ID: 19948.ztv

Mr. Ron Dawson
4224 Quince Road
Portsmouth, VA 23703

Dear Mr. Dawson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: 19951

Ms. Sharon Elsenbeck
Director of Support Services
Three Springs of North Carolina
P.O. Box 1370
Pittsboro, NC 27312

Dear Ms. Elsenbeck:

This responds to your April 28, 1999, letter that asks whether your residential treatment facility for "adolescents with emotional and behavioral problems" must transport its students by buses that meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus safety standards. You state that your residents attend an on-campus, non-public, school.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

Our statute thus regulates primarily manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. Any person selling a new school bus must sell a vehicle that is certified as meeting our school bus standards. Conventional buses (including 15-person vans) are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold, as new vehicles, under circumstances where they are likely to be used to carry students on a regular basis.

You did not describe the program of Three Springs, so we are unable to determine whether your facility is a "school" under our statute. For your information, I am enclosing an April 8, 1998, letter to Mr. Gary Hammontree, director of a residential treatment program called Starr Commonwealth. The main purpose of Starr Commonwealth was to provide psychological and therapeutic counseling to youths placed in the program by the juvenile justice system. In our letter to Mr. Hammontree, we determined that Starr Commonwealth provided services that are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school," and that Starr Commonwealth was therefore not a school. Accordingly, we concluded that persons selling a new bus to the facility to transport the youths to counseling-related activities, such as service projects in the community, are not required to sell a "school bus." On the other hand, Starr Commonwealth also transported some students to off-campus public schools and events related to the schools. We therefore also determined that new buses sold to regularly transport students to those schools or to school-related events are "school buses" and would have to meet Federal school bus standards.

As to whether you must use school buses, that question is answered by State law. Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit facilities from using non-school buses to transport their pupils.  Matters relating to motor vehicle use are determined by state law, so you should check North Carolina law to see what State requirements apply to your vehicles. For information on North Carolina's requirements, you can contact North Carolina's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Mr. Derek Graham, Section Chief
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 N. Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 715-1950

In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3

ID: 19975-1.pja

Major P.D. McClellan
Commander
Office of Licensing and Commercial Standards
Ohio State Highway Patrol
1970 W. Broad Street
P.O. Box 182074
Columbus, OH 43218-2074

Dear Major McClellan:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether Ohio's school bus construction standard is in conflict with our standard as to the location of side window emergency exits. Based on our understanding of your standard, our answer is no.

You explain that your standard requires school buses with a seating capacity greater than 50 to have "two emergency swing out windows on the right and left side of the body" located in the front and rear third of the bus. Thomas Built Buses has told you that they have an interpretation letter from us stating that Standard No. 217 requires a window exit at the midpoint of the bus no matter how many exits are on each side of the bus. (Although you did not identify the letter, we believe you are referring to our August 4, 1995, letter to Ms. Jane L. Dawson of Thomas Built Buses.) You ask whether your standard may require the swing out windows in the front and rear third of the bus.

S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with certain numbers and types of emergency exits, at specified locations. At the school bus manufacturer's option, a school bus may either have:

(1) one rear emergency door and the additional exits described in Table 1 of the standard (S5.2.3.1(a)); or

(2) one emergency door on the vehicle's left side, a push-out rear window, and the additional exits described in the standard's Table 2 (S5.2.3.1(b)).

According to your letter, your school buses have a push-out rear window installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b). We gather from this that the two additional windows to which you refer are those described in Table 2, which permits manufacturers the option of installing the two window exits in lieu of a right side exit door. Our August 4, 1995, letter states that Standard No.217 does not specify a fore-aft location for a right side exit door or for window exits installed in lieu of a right side exit door. The letter states that these exit windows should be positioned fore-and-aft in the school bus so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable. We believe that your requirement that the two exit windows be placed on each side of the bus and in the front and rear thirds of the bus provides for appropriate accessibility. On this point, our standards are consistent.

However, there are some potential differences between our standards that we would like to highlight.

• According to your letter, your standard requires all type B-D school buses, regardless of seating capacity, to have at least two window exits. S5.2.3.1 of our standard allows buses seating less than 46 persons to have only a single rear exit door, or a left side exit door and a rear exit window, with no other exit windows.
• For buses with seating capacities between 46 and 49, your standard requires two side exit windows located at the midpoint. S5.2.3.1(a) of our standard allows an option of either two side exit windows or a left side exit door located as near as practicable to the mid-point of the passenger compartment (see Table 1 and S5.2.3.2(a)). Because a side exit window and a side exit door cannot occupy the same location, under your standard the side exit door option is essentially no longer available.
• For buses with seating capacities of 50 to 62, your standard requires four side emergency window exits, while S5.2.3.1, Tables 1 and 2 of our standard require only two.

Section 30103(b) of our statute, at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., states:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However,  . . . a State . . . may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by [the Federal standard].

To the extent that the Ohio requirements are different from those in Standard No. 217, their application to private school buses would be preempted. With respect to buses procured for the state's own use (including use by local school districts), the state standard is not preempted. The state standard results in no apparent reduction in the number of emergency exits and the locations appear to be reasonable and practicable.

If you have any further questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217# 205
d.5/30/00

ID: 19994.ztv

Mr. F. Barry Hennegan
General Counsel
Atlas and Reusable Launch Systems
Lockheed Martin
P.O. Box 179
Denver CO 80201-0179

Re: SS-99-10099

Dear Mr. Hennegan:

This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1999, to the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "regarding possible exemptions from certain of the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Sections 571.121 and 393.52" with respect to two trailers owned by Lockheed Martin.

The Office of Motor Carrier Safety, Department of Transportation, enforces 49 CFR 393.52. I am forwarding a copy of your letter to that Office for its response to you on this issue.

In brief, Lockheed Martin is the owner of two trailers manufactured for it by Martinez and Turek of Riato, California. These trailers were manufactured to your specifications, which included compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. The trailers also feature steerable rear wheels mounted on a removable bogie assembly. You inform us that "after completion of acceptance and road testing of both trailers, it appears that neither will fully meet Section 571.121, Paragraphs S5.3.3 Brake actuation Time and S5.3.4 Brake Release time."

However, you note that S3(a) of Standard No. 121 excludes trailers which exceed 102.36 inches in width and which are "equipped with two short track axles in a line across the width of the trailer." Your trailers are wider than this but don't meet the axle specification. Nevertheless, you believe that the intent of this exception is "not to have the requirements apply to oversize, slow, or specialty trailers such as ours." Accordingly, you ask that we exempt your trailers from S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121.

I am sorry to inform you that we have no authority to exempt these trailers from Standard No. 121 under the circumstances that you relate. Because they are not equipped with two short track axles across their width, the trailers do not qualify for the exclusion from Standard No. 121 provided by S3(a). The trailers, then, were required by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to be certified by their manufacturer as conforming to those standards.

We have authority to exempt trailers from Standard No. 121 at any point up to and including their first sale for purposes other than resale, upon application by their manufacturer (49 U.S.C. 30113). Given the fact that these trailers are already owned by Lockheed Martin, it is too late for their manufacturer, Martinez and Turek, to apply for an exemption.

When either we determine, or a manufacturer determines, that a motor vehicle fails to comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the manufacturer is required to notify us and its dealers and purchasers, and to remedy the noncompliance (49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, as implemented by 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577). However, if the manufacturer believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, it may petition us for a decision to that effect. If we grant the petition, the manufacturer is relieved of its statutory obligation to notify and remedy (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), as implemented by 49 CFR Part 556).

Therefore, if the manufacturer, Martinez and Turek, agrees that Lockheed Martin's trailers fail to comply with S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, the company is required, at a minimum, to notify us in the manner prescribed in 49 CFR Part 573. Within 30 days of notifying us, it may also submit an inconsequentiality petition with us under 49 CFR Part 556. In this particular instance, the manufacturer might want to discuss, as part of such a petition, whether this vehicle is operated only under special permit and with escort vehicles. If it does not file a petition (or if the petition is denied), it is required to remedy the noncompliance.

Although you did not address the issue, under our interpretations, the removable bogie assembly appears to be a trailer, and subject to compliance with Federal requirements. You state that the auxiliary axle was added after delivery of the trailers to ensure that the vehicles, when in use, would not exceed the maximum Colorado allowable rear wheel road loading for tandem axle trailers. A bogie/axle unit installed as part of a trailer's original equipment is considered to be part of the trailer itself, and covered by its manufacturer's certification and the trailer's VIN. However, a bogie/axle unit sold and installed after the trailer has been delivered to its owner is considered a trailer, and is required to comply with Federal requirements applicable to trailers, including compliance with Federal standards, the VIN regulation, and certification by the bogie/axle manufacturer. I am enclosing a copy of a letter we furnished Jay Reese on September 25, 1996, which explains this in further detail. If the bogie/axle units installed on your two trailers do not in fact comply with Federal standards applicable to trailers, the bogie manufacturer is subject to the same notification, recall, and inconsequentiality procedures discussed in the preceding paragraph.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

cc: Martinez & Turek
Riato, CA

ref:121#573#555
d.11/9/99

ID: 20014.ztv

Mr. Joel Sacher
Director of Product Development
Italjet U.S.A.
302 Spring Street
New York NY 10013

Dear Mr. Sacher:

We have received your letter of May 11, 1999, asking for a temporary exemption for "a small number of Italjet scooters" from one requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays.

I am sorry to inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements, and we request that you revise and resubmit it in accordance with the following comments. Our regulation, 49 CFR 555.5(b)(3), requires that a petition

state the full name and address of the applicant,

the nature of its organization (individual, partnership, corporation, etc.) and the name of the State or country under the laws of which it is organized.

Italjet U.S.A. appears to be petitioning on behalf of Italjet S.p.A. If our assumption is correct, please provide the identifying information for Italjet S.p.A. that the regulation requires. If Italjet U.S.A. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Italjet S.p.A., we ask that you confirm this as well. If Italjet U.S.A. is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Italjet S.p.A., we would like to have a copy of the authorization from Italjet S.p.A. to you to petition on its behalf.

In order that any possible exemption be limited in scope, please inform us of the model name or number of the vehicle for which you are requesting exemption.

Finally, we call your attention to 49 CFR 555.5(b)(2) which requires that temporary exemption petitions be filed in three copies; we received only one copy.

When we have this information, we shall be pleased to consider your request.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:555
d.6/3/99

ID: 20032.drn

Mr. Kevin Nugent
Fleet Sales Manager
Liberty Chevrolet
90 Bay State Road
Wakefield, MA 01880

Dear Mr. Nugent:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether you may lease a new1999 Chevrolet 12-Passenger Express Van (Model CG1406) to a local school district, when you have a letter indicating that the "primary purpose" of the van would be for "adult education students." Under the available facts, the answer is no. If you decide to sell or lease a new bus to the school district, you must sell or lease only a bus that meets the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus standards.

By way of background, NHTSA has the authority, under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (Chapter 301 or the Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale or lease of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all "school buses." The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date.

The Act at 49 U.S.C.30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses - vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 12-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If a new large (11 persons or more capacity) van were sold or leased to a school district and used on a regular or long-term basis to transport students, the vehicle must meet NHTSA's school bus standards. However, a one-time or very occasional rental would be permitted, on the grounds that the vehicle would not be used significantly to transport children to and from school and thus would not be a school bus.

You enclose a letter from Mr. David W. Pottle, Adult Education Co-ordinator of the Southern Berkshire Regional School District (in Sheffield, Massachusetts) that states that the "primary purpose" for the 12-passenger van lease would be for "transportation of adult education students." Although the primary purpose of the bus may be for adult education, the letter implies that the bus would have a substantial collateral use. The statement that the "primary purpose" is for the transportation of adult education students is not sufficient. For example, if the vehicle were used 51 percent of the time to transport adults and 49 percent of the time to transport students, it would still be a school bus required to meet our school bus safety standards.

For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.11/16/99

ID: 20040a.nhf

Ms. Heidi Lynn Wood
8448 Grimm Lane
Cato, WI 54230

Dear Ms. Wood:

This responds to your letter requesting permission to replace the original steering wheel and column in a 1998 or 1999 Dodge Caravan with a smaller steering column and reduced diameter steering wheel. I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you need the new steering wheel and column to accommodate your condition, osteogenesis imperfecta. You enclosed a letter from your doctor and an evaluation from a certified driver rehabilitation specialist who recommended replacing the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) steering wheel and column with a reduced diameter steering wheel to accommodate your limited range of motion.

This letter provides the relief you seek. We will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before the products can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the original steering wheel and column and replacing them with a smaller wheel and column could affect compliance with seven standards: Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems, Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, Standard No. 207, Seating systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. For example, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. However, as noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, the person performing the modifications should consult with the vehicle manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed.

We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. We encourage you to always use the vehicle's safety belts or other belt-type restraint appropriate for your disability. Finally, if you sell the vehicle, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified, and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested to know that the agency is working on a rulemaking to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard No. 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this rulemaking would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities.

You should show this letter to the dealer or repair business when you take your vehicle in to be modified. If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA
d.10/14/99

ID: 20053customhose.df

Ms. Terri Archibald
Custom Hose & Supplies, Inc.
805 66^th Avenue, SW
Cedar Rapids, IA 52404

Dear Ms. Archibald:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask about the labeling requirements for air brake hose assemblies made with end fittings that are attached by crimping.

The requirements for labeling such assemblies are set forth in Standard No. 106 as follows:

S7.2.3 Assemblies. Each air brake hose assembly made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly as specified in this paragraph, or at the option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in S7.2.3.1. The band may at the manufacturer's option be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall be etched, embossed, or stamped in block capital letters, numerals or symbols at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the following information:

1. The symbol DOT, constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.
2. A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with [the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)]. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.

S7.2.3.1 At least one end fitting of an air brake hose assembly made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging shall be etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b).

You first ask whether you are required to label the assembly at all, or whether you may "[l]et the markings that Weatherhead already has printed on their hose suffice." The answer is you must label the assembly. S7.2.3 requires each air brake hose assembly made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, to be labeled by means of a band or by marking an end fitting. In reference to a concern you raise, you are not required to mark an end fitting if you choose to label your assemblies using a band that meets S7.2.3.

You next ask whether a "permanent label" that you have sent us will meet the option in S7.2.3 that allows you to label your assembly by means of a band. You also provide product literature from Weatherhead, the manufacturer of the label, which describes the labels as -

self adhesive Mylar strips, 1" wide by 3-3/4" long, with a 1" X 1" white area on one end for printed information. . . . Procedure for applying the labels is simple:

1. Print the appropriate information on the label.
2. Wrap the tag around the hose assembly...printed end first.
3. Cover the printed end with the clear mylar tail of the label.
4. The clear tail will protect the printed area from the elements, even paint.

Our answer is the Mylar label would be permitted, subject to the following comments. We have long (since 1974) interpreted a band as a label which encircles the hose completely, and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it can not be easily removed. The label you are considering will encircle the hose completely and attach to itself. Our understanding of Mylar is that it is a durable material and not easily removable. When the markings on the label are covered with the clear Mylar tail of the label, as instructed by the label manufacturer, Weatherhead, the markings will not be easily removed or altered. In response to a concern you raise, S7.2.3 does not require the label to move freely, but simply permits one to so move as long as it is retained by the end fittings. For these reasons, we conclude that the Mylar label could be used to meet the labeling requirements for air brake hose assemblies, assuming that the marking is covered by the clear Mylar covering.

However, the particular sample you provided is not entirely satisfactory. S7.2.3 requires that "the band shall be etched, embossed, or stamped" with the symbol DOT and the manufacturer's designation. Writing the information by hand would not meet this requirement. The requirement is to improve the permanency of the information and its clarity. This is important because the designation assists NHTSA and hose users in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products. Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the option available to you would be to stamp the Mylar label with the required information. Further, the designation must also appear on the label as it appears on file at NHTSA. If a designation on file is printed, handwriting it on the brake hose assembly label could lead to confusion. Lastly, you need to include the DOT symbol on your label. In response to a concern you raised, you do not need to include the date of manufacture of the assembly.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:106
d.11/5/99

ID: 20061.ztv

Mr. Mark Cronmiller
Project Engineer
VDO North America LLC
2669 Bond Street
Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Dear Mr. Cronmiller:

This is in reply to your email of May 14, 1999, with respect to "smart" headlight systems.

You report that these systems adjust headlamp aim vertically and/or horizontally according to driving conditions (e.g., vertically for oncoming traffic, horizontally around curves in the road). You ask whether there are any regulation interpretations relating to these systems, and whether we have plans to regulate or require these types of systems.

We have not issued any interpretations on these new "smart" headlamp systems. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, prescribes headlamp aiming hardware requirements under static conditions only (paragraph S7.8). Once a headlamp is installed on a vehicle, its aim is fixed, but may be adjustable by mechanical means when the vehicle is at rest. A limited ability to adjust vertical aim on some vehicles is also provided by vehicle leveling devices. Our standard does not require that headlamps be aimed at the time the vehicle is manufactured and certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If there is a requirement for correct headlamp aim on new vehicles, it would be that of a State's motor vehicle authority at the time the vehicle is first registered for highway use in that State.

If a "smart" headlamp system meets the static aiming hardware requirements of Standard No. 108, a dynamic aiming feature is permissible. We have no specific plans to regulate or require headlamps with dynamic aim features, but we are monitoring them to form an impression as to their suitability for use under American driving conditions, and to learn if there are any problems of maintenance of aiming integrity, or durability, involved in their use. At a minimum, we would be concerned about the need for fail-safe performance to assure that aim would return to nominally correct, straight ahead in the event of a failure.

Because each State is likely to impose aim-location requirements on new motor vehicles and these requirements may differ from State to State, we note that you may have difficulty getting a "smart" headlamp system accepted as capable of being correctly aimed as may be required by the various States. We recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for determining the legality of the "smart" headlamp system under each State's laws pertaining to correct headlamp aim. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263)

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/21/99

ID: 20072.ztv

Mr. Stephen F. Gund
18711 S. Mingo
Bixby, OK 74008

Dear Mr. Gund:

This is in reply to your email of May 25, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You would like a statement from us "that it is OK for the dealer to disconnect or turn off the daytime running lights" on your Olds Aurora.

We are pleased to be responsive to your request. I enclose copies of letters on this subject that we sent to Paul J.M. Angrisano, III, on August 29,1996, and September 30, 1996. This interpretation is still in effect.

This interpretation states that a motor vehicle dealer may disconnect daytime running lamps, or install an on/off switch, without violating Federal law.

If you have further questions, you may call Mr. Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.6/3/99