID: nht73-1.9

DATE: 10/29/73

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

TO: T. N. O'Leary, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of October 8, 1973, to the Department of Transportation you ask whether it is true that DOT requires trailer braking systems to have stainless steel conduits rather than copper ones.

Neither the Federal motor vehicle safety standards nor the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety contain such a requirement, and we are unaware of any Federal regulation of this nature.

Yours truly,

October 8, 1973

Office of the General Counsel -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

We have been informed that there is a Department of Transportation regulation to the effect that trailers hauled behind motor vehicles must have stainless steel, as opposed to copper conduits for their gravitational braking systems. As I understand it, the idea behind the gravitational braking system is that when the car puts on its brakes, the trailer naturally exerts forward pressure on the hitch, and this pressure in turn activates the conduits or braking system in such a way that brake fluid flows through the conduit and puts the brakes on the crailer in action.

If there is, in fact, such a regulation, I would appreciate your pointing it out to me. Thank you.

Yours very truly,

PAIN & JULIAN --

Thomas N. O'Leary

P.S. Also, I would appreciate knowing the reasons behind such a regulation and the evidentiary effect, if any, in a Court of Law for such a rule.

ID: 1982-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/82; JANUARY 13, 1982

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pathfinder Auto Lamp Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 25, 1981, letter to Roger Tilton of this Office regarding the applicability of vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements to trailer kits manufactured by your company.

It is our view that these trailer kits must comply with the VIN requirements of FMVSS 115. Your kits contain all components necessary to assemble a complete trailer, and are advertised as capable of being readily assembled with simple tools such as screwdrivers and wrenches. We see no relevant basis for distinguishing between such kits and completed trailers for purposes of determining the applicability of FMVSS 115.

While the VIN requirements do provide anti-theft benefits, they also are important to this agency in administering the defect recall program as well as to State motor vehicle departments and insurance companies. Further, even if this agency exempted trailer kits from VIN requirements, purchasers of your kits would likely face difficulties when they attempt to register their trailers with the States. We expect most states to soon begin checking VIN's as part of the vehicle registration process, and vehicles without a VIN or with a nonconforming identification number might face rejection by the state motor vehicle departments notwithstanding a technical exemption from NHTSA. We feel that in the long run, the best and simplest solution is for vehicle manufacturers to assign a VIN which meets the requirements of FMVSS 115.

Should you still wish to seek an exemption from the standard, procedures for obtaining exemptions are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555, a copy of which is enclosed. Such exemptions are available for not more than three years.

You should also be aware that certification labels must contain both the month and year of a vehicle's manufacture. See 49 CFR 567.5(b)(5). The copy of the label you sent us contains only the year of manufacture.

If you have further questions on this matter, feel free to contact us again.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

Pathfinder Auto Lamp Company

November 25, 1981

Roger Tilton -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: V.I.N. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPACT UTILITY TRAILER KITS

Dear Mr. Tilton:

In accordance with our telephone conversation of November 24, 1981, I have enclosed information on our trailer kit consisting of the following:

- Sales Brochure

- Picture of the Unit

- Copy of the Nameplate Label

- Copy of the M.S.O. (C.O.)

A question has occurred in one state regarding the application of FMVSS 115 (576.115) requirements for Vehicle Identification Numbers (V.I.N.) to these trailer kits. The problem being that to comply with the requirements of 115 would impose a workload on us that cannot be justified based on the unit volume and low selling cost of these units.

We have no problems in working with the various agencies in the several states and meeting their various legal, administrative, taxing, and construction requirements for these units, even though they represent a new or separate category in some cases. However, the 115 requirements present a burden which can cause restricted availability in jurisdictions imposing them. This is unfortunate for consumers in those locales, particularly since these units are a natural adjunct to down size cars with limited trunk space.

While the requirements of 115 are a definite improvement in regard to protecting motor vehicles and other high dollar items from theft, we feel that the requirements are not completely logical for these kits. The reason being that these units are low in dollar value at retail and are not a theft prone item. The latter is true especially prior to assembly since the kit still in the box is not very mobile due to the size and weight of the box. We therefore seek your assistance in resolving this matter since our customers are anxious to sell these units in all states.

I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call me if I may be of further help to you.

Very truly yours,

James S. Nasby -- Director of Engineering

enclosures (4)

COMPACTUTILITY TRAILER 1/2 TON CAPACITY

(Graphics omitted)

STORAGE

Unique design of recessed tail lights permits trailer to be easily stored in an upright position. This exclusive feature saves considerable storage space in garage, shed or basement.

CLAM SHELL

The 48 x 41 trailer frame is designed to accommodate most clam shell car top carriers. The rear cross member of the trailer frame adjusts to fit the various mounting spans of manufactured clam shell carriers.

FLAT BED

A versatile flat bed trailer can be built in minutes by simply bolting on a 48' x 41' plywood board to the trailer frame. Additional mounting holes are provided on all four sides of the frame to accommodate tie down cords.

EASY TO ASSEMBLE

All that is required to assemble the trailer is a screwdriver a (Illegible Word) allen wrench and two adjustable wrenches. The assembly time can be greatly reduced with the use of a 1/4" socket set and several open and wrenches.

(Graphics omitted)

Demountable wheel permits easy tire changing and lubrication. Spare tire available separately CT-1010 (02010)

This beautifully designed consumer oriented package contains self selling features which includes explicit application information and product specifies. The entire unit is packaged in a surprisingly compact box and measures 49 1/2" x 21 1/2" x 5 5/8".

Optional fenders constructed of heavy gauge steel are available as separate item. CT-1020(02020)

BOX

The versatility of the frame is enhanced to its utmost when converting the unit to a box trailer. Complete building plans are provided in the instruction manual which will make this an easy job for the "do it yourselfer."

WINTER USE

The 1,000 lb. load capacity of the trailer gives it a wide assortment of winter season uses ranging from hauling a snowblower to most snowmobiles. This added feature gives truth to the fact that it is truly an item for all four seasons.

MOTORCYCLE

The trailer frame can be easily converted to transport most motorcycles and bicycles. It is ideal for off road dirt bikes as well as family bicycle outings.

GARDEN TRACTOR

In whatever configuration the trailer frame is transformed, it can be used with most garden tractors. The compact utility trailer is at least less than 1/2 the cost of most standard garden tractor trailers and yet has greater universal application.

* Each trailer comes complete with easy to read assembly instructions.

* A certificate of origin, which is required in most states for title and licensing, is included with each trailer.

* The trailer is equipped with DOT approved class "A" lighting which meets legal requirements in all 50 states and Canada.

* Pathfinder's hub and sprindle are fully assembled with bearings and seal factory greased and installed.

Master Master Model IBM Carton Carton Carton No. No. Pack Weight Cube CT-1000 02001 1 125 3.39

MANUFACTURED BY Pathfinder Niles, IL, U.S.A. 60648

Date of Manufacturer: 1980

Model No.: CT 100

Serial No: 2275

GVWR 1100 LBS. WITH 480/400x8 TIRES AT 60 P.S.I. COLD

GAWR 1100 LBS. WITH 480/400x8 TIRES AT 60 P.S.I. COLD

MAXIMUM LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY 1000 LBS.

THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE.

Manufacturer's Statement or Certificate OF ORIGIN TO A UTILITY TRAILER

The undersigned manufacturer hereby certifies that the new Trailer kit described below, the property of said manufacturer has been transferred this day of 19 on Invoice No. to whose address is

Trade Name of Trailer kit: Compact Utility Trailer

Serial No.

Shipping Weight: 123 lbs.

Maximum Load Carrying Capacity: 1,000 lbs.

G.A.R.W.: 1,100 lbs.

Date of Manufacture (and Model Year)

MONTH

YEAR

Series or Model Name: CT1000

No. Wheels: 2

Width: 40 (Illegible Word)

Length: 44"

G.V.W.R.: 1,100 lbs.

Other Data: Steel Construction Black

(Illegible Line)

Said manufacturer hereby certifies that this written instrument constitutes the first conveyance of said vehicle after its manufacture and that the manufacturer's serial number set forth above has not been and will not be used by the manufacturer on any other vehicle manufactured by said manufacturer, and that there are no other manufacturer's certificates issued by the manufacturer for the vehicle described above.

PATHFINDER AUTOLAMP CO. NILES, ILLINOIS 60648

MANUFACTURER

By:

(SIGN NAME TITLE OR POSITION)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-6.28

DATE: 07/18/75

FROM: WALTER C. BURVILLE -- MANAGER UNDERWRITING SURVEY DEPARTMENT CHUBB/PACIFIC INDEMNITY GROUP

TO: ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 121.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8/18/75 FROM FRANK BERNDT OF NHTSA TO WALTER C. BURVILLE -- MANAGER, UNDERWRITING SURVEY DEPARTMENT CHUBB PACIFIC INDEMNITY GROUP; N40-30

TEXT: Gentlemen:

In the hustle of various interpretations following the inactment of 121, I am getting contradicting information. We are insurers of several trailer manufactures in this area. Most of them maintain that actual road tests of complete units is not necessary to conform with Section 55.3.2 "Stopping Capability-Trailers."

In discussing this with NHTSA in Seattle in March, they stated that in their opinion, a company would have to take a typical unit of each variety manufactured and test it under the most adverse conditions according to Section 56 "Conditions", and this means an actual road test.

Would you provide an interpretation on this, if available. Will a road test be necessary and will routine tests or only the initial test be sufficient?

Very truly yours,

ID: nht72-3.36

DATE: 08/23/72

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: Automotive Trade Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1972, to Miss Nancy Brownell concerning the placement of additional seats in a "van" by a dealer.

Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) prohibits, among other things, the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction in interstate commerce of motor vehicles that do not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the day of the vehicle's manufacture. This prohibition applies until after the sale of the vehicle to a purchaser for a purpose other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

This provision prohibits all persons, including dealers, from altering a new vehicle before its sale to a user in such a way that the vehicle no longer conforms to the standards. A person who performs such alterations would be required to ensure that the vehicle conformed to all applicable standards after the alterations have been made. It appears that merely adding seats to a van without making additional alterations would cause it to fail to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection", (49 CFR 571.208), and possibly other standards as well. The failure of the vehicle to conform could result in the imposition of civil penalties against the person making the alteration or selling the vehicle of up to $ 1,000 for each violation (15 U.S.C. 1398), and other sanctions (15 U.S.C. 1399).

You are right in your opinion that the vehicle may be modified without regard to the standards after its first purchase for a purpose other than sale.

ID: 02024.ztv

Michael Shipley, Lieutenant
City of Carlsbad Police Department
2560 Orion Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7280

Dear Lieutenant Shipley:

This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 2002. I regret our delay in responding to your letter which, although properly addressed, did not reach our office until October 28.

You asked for "a waiver from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to allow for the purchase, repair, installation, and use of a feature commonly known as a 'blackout switch.'" The switch would disconnect a vehicles stop lamps and back up lamps. You understand that it is permissible for the Department itself to install the switch, but ask for a waiver on behalf of "a third party installation company."

I enclose a letter from this Office dated April 4, 2002, to Lee M. Calkins. That letter also pertains to the Federal Signals system which you wish to use. In that letter, we pointed out that, under the make inoperative prohibition of 49 U.S.C. 30122, the switch could not be installed by a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business." We did not discuss further the meaning of "motor vehicle repair business," except that the term does not include the owner of a vehicle. Under Section 30122(a), a motor vehicle repair business means "a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." If the "third party installation company" you mentioned is a "motor vehicle repair business" as defined by Section 30122(a), it would be prohibited from installing the blackout switch.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.12/6/02

ID: 8418

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Rd.
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter of March 5, 1993 asking if an exterior handle is required for emergency exit windows under the recent final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (November 2, 1992; 57 FR 49413). As explained below, the answer is no.

The final rule added a new section S5.3.3.2 to Standard No. 217 which reads:

each school bus emergency exit window shall allow manual release of the exit by a single person, from inside the passenger compartment (emphasis added).

Thus, unlike doors and roof exits, a release mechanism is not required on the outside of emergency exit windows.

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

ref:217 d:4/8/93