ID: 16386.df

Mr. Eric Goldwasser
993 Barbery Rd.
Yorktown, NY 10598

Dear Mr. Goldwasser:

This responds to your letter requesting a waiver that would permit you to have your 1996 car modified in two ways. You would like to add a bar to the outside of the driver's door to protect you in a side impact from a light truck whose bumper is higher than the existing beams. You would also like to add a second bumper to the front of the car "so that in a front-end collision there will be more distance between [you] and the first thing to make contact with whatever the car is colliding with."

It might be helpful to begin with some background information. All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with this agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the standards for side impact protection (Standard 214), and occupant protection (Standard 208). If a vehicle were modified prior to its first retail sale, the manufacturer or dealer would have had to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

After a vehicle is sold at retail, Federal law limits the modifications made to it by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses. These entities are prohibited under our statute from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

A commercial business of the type specified in 30122 would be prohibited from adding the side door bar to your vehicle if installation of the bar would make inoperative the features of the door that enable the vehicle to meet Standard 214's side impact protection requirements. It is possible that installation of the bar could affect how crash forces are directed towards the occupant compartment. For example, a bar that is mounted above the existing side door beams could in some crashes result in more injurious forces directed at the occupant. Similarly, depending on where and how the second bumper is mounted, its installation could affect the compliance of a vehicle with Standard 208's automatic crash protection requirements. For example, the added bumper could affect the ability of an air bag to deploy as originally designed and provide the necessary crash protection. The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing the bumper in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard 208.

You indicate that the manufacturer of your vehicle has been unwilling to modify the vehicle in the manner you seek. I note that your modifications raise complex engineering issues concerning the crash performance of the vehicle and its continued compliance with the safety standards. NHTSA has no provision to grant waivers from the "make inoperative" requirement for manufacturers and repair businesses for the modifications you have in mind.

Finally, I note that state laws may cover the installation of additional bumpers and side door bars on motor vehicles. You should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in your state for information about such laws.

I hope that this is information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:214
d.3/4/98

ID: 2669y

Mr. Ricky Bass
Q. C. Manager
Terminal Service Co.
P.O. Box 1200
Tallahassee, FL 32302

Dear Mr. Bass:

This is in reply to your letter of August 1, l990. You have asked whether it would be permissible to use a triple lamp cluster, each lamp containing a dual filament bulb, to perform identification and stop lamp functions on cargo tank trucks. The cluster would be mounted not less than l0 feet 6 inches above the road surface. You believe that with this design, the function of the identification lamp "will be intact."

In telephone conversations with agency personnel on September ll, l990, you clarified that you would like to have this device installed on all new tank trucks, and installed on vehicles in use when they are returned for extensive repairs. The device is intended to supplement the vehicle's conventional stop lamps.

With respect to new tank trucks, Standard No. l08 permits supplementary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard. The determination of impairment is to be made initially by the truck manufacturer in its certification of compliance with all applicable standards, and if the decision appears to be clearly erroneous, NHTSA will so inform the manufacturer. In the present case, the required lighting devices that concern us are the identification lamps, and the conventional stop lamps. As the triple cluster will continue to be illuminated, though with a somewhat greater intensity in the stop lamp mode, we do not consider that the device would impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps.

As for whether the device would impair the effectiveness of the conventional stop lamps, we note that the triple lamp cluster will be located from 126 inches to 156 inches above the road surface. Under Standard No. 108, the conventional stop lamps cannot be located more than 72 inches from the road surface. We judge from the configuration of the tank truck that, in actuality, the lamps will be mounted substantially lower than 72 inches. We raise the possibility that the activation of the supplementary lamps, which are located at such a distance from the conventional ones, could create momentary confusion in a driver immediately following a truck equipped with the device.

You also wish to install the device on trucks in use, when they are due for major repairs. The sole Federal restraint upon modifications of this nature is that, when performed by vehicle or equipment manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses, they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As we understand it, your company would perform these modifications on its own vehicles. Therefore, the prohibition would not come into play. Even if the modifications were done by, for example, a motor vehicle repair business, it would be substituting one type of identification lamp for another. We see no problem with the substitution by itself. However, to the extent that the supplementary stop lamps might impair the effectiveness of the conventional stop lamps on new trucks, their installation by the repair business could be considered as rendering the conventional stop lamps partially inoperative, within the meaning of the statutory prohibition for vehicles in use.

Vehicles in use are also subject to the laws of the States in which they are registered and operated. Since we are not conversant with State laws, we suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:l08 d:9/24/90

ID: 1982-2.13

DATE: 05/19/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transequip Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Federal regulations allow a brake hose to be used as a dual purpose hose for both the service brakes and the emergency brake.

Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, does not preclude the use of common components in parking, emergency, and service air brake systems. Accordingly, nothing would prevent you from using a common hose in those systems. However, the common component would have to comply with the requirements for each system. This means that a failure of the hose would always be treated as a failure in the parking, emergency and service brake systems. Applying this to the standard in section S5.2.1.1, it would be necessary for the parking brakes to be capable of being released with a failure of the common hose at any time. If your system cannot perform in this manner, which it appears it cannot, it could not comply with the safety standard.

Our engineering staff has reviewed your brake system very carefully over the past years. It appears that your system can be properly plumbed in a manner that it would seem to comply with the requirements. You have continued to seek slightly less expensive methods to plumb your system. In our opinion, these methods would not be capable of complying with the standard. We cannot see how your system can comply with the standard without traditional plumbing that is being used by many brake manufacturers today. Accordingly, we suggest that you concentrate your efforts on constructing your system in that manner.

SINCERELY,

transquip industries, inc.

March 22, 1982

Chief Counsel, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Sir:

In an air actuated, mechanically held system for trailers, such as described in the enclosed drawing, a single diaphragm brake chamber is provided using one delivery hose per chamber.

The brake hose (#25 on the drawing) is used as a dual purpose hose; It is used as a service brake hose when the service brakes are applied, and it becomes an emergency brake hose when the emergency brakes are applied. The destinction is in the application.

Should the hose break or puncture while applying the service brakes, three of the brakes would apply while air from the broken hose would go to atomosphere.

With the use of two 1400 cu in air tanks and the supply line continuously refilling the tanks, it is virtually impossible to cause a mechanical lock-up while using service brakes.

Should the trailer be parked with the emergency brakes applied and then cut the brake hose the air tanks would drain to zero. When the driver pushed in the tractor protection valve the broken hose would be sealed off, the tanks would refill and the parking brakes would then release when air pressure reached about sixty PSI. The failure which caused the lock-up could only occur when the trailer is in emergency.

My question is as follows: "Can a hose be used as a dual purpose hose and be considered a service brake hose while applying the service brakes and as an emergency brake hose while applying the emergency brakes"? Please advise.

Edward H. Clapp, President

(Graphics omitted)

NOTES:

1. DASHED ITEMS (Illegible) ARE NOT INCLUDED IN KIT.

2. FOR USE WITH DISC BRAKES, CONTACT FACTORY.

3. LENGTH TO BE DETERMINED BY CUSTOMER.

(Graphics omitted)

TRANSQUIP INDUSTRIES, INC.

614 West Main Street

Memphis, Texas 79245

TITLE TWO TANK - SINGLE VALVE SYSTEM TANDEM AXLE (2800 C.I.)

ID: 1936y

Mr. Mike Sazio
S.C. Manufacturing, Inc.
11879 Woodbury Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92643

Dear Mr. Sazio:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of our regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards to your company's manufacture of "convertible vinyl tops for Jeeps and similar vehicles." I regret the delay in responding. You asked which Federal safety standards apply to these convertible tops that you sell in both the new vehicle market and the aftermarket. You were especially interested in standards for "windows and door handles."

There are two Federal safety standards (copies enclosed) that would apply to your product: (1) Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials; and (2) Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. While the brevity of the description of your product makes it difficult for us to determine whether our standard for door handles (Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components) applies, we believe that the standard does not apply to your product because the tops, which apparently incorporate doors, are readily removable.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable Federal requirements.

The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. If you or the agency determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, you are obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.)

The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as follows: "Motor vehicle equipment" means any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory or addition to the motor vehicle ..." (/102(4)) This definition includes the product your company manufactures since the convertible tops are components manufactured and sold either as a replacement or improvement of the convertible top or as an addition to vehicles that have no existing top. Since your product is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, S.C. Manufacturing Inc., as the manufacturer of the equipment, must ensure that the convertible tops comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and contain no safety-related defects.

If your product contains glazing material, Standard No. 205 (49 CFR /571.205, Glazing Materials) directly applies to that glazing material. Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of motor vehicle equipment, including glazing used in convertible tops. Any glazing in the convertible tops that your company manufactures for new or used vehicles must therefore conform to the applicable specifications set forth in Standard No. 205. The standard establishes both performance requirements, including those regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing, and labeling requirements applicable to the glazing used in your product.

If your convertible top is added to a new vehicle, i.e., before the vehicle is sold for the first time to a consumer, then it must comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR /571.302). Standard No. 302 applies to certain vehicle occupant compartment components, including convertible tops, on new completed motor vehicles. Persons selling new vehicles equipped with your convertible top must ensure that the vehicles, including your top, conforms to Standard No. 302.

Generally speaking, while the requirements of Standard No. 302 apply to convertible tops incorporated in new vehicles, they do not apply to convertible tops added to used vehicles, i.e., vehicles which have been sold for the first time to a consumer. Under this general rule, you are permitted to sell aftermarket convertible tops that do not comply with Standard No. 302 to vehicle owners who will add them to their used vehicles even if the addition of the top by the vehicle owners caused the vehicles to no longer comply with Standard No. 302.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your top on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the top does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108.

You should note that section 108(a)(2)(A) is not limited to Standard No. 302, but applies also to any modification of Federally-required safety systems or devices on new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits rendering inoperative the compliance of devices or elements of design with any applicable Federal safety standard. Thus, a commercial entity would be permitted to install your product only if the modification would not destroy or degrade from a vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal requirements, such as those for lamps and reflective devices (Standard No. 108).

Standard No. 206 applies to new vehicles, but not to new aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the doors on aftermarket Jeep top covers would not have to meet the standard. Further, doors on new Jeep vehicles would not have to meet the standard if they are "designed to be easily attached to or removed from" the vehicle, as provided in paragraph S4 of Standard No. 206.

To summarize the above discussion, any glazing in the convertible tops you manufacture must meet applicable requirements of Standard No. 205 regardless of whether the tops are sold in the aftermarket or to new vehicle purchasers. The effect of Standard No. 302 on your product depends on the circumstances surrounding installation of the product in new and used motor vehicles. If the convertible top does not meet Standard No. 302, the top cannot be installed in vehicles by any commercial business listed in /108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. However, these convertible tops may legally be installed in vehicles by the owners of the vehicles. Your company would still have the responsibility under the Vehicle Safety Act to recall and remedy its products which are determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, even if the convertible tops were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed an information sheet describing generally your responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:206#302#205 d:8/7/89

ID: nht94-7.41

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harold R. Burke, Esq. -- Duel and Holland (Greenwich, CT)

TITLE: Importation of Type M-151 Military Vehicle

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/93 from Harold R. Burke to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8867)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 8, 1993, asking several questions about the motor vehicle importation regulations as they apply to M-151 military vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your client wishes to import for resale in the U.S. approximately 8,000 such vehicles built in the U.S. between 1973075, and which, according to you, have never been used.

Before I answer your questions, you should know that it has been the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) for at least two decades to section and scrap M-151s at the end of their useful military life rather than to sell them for civilian use or allow further use by other government agencies. This policy, which was developed with the participation and support of this agency, is based on the tendency of the M-151 to turn over during quick turning maneuvers or when driven by unskilled operators. DOD has followed this policy consistently, notwithstanding the economic benefits that would accrue to the government were the vehicles allowed to be sold to the public or to be operated by other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Park Service, in non-military applications. The unvarying applicability of this policy highlights the safety concern of two Federal Departments for civilian use of the M-151, and we believe that your client should be aware of the potential liability that sale to the public would entail.

Your client should also be aware that, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), (the Act), any person importing motor vehicles for resale is considered the "manufacturer" of these vehicles, and would have the same responsibility as the original manufacturer to notify owners and remedy safety related defects in the event they occurred in the M- 151. (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)). For example, the agency has the authority to determine that a tendency to overturn is a defect in performance, a safety related defect which would require the importer for resale to notify and remedy in accordance with statutory requirements (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.).

You have asked the following three questions:

"1. As U.S. origin vehicles which have been outside this country since 1975 are they now classified as 'foreign' vehicles which are subject to current D.O.T. and E.P.A. safety and emissions criteria?"

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not classify motor vehicles as "domestic" and "foreign." Any motor vehicle, whether manufactured in the U.S. or elsewhere, must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be sold in the U.S. The FMVSS that apply to a motor vehicle to be imported into the U.S. are those that were in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured, not those in effect at the time of its importation. We are unable to advise you on the regulations of the

Environmental Protection Agency as it is an agency independent of the Department of Transportation.

In order to be imported into the U.S., a motor vehicle must conform with (or be brought into conformity with) any applicable FMVSS. Although the M-151 is a "motor vehicle" under the Act, from the beginning the agency on its own volition has excluded motor vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications from compliance with the FMVSS (49 CFR 571.7(a)), though retaining jurisdiction over them for safety defect notification and remedy campaigns. This means that the M-151 was not designed to comply with FMVSS at the time of its manufacture.

For importers of an M-151 other than the Armed Forces of the United States, the importer would be required, as a condition of importation, to bring the M-151 into compliance with the FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. However, because of the restrictions imposed by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (PL 100-562), it is no longer simple to import nonconforming motor vehicles to which the FMVSS apply. Under this recent legislation, the agency must make a formal determination, either pursuant to a petition or on its own motion, that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS. Following this, a vehicle may be imported by its owner, only if the owner has a contract with a "registered importer" (one whom the agency has recognized as a converter) to convert the vehicles, or if the importer itself is a registered importer. However, nonconforming vehicles which are imported for resale can only be imported by a registered importer. We would require any prospective civilian importer of an M-151 manufactured in 1973-75 to demonstrate that the vehicle is capable of conversion to comply with the FMVSS that applied to multipurpose passenger vehicles during that period. A bond equal to 150% of the value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs Service must also be posted during the conversion process.

"2. If they are not considered 'foreign' vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?"

"3. If they are considered 'foreign' vehicles . . . ."

There are no Federal registration requirements for vehicles sold to persons other than Federal agencies. State regulations apply. We are not conversant with State registration laws, and refer inquirers for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

ID: 8867

Harold R. Burke, Esq.
Duel and Holland
289 Greenwich Avenue
Greenwich, CT 06830-6595

Re: Importation of Type M-151 Military Vehicle

Dear Mr. Burke:

We have received your letter of July 8, 1993, asking several questions about the motor vehicle importation regulations as they apply to M-151 military vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your client wishes to import for resale in the U.S. approximately 8,000 such vehicles built in the U.S. between 1973-75, and which, according to you, have never been used.

Before I answer your questions, you should know that it has been the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) for at least two decades to section and scrap M-151s at the end of their useful military life rather than to sell them for civilian use or allow further use by other government agencies. This policy, which was developed with the participation and support of this agency, is based on the tendency of the M-151 to turn over during quick turning maneuvers or when driven by unskilled operators. DOD has followed this policy consistently, notwithstanding the economic benefits that would accrue to the government were the vehicles allowed to be sold to the public or to be operated by other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Park Service, in non- military applications. The unvarying applicability of this policy highlights the safety concern of two Federal Departments for civilian use of the M-151, and we believe that your client should be aware of the potential liability that sale to the public would entail.

Your client should also be aware that, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), (the Act), any person importing motor vehicles for resale is considered the "manufacturer" of these vehicles, and would have the same responsibility as the original manufacturer to notify owners and remedy safety related defects in the event they occurred in the M-151. (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)). For example, the agency has the authority to determine that a tendency to overturn is a defect in performance, a safety related defect which would require the importer for resale to notify and remedy in accordance with statutory requirements (l5 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.)

You have asked the following three questions:

"1. As U.S. origin vehicles which have been outside this country since 1975 are they now classified as 'foreign' vehicles which are subject to current D.O.T. and E.P.A. safety and emissions criteria?"

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not classify motor vehicles as "domestic" and "foreign." Any motor vehicle, whether manufactured in the U.S. or elsewhere, must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be sold in the U.S. The FMVSS that apply to a motor vehicle to be imported into the U.S. are those that were in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured, not those in effect at the time of its importation. We are unable to advise you on the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency as it is an agency independent of the Department of Transportation.

In order to be imported into the U.S., a motor vehicle must conform with (or be brought into conformity with) any applicable FMVSS. Although the M-151 is a "motor vehicle" under the Act, from the beginning the agency on its own volition has excluded motor vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications from compliance with the FMVSS (49 CFR 571.7(a)), though retaining jurisdiction over them for safety defect notification and remedy campaigns. This means that the M-151 was not designed to comply with FMVSS at the time of its manufacture.

For importers of an M-151 other than the Armed Forces of the United States, the importer would be required, as a condition of importation, to bring the M-151 into compliance with the FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. However, because of the restrictions imposed by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (PL 100-562), it is no longer simple to import nonconforming motor vehicles to which the FMVSS apply. Under this recent legislation, the agency must make a formal determination, either pursuant to a petition or on its own motion, that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS. Following this, a vehicle may be imported by its owner, only if the owner has a contract with a "registered importer" (one whom the agency has recognized as a converter) to convert the vehicles, or if the importer itself is a registered importer. However, nonconforming vehicles which are imported for resale can only be imported by a registered importer. We would require any prospective civilian importer of an M-151 manufactured in 1973-75 to demonstrate that the vehicle is capable of conversion to comply with the FMVSS that applied to multipurpose passenger vehicles during that period. A bond equal to 150% of the value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs Service must also be posted during the conversion process.

"2. If they are not considered 'foreign' vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?"

"3. If they are considered 'foreign' vehicles . . . ."

There are no Federal registration requirements for vehicles sold to persons other than Federal agencies. State regulations apply. We are not conversant with State registration laws, and refer inquirers for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:3/17/94

ID: Zozloski_1635

Mr. Stanley J. Kozloski
694 Evelyn Drive
Lady Lake, FL 32162

Dear Mr. Kozloski:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to "golf carts" with modified speed capabilities. Specifically you asked about the applicability of FMVSS No. 500, Low speed vehicles. You also raised several questions regarding the ability of Florida to regulate the operation of "golf carts."I have addressed your questions below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways[.]

Under this authority, NHTSA established FMVSS No. 500 (copy enclosed) to ensure that low-speed vehicles (LSVs) are equipped with an appropriate level of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. The agency defines an LSV as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, except a truck, whose attainable speed in one mile is more than 20 miles per hour (mph) but less than 25 mph (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

The FMVSSs generally apply to motor vehicles only prior to their first retail sale. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" provision).

You indicated in your letter that your initial concern was the applicability of the Federal standards to "golf carts" that have had been modified after their first retail sale. You stated that local businesses are modifying golf carts through the installation of "high

speed 5.5 hp motors, high speed gears, high speed controllers, oversize tires," and the modifying or disengaging of a speed controlling governor. Your letter further explained that these modifications are to increase the maximum speed capacity from just below 20 mph to one as high as upwards of 30 mph.

I note that, in establishing FMVSS No. 500, NHTSA explained that the agency did not intend to regulate golf carts with a maximum speed capability of 20 mph or lower (63 Federal Register 33209; June 17, 1998; enclosed). The agency has determined that conventional golf carts (those with a maximum speed capacity of 20 mph and lower) are not motor vehicles for the purpose of our regulations. ^[1] The primary purpose of a conventional golf cart is not for operation on public roads, beyond that of an incidental nature. Therefore, they are not included in the definition of "motor vehicle."

Because conventional golf carts are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to any FMVSS as originally manufactured. Therefore, a conventional golf cart cannot be taken out of compliance with an FMVSS, because none apply. As such, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply.

The act of modifying a golf cart for use on the public roads would, however, create a motor vehicle to which new-vehicle FMVSSs would become applicable at the time of the modification. For purposes of compliance with NHTSAs regulations, we would regard the modifier as the manufacturer. As a motor vehicle manufacturer, the modifier would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle conformed to all applicable safety standards. These would vary depending on whether the vehicle was an LSV or some other type of motor vehicle.

You indicated in your letter that many of your concerns relate to the operation of"golf carts" with modified speed capabilities. You specifically asked about the establishment and enforcement of State or local registration, inspection, insurance, and operational requirements.

These areas are within the jurisdiction of the States. You may therefore wish to raise these concerns with your local or State representatives.

If you have any further questions about our regulations, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:500
d.4/16/04





---

[1] This does not imply that all vehicles with a maximum speed capability 20 mph and below are not motor vehicles.

ID: nht87-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Norm Alexander

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Norm Alexander, Manager Engineering Customer Service Stratoflex, Inc. P.O. Box 10398 Fort Worth, TX 76114

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This responds to your two letters to me concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for air brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Before I begin to answer your specific questions, it might be helpful to explain that Standard No. 106 has separate sections setting requirements for hoses, end fittings, and assemblies used in hydraulic, air and vacuum brake systems. The section of the standard that you are concerned with is S7, the requirements for air brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. Section S7.2 sets forth the labeling requirements for those items of equipment, and is further subdivided into three par ts: paragraph S7.2.1 regarding hose; S7.2.2 regarding end fittings; and S7.2.3 regarding assemblies.

Your first question asks for confirmation of your understanding that air brake hose is labeled according to paragraphs S7.2.1(a) through (e). Your understanding is correct. Air brake hoses (that are not part of a brake hose assembly) must be labeled acco rding to the specifications of paragraph S7.2.1. Paragraphs S7.2.1(a) through (e) list the required information.

You asked whether end fittings that are to be attached by means other than crimping or swaging are labeled pursuant to S7.2.2(a) through (d). You are correct that paragraphs S7.2.2(a) through (d) list the information required to be labeled on the end fit tings you described. They are labeled in the manner specified in the lead-in sentence of S7.2.2.

Your next question concerned labeling requirements for end fittings that are to be attached by crimping or swaging. You asked whether you would label those end fittings pursuant to S7.2.3.1. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes, provide d that you also manufacture the brake hose assembly.

Paragraph S7.2.3.1 is part of the subparagraph which sets labeling requirements for assemblies. Thus, S7.2.3.1 describes an option for labeling air brake hose assemblies made with end fittings attached by crimping or swaging. A manufacturer of end fittin gs which are to be attached by crimping or swaging is not required to label the fittings if that manufacturer does not also assemble them. Such a manufacturer may voluntarily label its fittings. However, as explained below, if it voluntarily marks its fi ttings, the fitting manufacturer should keep records of its production lots showing whether the marking on a particular lot of end fittings is a voluntary label or whether it was made to identify itself as the assembler.

Because Standard No. 106 requires an assembler using crimped or swaged end fittings to identify itself as the manufacturer of the assembly, there is a chance for confusion if the assembler chooses to label by marking the end fittings pursuant to S7.2.3.1 and the fitting manufacturer had previously voluntarily marked the fittings with its own designation. In order to reduce the chances of confusion and facilitate enforcement efforts in determining who is responsible for the manufacture of the assembly, w e encourage manufacturers who voluntarily label their fittings to keep adequate records indicating whether they have sold the fittings separately to an assembler or whether they have used the fittings in assemblies they have produced themselves.

Your fourth question asked about labeling requirements for air brake hose assemblies that use end fittings that are not attached by crimping or swaging. You are correct that Standard No. 106 requires only that the end fittings be labeled and does not set a labeling requirement for the assemblies. These provisions were made in the standard because NHTSA believed labeling requirements for assemblies having renewable or reusable end fittings were impractical. NHTSA concluded that with reusable end fittings , the assembler's identity could be lost or misapplied by a persons reassembling the Bet at a later date, and the chances for confusion concerning the identity of the assembler would be great.

Your fifth question asked whether air brake hose assemblies made with end fittings attached by crimping or swaging, except those made and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in its own vehicles, may be labeled by means of a band pursuant to S7.2.3 or by marking the end fitting as specified in S7.2.3.1. The answer is yes. Standard No. 106 provides manufacturers of those types of assemblies the option of labeling their assemblies according to either S7.2.3 or S7.2.3.1.

The second part of your fifth question also concerned Standard No. 106's labeling requirements for air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. You asked whether your understanding is correct that a "component manufacturer's identi fication on a fitting is sufficient for hose assemblies fabricated by the component manufacturer: but bulk products procured and assembled by a second party (not vehicle manufacturer) must be marked by that assembler - tag or fitting."

Your understanding is correct. A manufacturer of crimped or swaged end fittings who also manufactures brake hose assemblies may satisfy the standard's labeling requirements by marking its identification on its fitting. A manufacturer of brake hose assemb lies who purchased its end fittings must label the assembly by a tag (pursuant to S7.2.3) or by labeling the end fitting (pursuant to S7.2.3.1).

Your next question asked whether standard No. 106 requires manufacturers to mark the date of assembly on their brake hose assemblies. The answer is no.

Your final question asked whether additional information may be entered on the hose assembly tag. The answer to your question is yes. NHTSA has interpreted Standard No. 106 as permitting the labeling of brake hose with optional information in addition to that required by the standard if, in order to avoid confusion with the required information, the optional information appears on the opposite side of the hose. Based on those interpretations, we conclude that you are permitted to label your assemblies w ith optional information if the labeling is done in a manner that avoids confusion with the required information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 25, 1986

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel Room 5219

Subject: FMVSS 106-74, as amended

Dear Ms. Jones:

Pursuant to my conversation with Ms. Deidre Hom on August 22, 1986; we respectfully submit our understanding of the marking/labeling requirements of Section S7, subject standard. We request written confirmation of this understanding or correction(s) as r equired. Stratoflex is a manufacturer of crimp and non crimp (screw together) fittings and hose to provisions of FMVSS 106.

1. Hose - per S7.2.1 (a) thru (e).

2. End Fittings (not crimped or swaged) - per 57.2.2 (a) thru (d).

3. End fittings (crimped or swaged) - per S7.2.3.1 (at least one fitting per assembly, assembler identification)

4. Hose assembly with non crimped/swaged fittings - No marking other than components (1 and 2 above).

5. Hose assembly with crimped/swaged fittings - Band per S7.2.3 (a) and (b) or fitting only per 3 above. (See note below)

NOTE: No marking required for hose assemblies assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer.

Item 3 above (and the alternate of item 5) indicates that component manufacturer's identification on a fitting is sufficient for hose assemblies fabricated by the component manufacturer; but, bulk products procured and assembled by a second party (not ve hicle manufacturer) must be marked by that assembler - tag or fitting.

Is the date of assembly (fittings to hose) required?

May additional data be entered on the hose assembly tag?

Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Please feel free to contact us if any additional clarification is required.

Very truly yours,

S T R A T O F L E X , I N C .

Norm Alexander, Manager Engineering Customer Service

ID: nht88-4.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: AMIT REIZES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: APRIL 6, 1988 LETTER FROM REIZES TO STEED AND SEPTEMBER 1987 ISSUE OF "CONSUMER INFORMATION"

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed asking this agency to require motor vehicle manufacturers to install air bags in all cars sold in this country. You asserted that such a requirement would both further motor vehicle safety and be cost effective. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify your understanding of our requirements for automatic crash protection.

Former Secretary of Transportation Dole announced a final decision on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984. Although you may be familiar with many of the elements of that decision, I believe it would be helpful to review briefly that decision. Th is decision provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as quickly as possible. In the near term, the decision asked the individual States to consider passing mandatory safety belt use laws. We believe that effectively enforced Sta te laws requiring the proper use of safety belts offer our best opportunity to save lives today at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and autom atic safety belts, by requiring all new cars to be equipped with automatic occupant protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic protection requirement is phased in during the preceding three years. For example, 40 percent of all 1989 mo del year vehicles must be equipped with automatic occupant protection.

To encourage manufacturers to offer a range of automatic restraint technologies, the decision provides extra credit for cars equipped with innovative automatic protection, such as air bags. We hope to see a substantial number of air bags available by th e 1990 model year. The decision also specifies that, if States with two-thirds of the U.S. population enact effective safety belt use laws by early 1989, the requirements for automatic protection will no longer apply. In either event, motorists will be assured of substantially improved crash protection.

To address your special concerns, then, there is a requirement that all 1990 and later model year cars be equipped with automatic occupant protection. However, this requirement does not make air bags mandatory. Instead, manufacturers are permitted to i nstall any automatic occupant restraint technology that meets the occupants protection requirements. Thus, occupants may be protected by automatic safety belts (i.e., belts that require no action on the part of the occupant of be effective), air bags, o ther technologies such as "passive interiors," or any combination of these technologies.

The option for manufacturers to use any of the various forms of automatic restraints was based on the fact that these restraints have been shown to be comparably effective. Based on the currently available information, I believe that consumers who prefe r air bags, such as yourself, will have the opportunity to purchase a wide variety of 1990 model year cars equipped with air bags. Similarly, those consumers that prefer automatic safety belts will have the opportunity to purchase a variety of 1990 model year cars equipped with the type of automatic restraint system they prefer.

Presently, eleven foreign and domestic manufacturers offer driver-side and/or passenger side air bags as standard or optional equipment. By MY 1990, domestic manufacturers plan to increase the installation of air bags on selected lines. For example, by MY 1990, Ford plans to install air bags in one million cars; General Motors in 500,000 cars; and Chrysler in 700,000 to 900,000 cars. In addition, for MY 1989, Chrysler expects to equip 200,000 vehicles with driver-side air bags. Several foreign manufa cturers who do not now offer air bags have plans to do so by 1990.

I also am enclosing a consumer information brochure concerning air bags. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this topic, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: 1652y

Mr. Leonard M. Perkins
213 S. Pleasant
Prescott, AZ 86303

Dear Mr. Perkins:

Secretary Burnley has asked me to respond to your letter of September 7, 1988, with respect to your lighting device. In essence, this is a center high-mounted stop lamp, with turn signal lamps adjacent to it. You believe that high-mounted turn signals "joined with the rear window brake light should have a dramatic effect on rear and side collisions", but you have been told that "this conception is at present illegal."

Paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 states that "no high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." We interpret this as prohibiting lamps or reflective devices that share a single lens or compartment with the center highmounted lamp. Your device shows lamps adjacent to the center highmounted lamp but not combined with it. Therefore, your device is not prohibited by that paragraph of the standard if you wish to market this device as original equipment. The next question to ask is whether it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3), principally the center stoplamp. For example, if the yellow turn signals were too bright or if the color of the turn signal were red, these lamps might "impair the effectiveness" of the center stoplamp. However, this is a determination to be made, in the first instance, by the manufacturer of the vehicle who must certify compliance with Standard No. l08.

If you wish to sell your device in the aftermarket, it is acceptable under Federal law if its installation does not adversely affect the operation of motor vehicle equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard so that the equipment would no longer comply with the standard. Assuming that the installation does not have this effect, the legality of installing or using such a device must then be determined according to the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered or operated, and these auxiliary lamps must comply with any State requirements. We cannot advise you on State laws. One source of advice is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:l/l8/89