ID: 24459.ztv

Mr. Steve Karcz
Helmetlight, Inc.
P.O. Box 190151
Anchorage, AK 99519

Dear Mr. Karcz:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 2002, with reference to your "Lead-Dog Helmet Light" intended for motorcycle operators.You asked whether there are "Federal issues" involved with it.

You related that the Helmet Light "is wired to the motorcycles existing headlight, taillight, and brake light wires," and then, "attached to the riders helmet with VELCRO." You stated further that "our headlight is wired into the high beam wire of the motorcycle and controlled by the high/low beam switch." When the Helmet Light is on, "our housing illuminates red creating a second, more visible taillight atop the helmet." Finally, "our brake light is wired to the motorcycles brake light wire and activated by the brake light switch. . . ." We note from your website that the light source is described as a "35 watt halogen spotlight."

I enclose a copy of an interpretation of this Office dated May 22, 1992, to Larry Nunn of Automotive Lighting Technologies regarding a similar invention. This letter will provide you with our views on the relationship to your invention of the laws that we administer. Our views remain the same today. However, the relevant statute was recodified in 1994. As a result, the statutory references in the 1992 letter have changed."Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4))" defining "motor vehicle equipment," is now 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7). "Section 108(a)(2)(A)" relating to post-sale vehicle modifications has become 49 U.S.C. 30122. Finally, "sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419)" concerning recall and remedy are now 49 U.S.C. 30117-30121.

In brief, Helmet Light is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Safety Act. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to motor vehicle equipment that is designed to be attached to a motorcycle helmet and connected with the wiring system of a motorcycle. We are concerned, however, about the potential effects of Helmet Light on compliance of the helmet to which it is attached, with FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, and of the motorcycle with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, when Helmet Light is connected with the wiring system.

Specifically, FMVSS No. 218 (S5.5) prohibits a motorcycle helmet from having a rigid projection on the outside of a helmet shell, except for "those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm)." We do not regard Helmet Light as an "essential accessory" within the meaning of the phrase. This means that a motorcycle helmet to which Helmet Light is attached would not comply with FMVSS No. 218. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), it is a violation to manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale a motorcycle helmet that fails to comply with FMVSS No. 218. This means that a helmet may not be sold with Helmet Light attached, or as part of the sale of a new helmet. Whether it is legal for a person to operate a motorcycle while wearing a helmet with Helmet Light attached is not a Federal question, but a question to be answered under the laws of each jurisdiction in which Helmet Light is used.

Individual items of lighting equipment on motor vehicles are required to meet specified minimum candela at certain specified test points. We would have a safety concern if connection of Helmet Light to the motorcycle lighting system in some manner reduced candela at any test point of any lamp below the minimum specified in the standard so that the motorcycle no longer complied with the specifications of FMVSS No. 108 when Helmet Light was operating.

We are also concerned about the potential glare effects of the use of Helmet Light, which you further describe as a "35 halogen watt spot lamp." You advise on your web site "NEVER point spot lamp at another persons eyes, you may temporarily affect their vision."This caution indicates that there is a distinct possibility of glare when a motorcyclist wearing a Helmet Light turns his or her head side to the side when approaching a crossroads or corner, or when the light is projected into the interior and exterior rearview mirrors of a vehicle ahead. Glare is a current issue of great public concern, and the agency has received several hundred letters relating to headlamps and daytime running lamps.

We would be especially concerned if the "35 halogen watt spot lamp" were distracting to the point that an oncoming driver would fail to notice the motorcycles front turn signals when they were operating. Lighting equipment other than that specified by FMVSS No. 108 is not permissible as original equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment such as turn signal lamps. Although Helmet Light is not an item of original motorcycle lighting equipment, it becomes part of the overall motorcycle lighting and conspicuity package when it is used and there are sound safety reasons that the same principle should apply, that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

However, there is no Federal prohibition on the sale of Helmet Light as a vehicle accessory independent of the sale of a motorcycle helmet. As noted above, State laws determine whether it is legal to operate a motorcycle while wearing a Helmet Light.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/23/02

ID: nht76-1.16

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Alfred Teves GMBH (Teves) petition of April 9, 1976, for amendment of S5.2.1 of Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to eliminate the striping requirement in the case of hose used in assemblies that have "keyed" end fittings at both ends. We interprete "keyed" fittings to mean those that can be installed in only one (or possibly several) orientation(s) to the vehicle.

This is to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined to grant Teves' petition with regard to hose that is assembled into an assembly whose fittings permit their installation into the vehicle in only one orientation. Detailed reasons for the limitations expressed in this letter will accompany any notice that proposes this change.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information in accordance with statutory criteria.

Your letter incorrectly characterized the amendment of S5.2.2 that was proposed in Notice 19 of docket 1-5 (40 FR 55365, November 28, 1975) and made final in Notice 21 (41 FR 28505, July 12, 1976). The amendment only stated that the labeling required on hose need not be present after the hose has become part of a brake hose assembly or after it has been installed in a motor vehicle. The conclusion in the second paragraph of your letter that ". . . brake hose does not require labelling according to S5.2.2. . ." is therefore incorrect.

With regard to your comments on Standard No. 116, Brake Fluids, I assume that you were referring to the agency's proposed definition of "brake fluid" published on December 5, 1975 (40 FR 56928). I also assume that the phrase "polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock" in the proposed definition led you to conclude that only polychloroprene inner tube stock would be allowed for brake hose construction. This is incorrect. All of the materials specified in the definition, including SBR, EPR, CR, and NR, are considered suitable for use in brake hoses.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

Welfred M. Redler, P. E. -- Office of Crash Avoidance

April 9, 1976 PETITION

Ref.: Amendment to Standards FMVSS 106 49 CFR Part 571, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 19

In notice 19 DOT has proposed that S.5.2.2 should be altered, in that, the labeling information could be eliminated as soon as the brake hose becomes a brake hose assembly. According to S.5.2.1 the hose manufacturer was given the option to interrupt the 2 stripes by information according to S.5.2.2 and additional information.

We understand this DOT recommendation to mean that in future permanent brake assemblies do not require labelling information so long as the manufacturer documents all hoses before assembly. i.e the brake hose does not require labelling according to S.5.2.2 because the hoses are documented and can thereby always be identified

Notice 19 indicates that our interpretation in assuming the above is correct. Provided that our interpretation is correct then, we are in agreement with the proposed amendment and endorse it.

Although the deleting of S.5.2.2 for brake hoses used in permanent brake hose assemblies is apparent, the requirement S.5.2.1 which states: "each hydraulic brake hose shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes" is still required for brake hoses not part of a brake hose assembly.

The stripes are a visible indication of hose twisting during assembly. We are convinced that the brake hose marking would be unnecessary if the brake hose assembly could, by mechanical means, be prevented from twisting during and after installation. This mechanical means would eliminate the necessity of having two marking stripes.

Taking into account the foregoing we petition that S.5.2.1. should be amended to require the two marking stripes only when this mechanical means is not a part of the brake hose assembly in both ends.

We propose that FMVSS 106 should be amended as follows:

S.5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose, with the exception of those brake hose assemblies which have keyed ends (preventing twisting during and after instalation), shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opp. . . .

This amendment would prevent the unnecessary duplication of safety requirements thereby keeping costs to a minimum.

Ref.: FMVSS 116 49 CFR 571 116 Docket No. 71-13

The formulation of the definition S.4. suggests that brake hose inner tube stock must be of polychloroprene (CR). We have been using SBR for our inner tubes for years with excellent results. Naturally they meet the USA Standard FMVSS 106 and also have US approval through AAMVA based on a certificate from the independent test laboratory "ETL".

As the US standards FMVSS 106 has never objected to our brake hose material with regards to its properties and suitability for use in its designed environment we fail to understand why SBR together with the other materials EPR, EPDM, buthyl etc. are not considered suitable for use as brake hose inner tube.

May we suggest therefore that the definition S4 be formulated in such a way that this point is more clearly defined. In our opinion this should be changed to cover all materials which have a stable resistance to brake fluid.

Yours faithfully -- ALFRED TEVES GMBH

ID: 005738rbm

Mr. Paul Schockmel
Marketing Manager
International Electronics and Engineering S.A.
Zone Industrielle Findel
2b, route de Treves
L-2632 Luxembourg

Dear Mr. Schmockmel:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-size adults. The requirements in S19, S21, and S23 are designed to minimize the risk that air bags pose to infants and small children. S19 provides manufacturers with two different options for complying with the standard (low risk deployment or automatic suppression), while S21 and S23 provide three options (low risk deployment, automatic suppression, or dynamic automatic suppression). Your questions are related to the interplay between the infant low risk deployment option and the infant automatic suppression option, particularly in light of the absence of a dynamic automatic suppression option for infants. I am pleased to provide a response.

You first request an interpretation of the requirement set forth in S19, and the test procedure provided in S20.4, relating to the low risk deployment option for infants. Specifically, you ask whether a system that is certified to the low risk deployment option for infants can suppress the air bag when the applicable child restraint is in the rear-facing mode, and either suppress or deploy when the restraint is placed in the forward-facing mode. The answer to the first part of this question is no. Under the low risk deployment option, one or more stages of the air bag must deploy when the restraint is rear-facing. The answer to the second part of your question is yes. If a system is certified to the low risk deployment option for infants, we will deploy the air bag as specified in S20.4. Thus, injury measurements are only recorded when the child restraint is in the rear-facing mode.

The requirements for the infant low risk deployment option are found at S19.3, which states that "each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when the passenger air bag is deployed in accordance with the procedures specified in S20.4." The low risk deployment option is designed to address injuries that can result when an infant is very close to the air bag.

S20.4 specifies several conditions for testing the deploying air bag. First, the manufacturer must assure compliance to S19.3 using any child restraint listed in subparts B and C of Appendix A to the standard. For purposes of S19.3, the air bag is only tested with the child restraints in their rear-facing condition. Under the specified test conditions, the vehicle seat is moved as far forward as possible, while avoiding contact with the vehicle interior. This is done to ensure that the dummy's head is placed as close to the deploying air bag as possible. The air bag is only tested with the child restraint in a belted condition.

The air bag is deployed at whatever level of force and combination of stages that would deploy in any rigid barrier crash up to 64 km/h (40 mph) when a test dummy is positioned in a restraint as specified in the test procedure, except that the vehicle seat may be at any seat track position. This level is determined by running an indicant test, as described in S20.4.9, at impact speeds up to 40 mph with a dummy-occupied restraint installed in the passenger seat.

When NHTSA runs a compliance test on a vehicle certified to S19.3, it will only deploy the air bag at the level and, if equipped with a multi-stage inflator, with the combination of stages, that would deploy in the specified indicant test. Manufacturers may not use suppression technology to ensure that there will be no air bag deployment in the indicant test if they are certifying to the low risk deployment option.

Your second question relates to the absence of a dynamic automatic suppression option in S19. Specifically, you ask whether a manufacturer may use a system whereby the air bag is suppressed in all but the forward-facing mode, where a benign deployment strategy would be used. This option is not currently allowed under S19. This is because such a system would not meet either the low risk deployment option or the automatic suppression option. Should the agency add a third, dynamic suppression option to S19, such a compliance strategy would be allowed as long as all the criteria of that option were met in full.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.10/7/03

ID: 07-005877 sheath

ID: nht93-5.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 9, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Christopher Banner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-21-93 from Christopher Banner to John Wolmack (Womack) (OCC 8477)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA's regulations would apply to some manufacturing operations you are contemplating. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you would like to start producing vehicles based on Ford pickup truck chassis. Some of these Ford chassis would come from wrecked vehicles that you would strip down to the frame, and others would be new chassis that you would purchase directly from Ford. You would then install new bodies on top of some of these chassis and offer them for sale as completed vehicles. You also would like to offer some of these bodies and chassis for sale as "kit cars." In the "kit car" version, you would sell the body and chassis to the purchaser of the kit, and the purchaser of the kit would have to furnish some other parts in order to complete the vehicle.

This agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law does not require motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment to continue to comply with the safety standards after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment item in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, Federal law does prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" compliance with a safety standard for a vehicle or item of equipment. See 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), and (b)(1).

1. NEW BODY ON NEW CHASSIS. All vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a new chassis would be considered new vehicles. You would have to certify that each of those vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. You would be considered a "final stage manufacturer" of the vehicles, as that term is used in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

2. NEW BODY ON USED CHASSIS. We cannot say from the information you have provided whether the vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a stripped, wrecked Ford pickup would be treated as a new vehicle, and have to be certified as complying with the applicable safety standards. The answer depends on how extensively you modify the Ford pickup chassis.

To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when the modifications to a used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the Federal safety standards, NHTSA has established specific criteria at 49 CFR 571.7(e), COMBINING NEW AND USED COMPONENTS. That section reads as follows:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

This provision means that if you leave the frame, engine, transmission, and drive axle in place from the wrecked vehicle, and place a new body on top of it, we would consider that vehicle to be a used vehicle, which would not have to be certified by you as complying with applicable safety standards. On the other hand, if you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the Ford pickup chassis, and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable safety standards.

3. KIT CARS. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a "motor vehicle" is defined, in part, as one that is "driven by mechanical power." See 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). We have interpreted this provision to mean that a unit would be considered only an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle, until such time as a power source is added. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of motor vehicle equipment, or to used equipment items in the assemblage (items used on a vehicle previously in service on the public roads). However, certain of the safety standards would apply to new equipment items included in the assemblage. It would be a violation of Federal law if your kit car includes any new brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, or seat belt assemblies that do not comply with the applicable safety standards.

If you ship your kit cars with all parts needed to produce a completed motor vehicle, including the power source, this agency will treat the kit car as a motor vehicle, not an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of the state of completion of the kit. You would be required to certify that the kit car conformed to all applicable safety standards if it were treated as a new vehicle under the rules set forth in 1. and 2. above, but not if it were treated as a used vehicle under those rules.

I have enclosed for your information a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of them. I have also enclosed a brochure titled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" that briefly describes each of the safety standards.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Around 1985 * , NHTSA significantly reduced the Amber (Yellow) Photometric output minimals for all Rear Amber Turn Signal Lights. This reduction was implemented, I believe, partially as an act of Common Sense and partially as a positive Harmonization ge sture to European Vehicle Safety people. Whereas these European Safety people did then and still do require "significantly less" Amber Photometric Output area, which was not correspondingly reduced when NHTSA reduced the required Photometric Output. Fu rther, the Europeans still require significantly less Area for Amber lenses than the U.S. still requires.

* Presently I can't find the Federal Register Announcement with Details on this issue, however, I will attempt to send it later. I do know this data is readily available from your Docket Files.

European Safety leaders, I've been told, have "tests" that substantiate their position that a "Smaller" and less bright Amber Turn Singal yields "less conspicuosity", which is a desirable feature when compared to the Conspicuosity demanded by the Very Im portant Red Brake Lights . . . and rightfully so. As one can see for themselves . . . just the fact that a Turn Signal is Amber and not Red (as are all other Rear Safety Lights) makes it adequately "conspicuous", even if it is "smaller" and significantl y less bright compared to the Brake Lights.

Also, European Scientists contend they have always had a "safer system" than the U.S. System as they have always required Two Brightly Lit Brake Lights, whereas the U.S. System allows only One Brake Light to be illuminated, leaving the other as a "Red" T urn (Blinking) Signal -- They contend that the U.S. approach can confuse the human mind and in fact, perhaps be comprehended as an Impending Turn and "not specifically" as a Braking Action whereas their system using. Two Brake Lights - both clearly Lit - means nothing but "Braking . . . Danger!"

They indicate that their smaller in size and brightness, Rear Amber Turn Signal "clearly indicates" to following traffic the situation when a Turn is occurring by itself or simultaneously with the Braking Action.

In any case, I believe our U.S. NHTSA Rulemakers of several years past were in error or experienced an oversight when they reduced and Harmonized the U.S.'s Rear Amber Turn Singal's required output but at the same time did not reduce the "Area" of output which would have kept the "Density * "of U.S. Amber Lights output about the same as the Europeans have found to be effective . . . thus making the U.S. more or less completely Harmonized with the New EU Specifications effective January 1, 1996.

* "Density", a better layman's term than getting into Luminesec and Luminous intensity . . . at this time.

Any American that is actively involved in the Manufacturing of Vehicle Lights knows it is ludicrous to require U.S. Manufacturers to Design Amber Turn Singal lenses in the 12in<2> range * , and then ask them to try and Balance our Trade by attempting to sell larger than necessary (therefore more expensive Lights) in Europe whereas European Manufacturers enjoy the advantage over U.S. Manufacturers of less expense simply because of size.

* which is what is now required for Big Rig and RV Rear Amber Turn Signals

I am asking that a better Trade Balance Policy be adopted as well as seeing that Common Sense reasoning prevails at NHTSA by asking that this situation be corrected.

If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a "Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request" and given consideration for "rapid processing" through the Public Commenti ng period. I seriously doubt if any American Company or Engineer is in possession of any Scientific Data that would refute what reasoning and facts I have presented here. By reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 in<2> to approximately 8 in<2> or 6 in<2>, the U.S. would have more practical Rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety.

Please handle this expendiently!

Yours truly,

Dennis G. Moore President

P.S. Please understand that I believe I speak primarily for the "Big Rig", Small Trailer and RV Type Lighting Manufacturers in the U.S., not for the typical S.A.E. Detroit Auto Designer and/or Auto Engineer.

My type of manufacturing is forced, through extreme competition pressure, to make Multi-purpose Rear Lights for about $ 3.00 each in order to be competitive here in the U.S., whereas, Detroit Auto Stylists know that small Amber Turn Signal Lights on Auto s look puny and degrading to their potential customers. They know the bigger these Amber Lenses are, the better they look, the more they cost, and, therefore, the more overall profit is made on them as they are broken and replaced during the life of the Vehicle. Therefore, Detroit stylists and economists don't really want small sized Amber Turn Signals even if they know that small ones do the Safety Job they're intended to do -- they must compete in "Styling" whereas larger and more elaborate lights se ll cars and makes them more money in the long run than what would be saved on small lights, whereas this is not at all true with "Other" Vehicle Lighting Manufacturers like I represent who are trying to Compete in the U.S. and Europe in the Non-Auto Vehi cle Lighting business.

I believe, and apparently so do most European Safety people, that Location, Color and the Density * Output of a Safety Light is more important for "Conspicuosity" than a large lens with low output.

ID: nht75-3.37

DATE: 11/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G.G. Mannella for James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: National Association of Motor Bus Owners

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of November 12 and 13, 1975, in which you requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration immediately suspend the effectiveness of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to buses, without waiting until the end of a comment period. In a notice published November 13, 1975, 40 FR 52856, this agency proposed such a suspension with a 30-day comment period ending December 15, 1975.

Secretary Coleman has made clear his commitment to allowing adequate time for public comment on rulemaking actions. The normal minimum time for public comment on Department of Transportation actions has been established as 45 days. In this case, because of the special urgency of the matter, the period was reduced to 30 days. I believe we all recognize that this action is a significant one, affecting the performance and cost of most of the transit and intercity buses in the country. In these circumstances, it is our judgment that the 30-day period is the minimum that can be justified for comment by the interested public, and your request is therefore denied.

We also recognize, as you have pointed out, that for this short period there may be some uncertainty and some interruption of normal activities within the affected industries. We will make every effort to reach and announce a decision as soon as possible after the end of the comment period.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

November 13, 1975

Honorable James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Dr. Gregory:

This will supplement my letter of November 12, 1975, in regard to the problems created by failure to make effective immediately the suspension of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 requirements respecting the brake anti-lock system on buses.

We understand why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not want to deny any opponent of the proposed suspension an opportunity to be heard. Also, we are sure NHTSA does not want to halt sales of buses for six weeks or so, to disrupt bus manufacturing schedules, to cause temporary lay-offs of employees, or to require purchasers of buses to choose between taking immediate delivery of a needed bus or saving some $ 1,300.00 by postponing acceptance of delivery. These are the consequences of failure to make the suspension effective immediately.

We offer the following solution which, in our opinion, will fully protect the rights of any protestant of suspension if one should appear.

We suggest the suspension be made effective immediately, provided, the manufacturer and purchaser of any bus sold between now and January 1, 1976, agree in writing to the installation of the anti-skid device on or before January 8, 1976, if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that suspension of the MVSS-121 requirement is unwarranted.

Since NAMBO members will be attending their Annual Meeting in Phoenix beginning Saturday, November 15, I am turning this matter over to NAMBO's General Counsel, Drew L. Carraway, Esq. of the firm of Rice, Carpenter and Carraway. Mr. Carraway will be in touch with your General Counsel's office to ascertain whether our proposal is satisfactory and advise those of us in Phoenix of your decision on this important matter.

Sincerely yours,

Charles A. Webb -- PRES.

cc: Frank A. Berndt (Acting Chief Counsel); Richard Dyson (Chief Counsel's Office)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

November 12, 1975

Honorable James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Dr. Gregory:

ON November 11, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a proposed amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, 49 CFR 571.121, to suspend, until January 1, 1977, service brake stopping distance requirements as they apply to buses.

In its tentative findings the Administration correctly noted that the present anti-lock system in buses is "characterized by malfunction that warrants its deactivation on all vehicles on which it is installed while a correction is fully developed" and that "a situation wherein purchasers of new buses are required to pay for anti-lock systems which are to remain deactivated for an indefinite period is inappropriate. NAMBO agrees with these findings.

The publication of this notice of proposed amendment of MVSS No. 121 creates a further problem for bus manufacturers since potential bus buyers will not purchase buses manufactured prior to whatever date the NHTSA may publish a final rule in the Federal Register due to the problems created by the anti-lock components as well as their cost.

Therefore, NAMBO urges the Administration to authorize the suspension of installation of potentially defective anti-lock components in buses pending a decision on the proposed amendment to MVSS No. 121.

The Annual Meeting of our Association begins on Sunday, November 16, in Phoenix, Arizona, at which time we will discuss and prepare a detailed explanation of the problems which would be created if the suspension cannot be made effective immediately. Our letter will be hand delivered to you on Thursday, November 20, with a copy to Mr. Richard Dyson of the Chief Counsel's Office.

Sincerely yours,

Charles A. Webb -- PRES.

cc: Richard Dyson

ID: 8477a

Mr. Christopher Banner
618 Osage Street
Manhattan, KS 66402

Dear Mr. Banner:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA's regulations would apply to some manufacturing operations you are contemplating. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you would like to start producing vehicles based on Ford pickup truck chassis. Some of these Ford chassis would come from wrecked vehicles that you would strip down to the frame, and others would be new chassis that you would purchase directly from Ford. You would then install new bodies on top of some of these chassis and offer them for sale as completed vehicles. You also would like to offer some of these bodies and chassis for sale as "kit cars." In the "kit car" version, you would sell the body and chassis to the purchaser of the kit, and the purchaser of the kit would have to furnish some other parts in order to complete the vehicle.

This agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law does not require motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment to continue to comply with the safety standards after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment item in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, Federal law does prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" compliance with a safety standard for a vehicle or item of equipment. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), and (b)(1).

1. New Body on New Chassis. All vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a new chassis would be considered new vehicles. You would have to certify that each of those vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. You would be considered a "final stage manufacturer" of the vehicles, as that term is used in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

2. New Body on Used Chassis. We cannot say from the information you have provided whether the vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a stripped, wrecked Ford pickup would be treated as a new vehicle, and have to be certified as complying with the applicable safety standards. The answer depends on how extensively you modify the Ford pickup chassis.

To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when the modifications to a used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the Federal safety standards, NHTSA has established specific criteria at 49 CFR 571.7(e), Combining new and used components. That section reads as follows:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

This provision means that if you leave the frame, engine, transmission, and drive axle in place from the wrecked vehicle, and place a new body on top of it, we would consider that vehicle to be a used vehicle, which would not have to be certified by you as complying with applicable safety standards. On the other hand, if you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the Ford pickup chassis, and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable safety standards.

3. Kit cars. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a "motor vehicle" is defined, in part, as one that is "driven by mechanical power." See 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). We have interpreted this provision to mean that a unit would be considered only an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle, until such time as a power source is added. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of motor vehicle equipment, or to used equipment items in the assemblage (items used on a vehicle previously in service on the public roads). However, certain of the safety standards would apply to new equipment items included in the assemblage. It would be a violation of Federal law if your kit car includes any new brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, or seat belt assemblies that do not comply with the applicable safety standards.

If you ship your kit cars with all parts needed to produce a completed motor vehicle, including the power source, this agency will treat the kit car as a motor vehicle, not an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of the state of completion of the kit. You would be required to certify that the kit car conformed to all applicable safety standards if it were treated as a new vehicle under the rules set forth in 1. and 2. above, but not if it were treated as a used vehicle under those rules.

I have enclosed for your information a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of them. I have also enclosed a brochure titled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" that briefly describes each of the safety standards.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:568#571.7(e) d:7/9/93

ID: nht71-3.6

DATE: 05/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Louisiana Independent Tire Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The "Flash Notice" that you forwarded to us on April 23, 1971, and your telephone conversation of May 10 with Mike Peskoe of my staff have raised certain questions concerning your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires."

On page 1 of the "Flash Notice" you state, "But, so far as testing goes, it's apparent the risk for retreaders not to do their own testing to prove compliance is substantially greater than anticipated." You proceed to discuss whether manufacturers should test their own tires in order to prove "due care." As part of this discussion you refer to the statement in the preamble in the Notice of March 5, 1970, concerning what could suffice for a valid certification, and state that we have told you that this preamble is "still basically valid."

There is evidently some confusion as to the purpose and meaning of "due care" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and also as to the difference between compliance and certification.

A manufacturer of a retreaded tire that did not comply with the standard but who used due care in manufacturing the tire to comply with the standard cannot be subject to a civil penalty. The answer to your hypothetical question on page 3, "What if due care is used, but the tire doesn't comply" is that the manufacturer cannot be subject to a civil penalty in this situation. (He may, however, be required to send defect notification letters and be urged to recall.) We do not agree that one is "guilty until proven innocent." A finding of noncompliance must first be made by the agency. Once the agency, through testing or otherwise, discovers a noncompliance, it is then up to the manufacturer to show that he exercised due care. Although the issue of due care is one that is ultimately decided by a court, the agency, in determining whether to seek a civil penalty, will make a preliminary determination on this issue.

You asked in your conversation of May 10 that we amplify what is meant by "due care." "Due care" is a legal concept embodying the care that would be exercised by a reasonable man under the circumstances, and the circumstances of each situation must be considered in determining whether due care has been exercised. The set of cirumstances set forth in the preamble of March 5, 1970, might constitute "due care" in a large number of situations. To be sure, a manufacturer who tests his own tires might be considered in some cases to have exercised more care to insure that his tires complied with the standard than one who relied on tests by a third person on other tires that were similarly manufactured. Each potential case would be considered, and decided, by the agency on the facts peculiar to it.

The "Flash Notice" also mentions "certification" in such a way that clarification of the term is indicated. First, all tires manufactured after the standard's effective date must be certified. Certification is accomplished, as you know, by placing the symbol "DOT" on the tire in a prescribed location.

In practice, all tires will have the symbol "DOT" affixed to them after January 1, 1972, as manufacturers could not manufacture these tires without placing the mark on them. The answer to your question on page 3, "What if one certified does not comply" is that even if the tire fails to comply, if the manufacturer has exercised due care, in the view of the court, in manufacturing the tires to comply to the standard, his certification will not be considered "false or misleading," and no civil penalty can be imposed. The same "due care" that will suffice for compliance will suffice for purposes of certification. Manufacturers' efforts should be directed to manufacturing tires that conform to the standard.

Your "Flash Notice" also incorrectly explains certain provisions of the standard. First, with reference to which tests a particular tire must pass, S5.1.1 requires each tire to be able to pass every test, but when a single tire, during the agency testing, is subjected to one of the groups of tests specified in S5.1.1, that particular tire will not be tested further. As indicated to you on the phone, this is similar to the test procedure of Standard No. 109. It merely reflects that fact that certain tests, such as strength, normally destroy the tire.

Your statement on page 4 concerning the labeling requirements, that retreaders can "buff off the labeling required in retreading without worry, since it is displayed in other areas," is unclear to us. The standard requires each item of information required by Standard No. 109 to be retained in at least one location (Standard No. 109 requires each item to be on both sidewalls) on the complete retreaded tire. Retreaders must therefore take care that each tire retains the original marking to this extent.

Finally, with reference to the physical dimension requirements of S5.1.2, the 10 percent tolerance refers only to the maximum dimension with respect to the section width specified in the tables of Standard No. 109. Your reference on page 4 to "10% under" is incorrect, since no minimum measurement is stated in the standard. However, the section width is a variable in computing the size factor which must be at least the minimum specified for the tire in the tables in the Appendix.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

ID: bombardier.ztv

Mr. William K. Cooper. P.E.
Vice President
Engineering and System Assurance
Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) USA Inc.
1501 Lebanon Church Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15236-1491

Dear Mr. Cooper:

This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 2003, requesting an interpretation as to whether the Guided Light Transit (GLT) that Bombardier is preparing to market is a "motor vehicle." You stated that the GLT "is similar in appearance and function to a European street tram, but runs on rubber tires and is guided during street operation by a single rail set into the roadway." You further stated "Propulsion is electric via an overhead catenary system." You argued that the GLT is not a "motor vehicle," "owing to its primary operation in a guided mode where the operator is not required to steer."

You provided additional information in a CD-ROM that you left with us after meeting with Taylor Vinson of this Office, and other agency representatives, on December 10, 2002. We have downloaded this information and it, with your letter, forms the basis for our response.

The information indicates that the rubber-tired GLT is intended to bridge the gap between articulated buses and steel-wheeled trams. The GLT is a vehicle consisting of three passenger-carrying units, and contains 41 designated seating positions. The overall length of the GLT is 24.5 m and its "empty weight" is 25,000 kgs. In the GLTs "Maintenance/Failure Management Mode," the operator "provides steering, traction and braking for limited failure management and non-revenue service maneuvers." We understood from our meeting that "non-revenue service maneuvers" refers to the driving of the GLT, under its own power, between the guide rail and the structure where it is housed. In going to and from the guide rail, the GLT does not carry passengers.

You have also presented information indicating that the GLT complies, or will comply, with all but one of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that would apply to it as a "bus" with a GVWR more than 4,536 kg. were the GLT determined to be a "motor vehicle."The one exception is FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, where "Discussion required with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA") is noted (in our view, the GLT would comply with FMVSS No. 208 were the operator provided with, at a minimum, a Type 1 seat belt assembly (a lap belt for pelvic restraint) that complies with the specifications of S4.4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208, referenced by the primary requirement for a bus with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, S4.4.3.1.).

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety, a "motor vehicle" is "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line." Under a literal application of this definition, the GLT would be a "motor vehicle" because it is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets and it is not operated exclusively on a rail line.

Nevertheless, we interpret the definition to exclude vehicles operated on a rail line even if the vehicles are rubber-tired, instead of steel-wheeled, and if the rail line is part of a public road. Importantly, we observe that the GLT is "operated exclusively on a rail line" at all times that it is carrying passengers other than a driver; i.e., when the safety of the passengers on the public roadways would be the paramount concern of this agency. At such times, it is electrically powered by an overhead catenary, consistent with other public transit vehicles such as trams and trolleys that are operated exclusively on rails. We further note that the GLT exceeds in length articulated (two-unit) buses typically regulated by this agency and due to its GVWR, is excused from compliance with some FMVSS that apply to buses. Therefore, we have concluded that the GLT is not a "motor vehicle."

Even if we decided that the GLT were a motor vehicle, there would be public policy reasons as well for NHTSA not to regulate it. Bombardiers submission also indicates that the GLT complies or will comply with such safety regulations of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as may apply to it (49 CFR Part 665). We have, on two occasions, relinquished our jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" where it appeared they were more appropriately regulated by another Federal agency. Initially, we considered mobile homes to be "motor vehicles" because they used the public roads in traveling from the place of manufacture to one or more home sites during their life, requiring them to be equipped in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to "trailers." We found it more appropriate for mobile homes to be regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The second situation involved motorized bicycles. We distinguished those that were powered 100 percent of the time by a motor from those where the power source was primarily muscular and the motor operated intermittently as an assist, such as in climbing hills. We found it more appropriate that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulate power-assist bicycles. Because the GLT is not a transit vehicle of the type usually regulated by this agency, it is more appropriate for FTA to regulate it than it would be for NHTSA to do so.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.5/15/03