ID: nht95-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Darlene Skelton -- President, National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/16/94 LETTER FROM DARLENE E. SKELTON TO BARRY FELRICE

TEXT: Dear Ms. Skelton:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards of this agency, in which you asked the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to three specific scenarios. I apologi ze for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, under the provisions of Chapter 301 of Title 49 U.S. Code, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipmen t. All new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture, and manufacturers must certify such compliance by affixing to each vehicle a manufacturer's certification lab el. Among other requirements, the certification label must contain the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of each vehicle and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of each axle on the vehicle, identified in order from front to rear.

a. Your first question referred to a situation in which the GVWR exceeded the tire load ratings. Specifically, you alluded to the-case of a fire truck with four rear mounted tires, each rated at 7,000 pounds (lb), that were installed on a 31,000 lb. axle. You stated that the final stage manufacturer received a letter from the tire manufacturer raising the tire inflation pressures from 100 to 110 or 115 pounds per square inch and limiting the driving to not more than 7 miles at a speed not to excee d 55 miles per hour. You asked whether such practices violated the FMVSSs.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, provides in pertinent part:

[The] sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's certification label required by 49 CFR part 567.

In other words, the load ratings of the tires on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be at least equal to the weight ratings of the axles on which the tires are installed. The standard makes no provision for changing the tire inflation pressur es or driving at restricted speeds or limiting the distances the vehicle may travel to compensate for discrepancies in the load and weight ratings.

The facts you provided us, however, are not sufficient on which to base an opinion as to whether there has been a noncompliance in that instance. We would have to know all the facts and circumstances relevant to the tire manufacturer's alleged actions, including input from the manufacturer itself, before we could arrive at a conclusion in that regard.

b. Your second question referred to vehicles in which axles had been rerated. You cited a situation in which a manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Thus, the manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks from 22,000 to 24 000 lbs.

NHTSA defines the GAWR as:

[The] value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interface (emphasis added).

A manufacturer's assigning different GAWRs to axles on different vehicles is not prohibited by our FMVSSs. In fact, manufacturers routinely assign different GAWRs and GVWRs to different vehicles based on the various equipment options and add-ons, partic ularly with respect to emergency vehicles. In any case, NHTSA expects that the GAWR(s) stated on the vehicle's certification label correctly reflects the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle.

c. Your final question asked whether it was a violation of the FMVSS for manufacturers to take the air supply for their vehicle horns off the air supply for the vehicle's brakes. The answer is, in general, no.

FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems, specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles other than passenger cars that are equipped with air brake systems. The standard does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for the horn, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If the horn operating off the brake air supply is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 121. If the horn is added to a previous ly certified new vehicle, the person so modifying the vehicle would be an alterer who would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the FMVSSs affected by the alteration. If the horn were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle repair business, that business would not be required to attach a label or recertify the vehicle. It would, however, have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

In addition, hoses connected to air horns could be subject to Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses. They are subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, i.e., if a failure of the h ose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, the hoses are "brake hoses" and must comply with Standard No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with the brake hose standard. o I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donnell W. Morrison

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/14/95 LETTER FROM DONNELL W. MORRISON TO RICARDO MARTINEZ

TEXT: Dear Mr. Morrison:

We have received your letter of March 14, 1995 and its attached copy of a letter dated February 14. I am sorry to say that your earlier letter never reached us.

You asked whether the mounting height requirements for clearance and identification lamps (Table II of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108) have been amended to allow their mounting in locations other than "as high as practicable."

The requirements have not changed since you were at DOT. The primary requirement is that identification lamps are to be mounted "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable", and that clearance lamps are mounted "to indicate the overall width of t he vehicle . . . . as near the top thereof as practicable." The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, to be made in its certification that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA wi ll not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

However, when the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, paragraph S5.3.1.4 states that the rear clearance lamps need not be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. Further, if it is necessary to i ndicate the overall width of the vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear and need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard (paragraph S5.3.1. 1.1).

ID: nht95-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bill Lieb -- Regional Sales Manager, ResTech

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/27/95 LETTER FROM BILL LIEB TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10797)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lieb:

This is in reply to your letter of February 27, 1995. You report that "a manufacturer of sealed beam automotive head lamps . . . . was told by [an adhesive supplier] . . . . that D.O.T. 'approval' is required prior to changing the adhesive used on head lamps."

Subsequently, you were told by Blane Laubis of this agency "that D.O.T. does not test, approve, or specify any adhesives, but just verifies that the completed unit meets the prescribed standards, and passes the appropriate tests." You ask if this is corr ect.

Mr. Laubis is correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment establishes requirements that must be met by sealed beam headlamps. As you learned in your review, Standard No. 108 contains no spec ifications for adhesives. This means the manufacturer may choose the adhesive that appears best suited to ensuring that its particular sealed beam headlamp complies with the performance requirements of Standard No. 108. The approval of the agency is no t required. The agency frequently buys and tests all types of headlamps as part of its compliance enforcement program.

I hope that this letter is sufficient for your purposes.

ID: nht95-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ralph T. Welch

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/5/95 LETTER FROM RALPH T. WELCH TO NHTSA (OCC 10644)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Welch:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) specify "the type of odometer" placed in a motor vehicle. As explained below, the FMVSS do not so specify. If an odometer is provided, its mi leage may be stated in kilometers.

Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. Neither Standard No. 101 nor any other FMVSS specifies that an odometer be placed in a motor vehic le or that it register distance in miles, rather than kilometers. However, S5.3.1 (referencing Table 2 "Identification and Illumination of Displays") of Standard No. 101, specifies that if an odometer is provided and the odometer measures mileage in kil ometers, the mileage must be stated as "KILOMETERS" or "km."

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

ID: nht95-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tamera Reuvers -- Quality Assurance Manager, Viracon/Curvlite

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/14/95 LETTER FROM TAMERA REUVERS TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10731)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Reuvers:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, with respect to the marking of automotive glazing manufactured by two different companies. According to your letter, your company, V iracon/Curvlite, purchases bent tempered AS-2 glazing from a fabricator. Your company then laminates a piece of "SenryGlas" to the bent tempered product, thereby making it AS-15B glazing.

You asked how Viracon/Curvlite's glass-plastic glazing should be marked under S6.1 of the standard. Specifically, you asked whether there should be marking information about both the first company (the glass fabricator/temperer) and additional marking i nformation about the second company (Viracon/Curvlite, the laminator). You believe only Viracon/Curvlite need mark the product, since the company, as the laminator, would be fully responsible for its compliance.

We agree with your assessment. Viracon/Curvlite, as the manufacturer of the tempered glass-plastic glazing, would mark the product with the AS-15B designation. The glazing would not contain the marking of the supplier of the bent tempered product.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 14, 1995

FROM: Takashi Adachi -- Manager, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TO: Richard L Van Iderstin -- Visibility and Controls Group, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TAKASHI ADACHI (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Iderstein,

I am writing this letter to ask you a view with regard to conformity of the reflex reflector included in rear lamp that our company are consider to design. Structure of design are described on the attachment.

My questions are related to conformity to FMVSS 108, as follows.

1. Does this structure of the reflex reflector conform to FMVSS 108? 2. Shall the reflex reflector meet the photometric performance requirement in the whole area of the reflex reflector? 3. Or shall each area (upper and lower) of the reflex reflector meet the photometric requirement individually?

Thank you in advance, I will call you later to listen your reply.

Enclosed: figure 1 (rear of lamp) shows clear and red outer lens, reflex reflector and opaque area. (Figure omitted.)

ID: nht95-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takashi Tohse -- Quality Assurance Group, Fabricated Glass General Division, Asahi Glass Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/7/95 LETTER FROM TAKASHI TOHSE TO MARVIN SHOW (OCC 10800; OCC 10706)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tohse:

This responds to your inquiry about whether various ways of marking your automotive glazing comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Specifically, you ask the agency to assess the merits of what you refer to as "plural company Ids" in your logo mark. By "plural company Ids," we assume you mean more than one distinctive designation or trademark. We also assume that you are a "prime glazing material manufacturer" which the Standard defines as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material."

Under Standard No. 205, a replacement windshield is required to be marked with information that includes the prime glazing manufacturer's "distinctive designation or trademark" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. See, S6.1 and S6.2.

You first ask, "Can a manufacturer use different kinds of Ids for different grades of products?" The answer to this question is yes. We understand that what you refer to as "Ids" is the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. As long as an item of glazing has a manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark, a manufacturer would comply with this requirement. The Standard does not prohibit a manufacturer from varying this distinctive designation or trademark among its different grades . (We note that each of your products would be marked with the same manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by NHTSA. This code mark will help NHTSA identify the manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall cam paigns.)

Your second question asks "Can a manufacturer used the same distinctive designation or trademark for two different companies?" The answer is yes. The requirements do not prohibit two companies from sharing a distinctive designation or trademark. As men tioned above, the glazing must be marked with the manufacturer's code mark that identifies the glazing's actual manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Chong D. Lee -- President, TMR International, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/28/95 LETTER FROM CHONG D. LEE TO PHILIP RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lee:

This is in reply to your FAX of February 28, 1995, asking several questions about the importation and sale of an aftermarket airbag. The airbag "comes in assembly with a steering wheel" and is intended for installation in vehicles not originally equippe d with a driver's airbag.

You have asked the following questions:

"a) Whether such a product as described is legal for U.S. sale."

There is no Federal prohibition per se against the sale of aftermarket airbags. However, pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in airbag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208, even if they are aftermarket equipment. Therefore the manufacturer of these items (or the importer, who is defined as a "manufacturer" under our statute) must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

S9 prescribes performance requirements that are found in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178, regulations of another Administration of the Department of Transportation. We suggest that you write the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Research a nd Special Programs Administration, 400 7th Street, Washington, D.C. 20590 for an opinion as to whether other of its regulations apply to your product or its movement in interstate commerce.

As to whether the laws of the individual States regulate the sale of aftermarket airbags, you should write, for an opinion, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

"b) Legal procedures, testing or submissions required to certify the product for U.S. sale."

The requirements for compliance with S9 of Standard No. 208 are set forth in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178. When the manufacturer who is responsible for certifying compliance is satisfied that the equipment, in fact, does conform, it certifies the product. At that point, pressure vessels and explosive devices that are part of an airbag assembly, if not manufactured in the United States, may be imported into this country. A state is not permitted to have performance requirements for pressure vessels and ex plosive devices that differ from those of S9, but it may have a standard requiring identical performance, and, if so, they may ask for documentary assurance of compliance.

"c) Applicable Federal law (e.g. FMVSS 208)."

See replies to your previous questions. You should also note that an aftermarket airbag is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

One Federal law does bear upon the installation of the airbag. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business replaces a piece of original equipment that was necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, if the replacement part creates a noncompliance with that standard. The design of the steering wheel may affect compliance with Federal Standards Nos. 203 Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system and 204 Steering control rearward displacement. We recommend that you satisfy yourself that installation of the airbag will not affect the previous ability to comply, of the vehicle in which it is installed, before marketing the product.

"d) Actions or registrations required to reduce legal risks."

We are not in a position to advise you on matters that do not relate to Federal laws that we administer. We recommend that you consult a private attorney on these matters.

"e) Any other information of which we should be aware."

You should encounter no difficulties in importing the airbag and steering wheel under our importation regulation, 49 CFR Part 591 as long as any components that are required to comply with S9 of Standard No. 208 are certified as meeting that standard.

I am enclosing an information sheet that outlines the various laws and regulations that we administer pertaining to motor vehicles and equipment with the thought that you might find it helpful.

ID: nht95-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dirk du Plooy -- Motorcycle Safety Consultant, Motorcycle Rider Advancement Centre

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/6/95 LETTER FROM DIRK DU PLOOR TO JOE PESCI (OCC 10787)

TEXT: Dear Mr. du Plooy:

We have received your letter of March 6, 1995, to Joe Pesci of this agency, asking his assistance "in acquiring information about U.S. laws on motorcycle trailers." You understand that "there could be a number of different U.S. states with different laws , but the most generally accepted standard" is what you are seeking in drafting legislation legalizing motorcycle trailers.

Any trailer that is manufactured for sale in, or imported into, the United States must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards are issued by this agency. Several of them apply to trailers. As we have no separat e category of "motorcycle trailer", these standards would apply to any trailer manufactured for the purpose of carrying one or more motorcycles.

Here are the requirements that apply to trailers. A trailer with a hydraulic brake system must be equipped with brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings that meet Standard No. 106, and with brake fluid that complies with Standard No. 116. Lighting equipment and reflectors must be installed pursuant to Standard No. 108. Each trailer must have a Vehicle Identification Number attached, in accordance with Standard No. 115 to facilitate any recall campaigns for safety purposes. Sta ndards Nos. 119 and 120 apply to tires and rims used on trailers. Finally, at the end of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer must affix a permanent label which certifies that the trailer complies with the safety standards.

Because these Federal standards apply throughout the United States, I believe that they meet your request for information on "the most generally accepted standard." Under our laws, if any State has its own standard covering any aspect of performance that is covered by one of the Federal standards listed above, that State standard must be identical to the Federal one. So, to that extent, State regulation of motorcycle trailers should be identical to the Federal requirements.

However, States may impose their own standards in areas that are not covered by the Federal standards. For example, this agency has no requirement covering strength of trailer hitches, or that trailers be equipped with mud flaps. Therefore, a State coul d adopt standards in these areas. We are not conversant with State laws for motorcycle trailers, and cannot advise you about them. If you wish further information on such laws, we recommend that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Admin istrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I am enclosing for your information a pamphlet on our regulations that we provide to prospective trailer manufacturers. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. Given the distance between us, you may wish to communicate by FAX. Our number is 202-366-3820.

ID: nht95-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward Gower, Esq. -- Chief-Counsel, Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/27/95 LETTER FROM J. RANDLE SCHICK TO SUSAN KUNKEL (OCC 10696)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gower:

In response to a request by Larry Wort, Chief of the Bureau of Safety Programs, I have reviewed the provisions of Senate Bill No. 52, now awaiting action in the Illinois General Assembly, to determine whether the provisions relating to school buses would conflict with applicable Federal law. My review leads me to conclude that there is a conflict that could result in Federal preemption in some circumstances. I am specifically concerned about the bill's redefinition of "school bus."

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and equipment p rior to sale to the first retail purchaser. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state concern. The Safety Act further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)

NHTSA defines a "bus" as a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, except a bus sold for op eration as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR 571.3.

Senate Bill No. 52 proposes to amend the definition of "school bus" in section 1-182 of 625 ILCS by excluding

3. A motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons that is operated by or for a public or private primary or secondary school, including any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution, for the purpose of transporting not more than 15 students to and from interscholastic athletic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activities.

There is thus an inconsistency between the definition in 49 CFR 571.3 and the definition in Senate Bill No. 52, since a vehicle with a capacity of 11-16 persons that is sold for school transportation would be a school bus for Federal purposes but not for State purposes.

This inconsistency matters at the point of sale of a school bus. The Federal safety standards impose a number of requirements on school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection . If a dealer were to sell a 11-16 person bus to a school for use in transporting students, the Federal school bus requirements would apply, notwithstanding the State law's exclusion of such a bus from the school bus definition.

I want to stress that the Federal law applies to dealers as well as to manufacturers. The obligations of a dealer are set forth at 49 U.S.C.30112(a), which provides that no one may manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle to which a vehicle safety standa rd applies unless the vehicle complies with the standard. A dealer who sells a bus for school use that does not meet the school bus standards would thus violate the law.

The amendment in Senate Bill No. 52 which would add 105 ILCS 5/29-6.3 is not inconsistent with the Safety Act. It has been our position that vehicles that do not comply with applicable Federal school bus safety standards may be borrowed or rented on a o ne-time or very occasional basis to transport students. Operators should be cautioned, however, that transporting students in other than complying school buses could result in additional liability in the event of an accident.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.