ID: 18981.wkm

Mr. Clive Glanville - PM
Italamec
Direzione Tecnica
Via R. Geymet, 25
10060 Campiglione Fenile (Torino)
Italy

Dear Mr. Glanville:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter telefaxed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked us to analyze the configuration of your back door latch system and provide you a "conformance certificate." You enclosed drawings of your latch system. Following a telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on February 12, 1999, you sent him another telefax in which you stated that you need "confirmation that when two tailgate latches are fitted to a tailgate, as to whether they both must have two safety positions and must meet the strength requirements." You further stated in this telefax that both latches are identical, therefore they do not constitute a "primary and secondary latch system." You attached a drawing to the February 12 letter depicting the back door of a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The drawing shows the latches located on either side of and near the bottom of the door. We have reviewed your latch system as you requested, but are not able to provide you a "conformance certificate," as discussed below.

This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The basic statute, commonly referred to as the Safety Act, establishes a self-certification system in which the manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment themselves certify that their product complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA checks compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them. The agency also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Because of that self-certification system, NHTSA cannot issue certificates of conformance.

Paragraph S4.4.1, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (copy enclosed), requires that "[E]ach back door system shall be equipped with at least one primary latch and striker assembly" (emphasis added). Also with respect to a back door or a back door system, a "primary door latch," as defined in S3, means "the latch or latches equipped with both the fully latched position and the secondary latched position"(emphasis added). The "fully latched position" is described in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991, as "[T]he attitude that exists between the latch and striker when the door is securely positioned in the fully closed position." The "secondary latched position" is described in SAE J839 as "[T]he attitude that exists between the latch and striker when the latch holds the door in a position less than fully closed." The secondary latched position serves as a backup to the fully latched position in the event the latter is not properly engaged, and adds an additional level of protection in the event the latch fails while in the fully latched position.

Back doors may, but are not required, to have one or more auxiliary latches, which is a latch other than the primary latch or latches in a multi-latch door system. ⁽¹⁾

Auxiliary latches are typically used in double cargo door systems where the primary latch or latches directly connect the left and right segments of the door system to each other while the auxiliary latch or latches secure one segment of the door system to the roof and/or the floor of the vehicle.

Since a back door latch system is only required to have one primary latch, your dual latch system may consist of a primary latch and one or more auxiliary latches. However, if you have two primary latches, that is, ones with both the fully and secondary latched positions, then both must meet the strength requirements in both the fully latched and secondary latched positions as specified in S4.4.1.1 through S4.4.1.4.

I am enclosing for your additional information copies of fact sheets prepared by this agency entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by telefax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief counsel
Enclosure
ref:206
d.7/15/99

1. Standard No. 206 does not refer to multiple latch systems as "primary" and "secondary" but, as discussed above, to "primary" and "auxiliary." We assume, therefore, that you mean that your latch systems do not fall into the categories of "primary" and "auxiliary."

ID: 19011.drn

The Honorable Dave Weldon
U. S. House of Representatives
2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Building C
Melbourne, FL 32940

ATTN: Mr. Terry Mulford, Senior Caseworker

Dear Congressman Weldon:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Mr. David Thatcher and Ms. Janice Pound, of the Indian River City United Methodist Church, concerning Federal regulations for school buses. Your letter was referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency responsible for administering Federal school bus requirements.

Your letter explains that the Indian River City United Methodist Church plans to start an after school child care program, and plans to purchase vans for use in transporting the children in the program. Your constituents have heard that "the state will be attempting to outlaw passenger vans for transporting children to/from school." They ask whether the church may use a passenger van and have other questions about school bus requirements.

I appreciate this opportunity to explain our school bus requirements. As explained below, our statutory authority applies to dealers that sell new vehicles. We do not regulate the use of vans, but we do require persons to sell school buses if the seller is selling a new "bus" (which includes a 10+ passenger van) and knows that the new bus (van) will be used to transport children to or from school or related events.

NHTSA's statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal safety standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is any bus which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary students "to or from school or an event related to school" (emphasis added). Thus, a large van (such as one designed for 15 passengers) that is likely to be used significantly to transport students to or from school or school-related events is a "school bus." If a dealer sells a new bus (van) knowing that the bus is likely to be used significantly for such transportation, the seller must sell a bus that has been certified as meeting comprehensive Federal school bus safety standards.

This means that, with regard to your constituents' planned purchase of a bus (van), if a dealer knows that a new bus it is about to sell is likely to be used significantly (e.g., on a regular basis) to carry children to or from school or school-related events, the dealer must sell a bus that has been certified as meeting Federal school bus standards. A failure to sell a school bus in this situation can subject the dealer to substantial civil penalties from NHTSA.

Because use of a vehicle is regulated by the individual states, Florida may have requirements that could affect your constituents' use of the van. For information on Florida's requirements for transporting children to or from school, Mr. Thatcher and Ms. Pound can contact Florida's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Charles F. Hood, Director
School Transportation
Florida Department of Education
Suite 824, Fla. Educ. Ctr.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Telephone number: (904) 488-4405

Florida may have a school bus definition that is used to determine which vehicles are subject to the state's school bus use requirements. Florida state administrators can answer Ms. Pound's question about the definition of a school bus, and the date by which school bus operators must comply with any prohibitions against using passenger vans for transporting children to or from school.

In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used significantly to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 10+ passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, your constituents may wish to consult with an attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing our publication, "Frequently Asked Questions About School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.11/20/98

ID: 19019.wkm

Ed Leboeuf, Legal Assistant
Office of the Chief Counsel
Kansas Department of Transportation
779-S, Docking State Office Building
915 SW Harrison
Topeka, KS 66612-1568

Dear Mr. Leboeuf:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff, subject: Approval of a new type of stud tire. You stated that an inventor in Oklahoma, Mr. Allen D. West, acquired a patent on a stud tire in which the studs do not contact the road when the tire is fully inflated, but the studs are exposed when the tires are deflated to a certain pressure. You enclosed a copy of Mr. West's letter to your office and a copy of a letter to Mr. West from the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. He stated in his letter to your office that he saw a Kansas statute giving the state the authority to approve such tires. You stated that the Kansas Department of Transportation does not do this, however, and you wanted to give Mr. West another place to turn to.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S.C., commonly referred to as the Safety Act, gives this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which the manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment themselves certify that their product complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA enforces compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them. The agency also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Because of the self-certification system, NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, endorse, or determine compliance of any motor vehicle or item of equipment prior to the product's introduction into the retail market.

NHTSA has issued six FMVSSs applicable to tires, found at 49 CFR 571.109, 110, 117, 119, 120, and 129. Stud tires must meet the same requirements as non-stud tires. State laws may apply to the use of stud tires. We regret that we cannot provide information on the laws of individual states.

I am providing Mr. West a copy of this letter for his information.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you or Mr. West need any further assistance or additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Mr. Allen D. West, P.E.
Drawer 310
Catoosa, OK 74015-0310
ref:109
d.4/16/99

ID: 19023.ztv

Herr Olaf Schmidt
Manager, R &D
Hella K.G. Hueck & Co.
Rixbecker Str. 75
59552 Lippstadt
Germany

Dear Herr Schmidt:

We apologize for the delay in answering your letter of March 27, 1998, on headlamp labels, but this Office did not receive a copy of it until November 3. If you wish to communicate with us by fax, we recommend that you mail a hard copy at the same time to minimize the possibility of lost correspondence.

You report that "modern headlamp designs have the approval markings for the USA as well as for the European market on the lens as it is required by the relevant laws." In order to minimize confusion as to whether a headlamp has been designed to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, or to conform with ECE requirements, Hella would like to place the words "Not D.O.T. approved" or "Not D.O.T. certified" on the bottom line of the labels that the company places on the rear of the headlamp housing of ECE headlamps. You have asked that we agree with your plan.

We cannot agree with your plan. We understand that, under this plan, the "DOT" symbol would appear on each lens. S7.2(a) of Standard No. 108 requires that the lens of each original and replacement headlamp manufactured for sale in the United States must be marked with the symbol "DOT." This symbol is the certification required by 49 U.S.C. 30115 that the headlamp meets Standard No. 108. It cannot be qualified by a disclaimer placed on a label on the rear of the headlamp housing. A manufacturer must not mark a headlamp lens with the DOT symbol if the headlamp does not comply with Standard No. 108.

A manufacturer who applies the DOT symbol to the lens of a headlamp that meets ECE requirements but does not comply with Standard No. 108, in our view, has provided certification that is materially false and misleading, and the manufacturer may be liable for a civil penalty. The maximum civil penalties authorized are $1,100 for importation of a single noncomplying headlamp, and $1,100 for each instance of false and misleading certification. We may impose a penalty up to a total of $880,000 for any related series of violations.

Should it come to our attention that noncomplying headlamps with dual ECE/DOT markings are being imported into the United States, we will investigate the matter with a view towards seeking a civil penalty from any responsible headlamp manufacturer doing business in the United States. In addition, if nonconforming headlamps with dual ECE/DOT markings have previously been imported and sold, our laws require the importer to notify purchasers of the noncompliance, and to remedy the noncompliance at no charge.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108#VSA
d.2/26/99

ID: 19024.wkm

Mr. William E. Daniels, Jr.
Precision Husky Corporation
P.O. Box Drawer 507
Leeds, AL 35094-0507

Dear Mr. Daniels:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the tub grinders your company produces would constitute motor vehicles. The answer is no.

You stated that the purpose of the tub grinders is the processing of organic waste materials. The grinders are used at composting facilities and land fills world-wide. You stated that normally, a customer will purchase a grinder at the factory, after which it is transported to the distributor for final inspection, then delivered to the customer's work site. Once there it typically remains at that site for its useful life, considered to be approximately 5 to 7 years. The grinder may be towed over the public roads on rare occasions, however, such as from job site to job site, back to the factory for rebuilding, and resold and towed to the next buyer. You also referred to a problem with shipping a grinder into Canada.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act, at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6), defines "motor vehicle" as:

[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.

Based on your description of your tub grinders and the product brochures you enclosed with your letter, it appears that the grinders are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition quoted above. They obviously are designed to be used primarily at off-road job sites for extended periods of time, although they are capable of being towed to other locations. In such cases, the on-road transport of these items is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. This contrasts with instances in which vehicles such as dump trucks frequently use the public roads going to and from off-road job sites, but stay at the sites for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since their on-road use is more than merely "incidental."

With respect to shipping grinders to Canada, since they are not "motor vehicles" within the definition of the Safety Act, they are not required to comply with the FMVSSs. They may, however, be driven, towed, or otherwise transported to the U.S. border or to a U.S. port for further shipment to a foreign market so long as they are labeled on the vehicle or equipment clearly indicating intent to export. There is no prescribed form or format for the export label, but the label must be legible, obvious, and clearly indicate "For Export Only."

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need further information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.2/3/99

ID: 19033.drn

Mr. Steven Butcher
Vice President, Technical and Standards
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K St, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Butcher:

This responds to your request for clarification of marking requirements for tires in Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. In a final rule of May 27, 1998 (63 FR 28912), Standard No. 119 was amended to convert English measurements in that standard to metric measurements. Since a five year lead time was provided, the final rule is effective on May 27, 2003. You wish to know whether pound designations for markings specified in Standard No. 119 (at S6.5 Tire markings) may be designated as "lbs" rather than "lb", and whether it is "acceptable to use either upper or lower case letters."

With respect to your question concerning "lb" vs. "lbs", we note that, as a general matter, the examples and language specified in the final rule must be followed exactly. However, given that "lb" and "lbs" represent very minor variations of the same abbreviation, and the standard has in the past used "lbs" instead of "lb", it is our interpretation that either variation may be used.

Standard No. 119 does not specify whether upper case or lower case letters must be used. However, please note that S6.5 states in part: "Except as specified below, each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section." (Emphasis added). S6.5 further specifies permitted locations of the markings, the height of the markings' letters and numerals, and how high above or sunk below the tire surface the markings must be. S6.5 does not specify the case (upper or lower) of the markings that are used. Thus, since S6.5 specifies that the tire must be marked with "the information" specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) and does not further specify whether the information provided must be in letters that are upper or lower case, a manufacturer may use either upper or lower case letters.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:119
d.4/21/99

ID: 19034.wkm

Mr. Joel A. Johnson
32732 SE 76^th Street
Fall City, WA 98024

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter to this office asking whether the DC-powered clutch actuator that you use to help activate the clutch in your semi-tractor is prohibited by the Department of Transportation (DOT). I regret the delay in responding. As explained below, an actuator is not prohibited by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). However, there are certain restrictions that apply to the installation, if the work is performed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business.

You state that using your leg to activate the clutch on your truck tractor aggravates your injured back, so you have been using the actuator device to assist in activating the clutch. Your employer told you that the device was not "DOT approved" and that use of this device might be breaking the law.

I would like to begin by noting that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has responded to your inquiry on December 30, 1998, with respect to that agency's requirements. We understand that FHWA has determined that the device is permitted under that agency's regulations.

By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA neither approves, endorses, nor certifies compliance of any vehicle or item of equipment.

NHTSA has not issued any safety standard that directly applies to clutch devices such as your actuator. However, a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair business that installs such a device on a vehicle must ensure that it does not make inoperative any safety feature or device originally installed in or on a motor vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards.

Individual owners are not subject to the "make inoperative" provision of our statute. That means you may modify your own vehicle without regard to Federal requirements. However, NHTSA recommends that owners not degrade the safety of their vehicles. Further, you may be well advised to check with your attorney, your state Department of Motor Vehicles, and/or your liability insurance carrier as to any state requirements regarding your clutch actuator and any additional potential civil liability you may incur as a result of having it installed in your tractor.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref: mis
d.3/4/99

ID: 19040.ztv

Mr. Siegfried Hetz
Senior Optic Engineer
Robert Bosch Corporation
38000 Hills Tech Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3417

Dear Mr. Hetz:

This is in reply to your fax of November 4, 1998, asking for an interpretation of the vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed several engineering drawings for our review and asked whether "the design passes NHTSA's requirements to be permanently fixed (tamper-proofed)." Later, by letter of November 13, 1998, you provided Taylor Vinson of this Office with a sample of a mockup of the proposed VHAD.

The requirement that concerns you is S7.8.5.2(c) of Standard No. 108. This requires each headlamp with a VHAD to be manufactured with its calibration permanently fixed by the headlamp manufacturer. We have examined your drawings and the VHAD. The principal feature is a "wedge block [which] will lock into the V-HAD plate while also locking the V-HAD legs down in position." One of our engineers was able to remove the wedge block with a letter opener, after some minutes, and after consulting your drawing with its sectional view depicting the wedge block. However, we have decided that the calibration of the VHAD is "permanently fixed" as required by S7.8.5.2(c). It is our opinion that a person interested in removing the wedge block would have to remove the headlamp to do so, but, in the absence of access to your engineering drawing with its sectional view, would be unlikely to be able to proceed further and remove the wedge block.

Please let Mr. Vinson know if you wish the mockup returned (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.12/28/98

ID: 19071.wkm

Mr. Jeff Glasman
Post Office Box 1449
Russell, Manitoba, Canada
ROJ 1WO

Dear Mr. Glasman:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you stated that you would like to sell the small ATV trailers in the United States that you produce in Canada and asked whether they would require a "Department of Transportation (DOT) number" in order to be shipped into the United States. The answer is no.

You described your trailer and enclosed pictures of it in your letter. The trailer averages about 6 feet in length and has a wheelbase of 46 inches, measured from the outsides of the tires. You stated that the trailers are manufactured for off-road use, primarily for hunters to transport their gear into the bush and haul out their game, although the trailers can also be used around a farm for feeding livestock, yard cleanup, and the like. Hunters typically transport an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and the ATV trailer on a skidoo trailer to the hunting area. There they unload the ATV and the trailer, pack their gear in the trailer, then proceed with their hunting trip. The trailers have no lights and do not have a wide enough wheelbase to be towed behind a car or truck. They are equipped with off-road ATV tires, which are slow-speed knobby tires. The trailers have no suspension and if towed behind a car, would bounce off the road. You stated that you advertise them as ATV trailers at places that sell ATVs, and that you do not advertise or sell them at car dealers or for any other on-road use.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (U.S.C), hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Based on the information you provided, including the pictures enclosed with your letter, it is our opinion that the ATV trailers that you produce are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. As such, they are not subject to any of the Federal motor vehicles safety standards, including the requirement for a "DOT number." The trailers are manufactured primarily for use off-road for hunting, farming, and related purposes. They are small, light, and with their ATV tires and narrow wheelbase are not only not suitable for towing on the highway but, because of their tendency to bounce around, could cause a potentially serious safety hazard on the highway. This contrasts with a grain truck or trailer that could be used to transport grain to market over the public highways as well as being used off-road in the fields. In such case, the on-road use of the vehicle would be sufficient to classify it as a motor vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (2020) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.4/21/99

ID: 19089.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636, Japan

Re: Headlamp Lens Coating

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of November 5, 1998, asking for an interpretation of S5.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

According to your letter, Stanley Electric Co. has developed a new coating to "be applied to the inner surface of the headlamp lens for the purpose of" preventing frost. You relate that "the lens with its original coating applied to the outer surface" complies with Standard No. 108 after the 3-year outdoor exposure test of S5.1.2(b). The application of the inner coating "will not cause any change in the conformity of the original lens with its outer surface coating." For this reason, you believe that no further testing is required after application of the inner coating, and you ask whether your interpretation is correct.

Standard No. 108 does not require headlamp lenses to be coated on either the outer or inner surface. However, some manufacturers of headlamps with plastic lenses coat the outer surface of the lens as a means of ensuring that the plastic materials used in the lens meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J576 JUL91, incorporated by reference in S5.1.2, and the requirements of S7.4(h) of Standard No. 108.

We cannot answer your question. Stanley must ensure that its headlamps as manufactured conform with all requirements of Standard No. 108. It is Stanley's responsibility in certifying compliance of the headlamp with all applicable standards within

Standard No. 108 to determine whether a coating on the inner surface of the plastic lens would result in a noncompliance of the plastic materials with S5.1.2 after a 3-year exposure test, whether or not Stanley conducts an actual test. Further, Stanley must ensure that the presence of the inner coating does not affect the ability of the headlamp to meet all the requirements that apply to it.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.12/22/98