ID: 13494.ztv

Mr. Dion A. DeVan
13061 Lakeridge Dr.
Spanish Lake, MO 63138-3307

Dear Mr DeVan:

This is in reply to your e-mail of January 2, 1997, to this Office. You informed us that you are building a "one-of-a-kind" truck/van, and need information such as how you can get a copy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's "codes," whether you need a manufacturer's license, and how you "go about getting certification for GVWR, Safety, and Emissions?"

Under our primary safety statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, "manufacturer" means any person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles . Even if someone produces only a single motor vehicle, that vehicle must be certified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards if its producer intends it to operate on the public roads. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are found at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. As we are unsure of the final configuration of your "truck/van," you should review the definitions of "truck" and "multipurpose passenger vehicle" under Sec. 571.3(b) to see which is most appropriate to your vehicle. The application section near the beginning of each Federal safety standard will tell you whether that standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks.

I enclose an information sheet that will tell you how you may get a copy of Title 49. No Federal license is required to manufacture a vehicle or vehicles, though a manufacturer of vehicles must file a simple identification statement with the agency.

Manufacturers must certify compliance of their vehicles with the Federal safety standards on the basis of their own engineering judgment and test data. Certification is achieved through affixing a plaque permanently to the vehicle (49 C.F.R. Part 567), which contains the vehicle's GVWR.

The Environmental Protection Agency enforces Federal emissions regulations, and we are unable to advise you as to their applicability to your truck/van.

We appreciate your interest in the Federal motor vehicle programs. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office at 202-366-5263. Because of the public interest in our interpretations and our desire to make them available to all interested persons, it is not our policy to reply by e-mail to requests for interpretations.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:571
d.6/24/97

ID: 13523.drn

Mr. Jerome A. Hoover
Compliance Engineer
Monaco Coach Corporation, Indiana Division
P. O. Box 4313
Elkhart, IN 46514-0313

Dear Mr. Hoover:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to Roadmaster Rail, Inc. (Roadmaster) can continue to identify Roadmaster after Monaco Coach Corporation (Monaco) purchases Roadmaster. Under the facts described below, since Monaco is not assigned a WMI and intends to continue use of the Roadmaster name, Monaco may use Roadmaster's WMI.

Your letter states Roadmaster and Holiday Rambler are divisions of Monaco. Roadmaster manufactures incomplete vehicles, and Holiday Rambler and Monaco are final stage vehicle manufacturers. You wrote that "Monaco has full liability for the Roadmaster chassis, and for Monaco and Holiday Rambler motorhomes."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that Monaco does not manufacture any vehicles in one stage or any incomplete vehicles, and is not assigned a WMI. You stated that before Monaco acquired Roadmaster in 1993, Roadmaster was an independent company, not part of another company. You stated that Monaco does not intend to merge Roadmaster into Monaco but to keep Roadmaster as a separate division, and to advertise Roadmaster as a trade name. You also stated that Holiday Rambler was once an independent company and is assigned its own WMI because it manufacturers trailers and fifth wheels.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements states that the WMI shall "uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." (49 CFR section 565.6(a)) In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has interpreted "uniquely identify" to mean that the same WMI cannot be used for two corporate entities if there is a possibility the two entities will be confused.

Your case is one of first impression. Unlike similar situations we have addressed, no WMI is assigned to the parent company (Monaco), but each division (Roadmaster and Holiday Rambler) has a separate WMI. You assure us that there are no plans for Monaco to be a one stage vehicle manufacturer or an incomplete vehicle manufacturer (which would require assigning a WMI).

Since Monaco itself is not assigned a WMI, and but each of its divisions, Roadmaster and Holiday Rambler has separate WMIs, we agree that Roadmaster and Holiday Rambler may continue to use the WMI assigned to each company. Under the facts described, there would be no confusion as to which corporate entity manufactured the applicable vehicle. Also, separate WMIs for the two divisions make it possible to distinguish between vehicles built by Roadmaster and Holiday Rambler.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:565

3/20/97

ID: 13562.drn

Mr. William J. Gordon
3718 Livingston Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20015

Dear Mr. Gordon:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how The National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSA's) laws apply to a device you wish to manufacture. In a March 12, 1997 letter from Heidi Coleman, NHTSA's Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, your letter to NHTSA was granted confidential treatment of all information, except for the device's description as a "speed limiting device for passenger automobiles and light trucks." A discussion of our standards follows below.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your device would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the device installed. While we do not have sufficient information to identify all the standards that might be relevant to your device, I would like to bring two standards to your attention.

Among the safety standards your device may affect are those for accelerator control systems (Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems), and braking (Standard No. 135, Passenger car brake systems), (The safety standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.) Standard No. 124 establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control, or in the event of a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for service brake and associated parking brake systems. While these standards do not preclude the installation of your device on a new vehicle, any vehicle with your device must meet the requirements of these and all other applicable safety standards.

No standard would apply to your device to the extent that it is sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Therefore, your device could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual states have authority to regulate modifications that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on state laws. You may wish to seek an opinion from the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the device will be sold or used.

Finally, your device is considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that the manufacturer of the device would be subject to Title 49 of the U.S. Code, sections 30118-30122, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your device is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.)

I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. If you have any more questions about these issues, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:vsa

d:3/26/97

ID: 135cmc

Mr. David Spurgess
Director Systems Engineering
TRW Automotive
12000 Tech Center Drive
Livonia, MI 48150

Dear Mr. Spurgess:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of S7.8 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135.You requested the Agencys concurrence with, or guidance regarding a suggested interpretation.You suggest that S7.8 is intended to require the testing of only a single antilock brake system (ABS) inoperative condition and that it is up to the discretion of the representative conducting the test to ensure that this has been accomplished appropriately.The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

FMVSS No. 135 specifies requirements for service brake and associated parking brake systems for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 7716 pounds or less.The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency driving conditions.Included in FMVSS No. 135 is S7.8, Antilock functional failure, which is part of a series of individual system functional failure tests.The series also includes: S7.7, Stops with engine off; S7.9 Variable brake proportioning system functional failure; S7.10, hydraulic circuit failure; and S7.11, Brake power unit or brake power assist unit inoperative.

S7.8 is a performance test conducted with an ABS functional failure simulation.In order to simulate a functional failure S7.8.2(g)(1) includes the following test specification: "Disconnect the functional power source, or any other electrical connector that creates a functional failure."

In your letter you state:

If a complex electrical control system is the basis for the ABS, it is feasible . . . that there are more then [sic] one electrical inputs into the module that may or may not directly apply to the performance of the ABS.

You state further:

[T]he purpose of S7.8 is to provide a performance requirement for a single condition of ABS inoperative. . . . [I]t is up to the discretion of the representative conducting the test to ensure that the selection [of which electric connector to disconnect] has been accomplished appropriately to ensure that only the ABS has been disabled and tested.

You are correct that S7.8 of FMVSS No. 135 is intended to be performed with a single function failure in the ABS only.In fact, each individual system functional failure test referenced above is intended to verify only the performance of the single failure type to which it directly applies.In the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 135 (60 FR 6411) the Agency clarified that in the antilock functional failure performance test only a single ABS failure is covered.Under S7.8, if the Agency were to test a complex system, such as your letter describes, the Agency would simulate ABS functional failure by disconnecting any electrical connector that creates only an ABS functional failure.The Agency may contact the manufacturer for assistance in determining how to perform this failure and for a procedure that does not impact or has limited impact on other systems.

However, when FMVSS No. 135 was established, the Agency recognized the increasing integration of ABS into the service brake system.The Agency noted "if a functional failure of the ABS also affects or degrades the service brake system, no artificial means are [employed] to keep the service brake system intact when that failure is introduced." Therefore, if the electric control system for the ABS is designed such that an ABS failure cannot be isolated and simulated under S7.8 without also affecting some other braking function, then the antilock functional failure requirements must be met with both the ABS failure and the additional braking function failure.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my office at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:135
d.11/18/02

ID: 13622.ztv

The Honorable David L. Hobson
U.S. House of Representatives
212 S. Broad Street
Room 55
Lancaster, OH 43130-4389

Attention: Bob Clark

Dear Mr. Hobson:

This responds to your letter of December 20, 1996, to Ms. Carmen Rivers-Glagola of the Department, on behalf of your constituent, Stephen Reeves of Chillicothe. According to Mr. Reeves' letter to you dated December 12, he seeks "waivers or a change in the law for vehicle length."

None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, laws, or other regulations of this agency establish limits on the length of a motor vehicle. Federal Highway Administration regulations impose certain length limits on combination vehicles with two or more cargo-carrying units (see 49 CFR 658.23 and Appendix C to Part 658). Most of the states also enforce overall length limits on straight trucks, but we are not conversant with state laws and therefore cannot advise you on this point. We suggest that Mr. Reeves contact the Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles in Columbus to see whether your state has or knows of restrictions of this nature. It should be noted, however, that Mr. Reeves' unwillingness to be specific about the vehicle in question makes it difficult to answer his question precisely.

If Mr. Reeves has been misinformed about our regulations, we would be pleased to try to clarify the matter for him. He may telephone Taylor Vinson of the Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571

d:4/14/97

ID: 13705cos.co

Mr. Terry Emerson
Cosco Inc.
Product Standards Manager
2525 State St.
Columbus, IN 47201

Dear Mr. Emerson:

This responds to your December 6, 1996 letter asking for confirmation that S5.2.3.2 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems," does not apply to booster seats. Your question relates to a petition for exemption for inconsequential noncompliance that Cosco submitted in July 1996 with the understanding, which you now believe to be incorrect, that S5.2.3.2 applies to those seats. Because you now believe S5.2.3.2 does not apply, you believe there is no noncompliance at issue and wish to withdraw the petition.

You are correct that the booster seats are not subject to S5.2.3.2. S5.2.3.2, which requires that surfaces contacting a dummy's head must be covered with energy absorbing foam, applies by way of S5.2.3.1 to child restraint systems (other than child harnesses) that are recommended for children whose masses are less than 10 kg (weighing less than 22 lb). Those restraints are infant-only and convertible restraints. You state that the booster seats in question are recommended for children whose masses are from 13.6 kg to 27 kg (weighing 30 to 60 lb).⁽¹⁾ Given that recommended range for the boosters, S5.2.3.2 does not apply.

We consider your petition to be withdrawn, as you request, and will take appropriate steps to close the action. If you have any questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213
d:3/14/97

^1. This accords with S5.5.2(f) of Standard 213, which prohibits booster seats from being recommended for children whose masses are less than 13.6 kg.

ID: 13720.mls

Mr. Gunnar Almen
AB Svensk Bilprovning
Business and Technical Department
Mail Box 508
S-162 15 Vallingby
Sweden

Dear Mr. Almen:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You stated that as the national testing agency for vehicles imported into Sweden, you need to know U.S. regulations for asbestos free brake linings.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 105, which specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems. This Standard does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting asbestos free brake linings.

While most brake linings are asbestos free, some brake linings sold in the aftermarket have asbestos.

Please note that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued rules prohibiting the use of asbestos brakes. We have forwarded your letter to Mr. Mike Matthiesen, Chemical Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460. He should be able to explain how EPA's rules apply to asbestos brakes.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Mike Matthiesen
Chemical Management Division
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA,
401 M Street, SW,
Washington DC 20460

ref:105
d:5/6/97

ID: 13945.ztv

Mr. Tom L. Ricca
Tom L. Ricca Associates
1413 Wyandotte Road
Columbus Ohio 43212

Dear Mr. Ricca:

This is in reply to your letter of January 20, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal law and regulations as they may apply to your invention, the "LightGenie."

According to the product literature you enclosed, your invention has the following features. The first is a "40-Second Delay Turnoff"; when the engine is stopped and the ignition key removed while the main lighting switch is on, the lights will be automatically extinguished after 40 seconds. The second feature is "4-Minute Delay Turnoff." When the engine is off, turning the light switch to on will cause the lights which are controlled by the switch to be turned on for four minutes continuously, and then automatically turned off. The third feature is called "4-Hours Blinking Delay Turnoff." Under this feature, when the vehicle engine is stopped, the parking lamps, and headlamps if desired, will blink automatically for four hours before turning off automatically. These three features are acceptable under our law and regulations.

The fourth feature is "Daytime Running Lights", or DRLs as we call them. Whenever the engine is running, the upper beam headlamps will be on, to be extinguished 10 seconds after the engine stops. In addition, the intensity of the headlamps is lowered during the day to avoid glare to other drivers. The lamps switch to lower beam and the parking lamps are illuminated if the outside ambient light level falls below a certain level. However, the main light switch of the vehicle has to be in the headlamp-on position in order for the DRL feature to function. You believe that the LightGenie may not comply with S5.5.11(a) of Standard No. 108 "which can be interpreted as to prevent the production of dangerous glare into the eyes of other drivers by the addition of the on state of either lower beams or upper beams of the headlamps which are not intended to operate as DRL." You would like an interpretation of S5.5.11(a) which would permit your system to be used.

You wish to market the LightGenie in both the OEM and aftermarkets. As you know, DRLs are not required items of original lighting equipment. But once a manufacturer chooses to offer a system that employs lamps on the front of a vehicle that are illuminated during daylight hours, that system must comply with paragraph S5.5.11(a). Paragraph S5.5.11(a)(1) establishes general illumination requirements that do not apply if the DRL system is "(i) a lower beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL at full voltage . . .; or (ii) an upper beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL, whose luminous intensity at test point H-V is no more than 7,000 candela . . . ." As we understand it, the LightGenie activates the upper beam headlamps at something less than full intensity during the daytime, switching to full lower beam intensity under low ambient level light conditions. We interpret S5.5.11 as requiring headlamps used as DRLs to be operated in either the upper beam or lower beam mode as specified above, but not permitting switching between upper and lower beam modes. For this reason, your system would not comply with the specifications for OEM DRLs.

However, there is another reason as well. S5.5.11(a) presently requires automatic deactivation of DRLs "when the headlamp control is in any 'on' position . . . ." Your system requires the headlamp control to be in the "on" position in order to operate. You have asked that we read S5.5.11(a)to require deactivation of DRLs "when any upper beams or lower beams of the headlamps which are not intended to be operated as DRL are turned on continuously . . . ." As a practical matter, we do not see how the vehicle's headlamp system could be operated as a headlamp system if the control must be in the "on" position for the LightGenie to operate. As a legal matter, you are requesting in effect an amendment of S5.5.11(a) beyond the limits of an interpretation.

As an aftermarket device, the LightGenie might be usable on vehicles that were not originally equipped with DRLs as long as it allows the headlamp control to perform its original design function. However, the LightGenie would still have to comply with local laws in order to be operated within any State. We are unable to advise you on state laws, and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the States.

Finally, we call your attention to paragraph S5.5.11(a)(ii) which allows an upper beam headlamp to be used as a DRL only if two conditions are met: that the headlamp's luminous intensity at test point H-V is not more than 7,000 candela, and that the headlamp be mounted not higher than 864 mm above the road surface. This would appear to rule out use of the LightGenie using the upper beam of headlamp of some larger sport utility vehicles and trucks.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:
108
d:3/19/97

ID: 13946blt.adj

Ms. Christine S. Davik-Galbraith
Altheimer & Gray
10 South Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606-7482

Dear Ms. Davik-Galbraith:

This responds to your letter asking whether any of the regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) apply to children's safety belt adjusters. To answer your question, I have enclosed copies of two of the letters we have written on this subject. These two are our response to Angela Caron, dated March 16, 1994, and to Brett Higgins, April 26, 1993.

As explained in those letters, there is no safety standard that directly applies to safety belt adjusters. However, there are several provisions in NHTSA's statute that are relevant to those products, such as the responsibility borne by persons manufacturing safety belt adjusters to ensure that the products are free of safety-related defects.

I note also that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) petitioned this agency in January 1996 to amend Safety Standard No. 213 to regulate safety belt adjusters for children. Enclosed is a copy of the petition. NHTSA expects to respond to the AAP petition shortly.

I hope this answers your questions. If you need further assistance, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures (3)
ref:213
d:3/19/97

ID: 13951.wkm

Richard D. Teeple, Esq.
Vice President and General Counsel
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company
Findley, OH 45840

Dear Mr. Teeple:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to me of January 17, 1997, in which you asked whether you would be permitted to add "CAN REPLACE LT235/75R15 (C)" to the size markings on the sidewalls of your 30x9.50R15LT size of Mickey Thompson Baja Radial MTX light truck tires. The answer is no, the addition would not comply with Standard No. 119.

We addressed the issue of dual size markings on tires in a letter to Mr. Earl Dahl, Vice President, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, dated January 7, 1988, in which we quoted extensively from an interpretive letter to Michelin dated July 9, 1987 (copies enclosed). In both letters we stated that although dual-size markings were once a common practice in the industry, it confused many consumers as to the size of the tires on their vehicles. We pointed out that the purpose of Federally-required markings was to provide consumers with straightforward information for the safe use and operation of their tires. Thus, we concluded that it was "inappropriate" to permit a marketing technique that was confusing to many consumers, thereby defeating the purpose of the required tire markings.

The agency continues to adhere to those interpretations, and still believes that dual size markings on tires are inappropriate. Accordingly, your proposed markings would not comply with Standard No. 119.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:119
d:5/29/97