ID: aiam3454

Dear Mr. Adduci: On June 5, representatives of MVMA met with representatives of thi agency to discuss various issues concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. At that meeting, the MVMA representatives requested clarification of the agency's policy on correction of errors made by vehicle manufacturers in their vehicle identification numbers (VIN's). This letter responds to that request.; The agency shares your concern about the potential difficultie associated with correcting erroneous VIN's and will attempt to minimize the burdens involved with any required corrective action. Nevertheless, the agency must consider the safety benefits of an accurate, national VIN system, as well as the anti-theft and other benefits of such a system.; This letter focuses on some of the most likely VIN errors and discusse whether those errors in vehicles sold to consumers would be inconsequential as the errors relate to safety, and, if not, what type of remedy would have to be provided to vehicle owners. Corrective action involving the replacing of an erroneous VIN plate or label or the restamping of the VIN on part of the vehicle is the most desirable remedy. However, there may be less burdensome remedies that would be effective and satisfy the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; One type of error which could be easily corrected is an error in single VIN character other than the check digit or a character monitored by VIN users. The agency would likely regard such an error as inconsequential if the vehicle manufacturer submitted the necessary corrected decoding information to the agency. The agency would place this information in a public file, thereby making it available to other VIN users. With this corrected decoding information available, the agency's safety research activities would not be impaired and manufacturers would still be able to conduct recall campaigns where necessary.; A second type of error involves an erroneous check digit or othe character monitored by vehicle records systems of States or other VIN users. Erroneous check digits could adversely affect our ability to conduct research and to monitor recalls, since the error rate of VIN transcription would presumably be higher in the absence of a properly functioning check digit. Further, without some form of corrective action by the manufacturer (such as restamping or the use of a correction label), vehicle purchasers could face rejections by State, insurance, and other data-processing systems using the check digit to verify transcription accuracy. However, the agency is also concerned that the use of labels could create opportunities for auto theft operations to generate bogus VIN's. Therefore, the agency is presently inclined to treat erroneous check digits as inconsequential noncompliance if the manufacturer reports the errors to the agency. However, as discussed below, the agency is planning to invite public comment on this question before establishing a final position on the matter.; A third type of error involves the physical aspects of the VIN itself For example, a manufacturer might use a type face other than the sans serif type face required by the standard. Although errors of this type would have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, they would likely be deemed inconsequential because they would present no problems to the agency, other VIN users, or vehicle owners.; The most difficult type of errors would involve a major error i numbering which would impair the safety and other uses of the VIN. An extreme example of such an error would be a situation where a manufacturer numbered many of its vehicles identically, or where the VIN's were totally illegible. An error of that magnitude could impair the manufacturers' (sic) ability to conduct recall campaigns and the ability of the agency to monitor them. It would also cause serious problems for all VIN users. In this type of situation (which should arise rarely, if ever), some form of corrective action would be necessary. The use of a correction label which meets all requirements of FMVSS 115 including indelibility would be one possible approach.; One final matter discussed at the June 5 meeting relates to th correction of VIN errors on vehicles already produced but still in the possession of the manufacturer. We would treat these vehicles the same as the vehicles already sold, i.e., if the noncompliance were inconsequential for the vehicles already sold, it would also be inconsequential for the vehicles produced but still in the manufacturer's possession. However, the agency would expect that once the error is detected, similar vehicles produced thereafter would fully comply with the standard. There is precedent for this approach, since the agency has previously treated as inconsequential noncompliance erroneous identification numbers on tires still in the manufacturer's possession, where an inconsequentiality petition has been granted with respect to tires already sold.; The agency will issue in the near future a notice inviting comment o MVMA's petition to change Standard 115 to a general regulation. In this notice, we will seek comment on the types of corrective action discussed above. If you have any thoughts on other means of making these types of corrections, we would of course be pleased to receive your views.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5457

"Dear Mr. Monnie: This responds to your letter asking about Federa requirements for a product you have developed to improve the securement of child safety seats. You stated that the product is a one-piece steel bracket which 'is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder portions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt.' You indicated that the product would be installed on a temporary basis and that it would be sold in the 'aftermarket' to persons owning child restraint systems. You request an interpretation of whether Standards No. 209, 213, or any other standard would apply to your device. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. It appears from your description of the product that it would be a type of device that we call a 'locking clip.' A locking clip is a bracket into which a vehicle's lap and shoulder belt webbing is threaded. A locking clip tightens the webbing around a child safety seat and prevents the safety seat from moving easily. We have no safety standard that applies to locking clips. Standard 209 sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply. Standard 213 is our standard for child restraints. It applies to 'any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less' (S4 of Standard 213). Since your device would not itself restrain, seat or position a child, it would not be a child restraint system. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would not apply to your product. While no FMVSS applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation 'makes inoperative' compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system or the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note that we have a concern about the possible misuse of your device. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. Your device attaches to the belt system, and will stay in place until the consumer removes it. Since it attaches to the belt system, it could affect the ability of the system to protect an adult occupant, or a child restrained without a child safety seat. We suggest that you provide clear instructions to the consumer to remove the device from the belt webbing when the belt system is used without a child restraint system. In closing, I note for your information that NHTSA published a final rule in October 1993 requiring the safety belts in new motor vehicles to be capable of tightly securing child safety seats, without the necessity of the user's attaching any device, such as a locking clip, to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. The rule applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1995. I have enclosed a copy of the rule. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 2772 cmc cloth label

ID: Copy of 2772 cmc cloth label

ID: aiam4923

"Dear Mr. Lushan: This responds to your letter concerning the use o tinted flexible plastic glazing in certain jeep-type vehicles. You explained that a customer has asked you to manufacture a bronze-tinted clear plastic flexible window for installation in the rear side and rear windows of its vehicles. You indicated that this glazing material would not satisfy the minimum light transmittance requirement of Standard No. 205 and requested confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits the use of such glazing for rear and side windows in these vehicles. Further, during two telephone conversations on October 29, 1991 and October 30, 1991, you informed Elizabeth Barbour of my staff that your question specifically refers to the use of this glazing on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and the two-door Geo Tracker. You also confirmed to Ms. Barbour that the glazing materials to which your letter refers would be installed as original equipment, but added that your company is also involved with after-market products. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called 'items'), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference 'ANSI Z26,' the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Among Standard No. 205's requirements are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance, measured by Test 2 in ANSI Z26. A minimum of 70% light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying sections S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111) and thus, subject to the minimum light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Thus, Standard No. 205 permits the use of tinted glazing materials (i.e. items of glazing that are not subject to Test 2) for windows to the rear of the driver in such vehicles when they are equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars. As stated above, you described the product you wish to manufacture as tinted flexible plastic, Item 7 glazing, which would be installed in the rear side and rear windows of the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker. According to the agency's information about these vehicles, the rear side and rear windows are part of a removable soft-top. Standard No. 205 permits glazing used for readily removable windows in these locations to be manufactured out of flexible plastic glazing (Items 6, 7 and 13), among other types of glazing. Thus, since these specific window locations on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker are not subject to the light transmittance requirement, and since Standard No. 205 permits use of flexible plastic glazing for readily removable windows, the Standard would permit you to manufacture the bronze-tinted flexible plastic glazing for the use your customer requested. You also stated that your company is involved with after-market glazing materials. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. According to this provision, your company, for example, could install the Item 7 glazing in the rear side and rear windows of a Suzuki Sidekick or Geo Tracker after that vehicle is first sold to a consumer. This provision would, however, prohibit the after-market installation of tinted flexible plastic glazing in the front side windows of that vehicle because such installation would cause the glazing of the front side windows to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. The 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners themselves. No section of the Safety Act prevents vehicle owners themselves from installing any product on their vehicles, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. The actions of individual vehicle owners may be regulated or precluded by individual States, which have the authority to regulate owner modifications and the operational use of vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: GF003817

Mr. Jim McCann
Blok-Mor Sunvisors, LLP.
3101 South Tyler
Amarillo, TX 79109

Dear Mr. McCann:

This responds to your letter of April 27, 2004, asking whether any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to sun visors.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

There are two FMVSSs that are applicable to sun visors. FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact (copy enclosed), establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. With respect to sun visors, section S5.4 of the standard requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visors mounting must "present no rigid material edge radius of less than 3.2 mm that is statically contactable by a spherical 165 mm diameter head form."The purpose of this requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when occupants strike the visor or visor mounting with their heads. We note that the diagram attached to your letter appears to show certain visor components or attachments that may not be constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material. In addition, S8.5 allows sun visors to be placed in any adjustment position as long as one side is in contact with the vehicle interior surface during a free-motion headform (FMH) impact test. Thus, depending on the placement of the sun visor, it could be impacted by the FMH during testing. The performance requirement is that the head injury criterion, calculated from the resultant acceleration of the FMH in accordance with S7, shall not exceed 1,000.

In addition to FMVSS No. 201, a sun visor must conform to the flammability resistance requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (copy enclosed). This standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including sun visors.

Please note that any sun visor designed for use on a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" and is subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In certain circumstances, a manufacturer of a noncomplying product may also face a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each noncomplying item it produces.

Additionally, under 49 U.S.C. 30122, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle" pursuant to an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Depending on the circumstances, installation of a noncomplying sun visor after the initial sale of the motor vehicle could be viewed as a violation of this "make inoperative" provision.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:201
d.7/8/04

ID: GF007220-2

Louis J. Carlin, Director
Safety Regulations and Consumer Information
General Motors North America
Mail Code: 480 111 S56
30200 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9010




Dear Mr. Carlin:

This concerns your letter dated October 11, 2004, in which you requested an interpretation of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. We have reconsidered our response dated January 3, 2005 with respect to permissible load identifications.

In your October 11, 2004 letter, you asked whether S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, as amended by the final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration (see 69 FR 31306, June 3, 2004) allows a light truck tire load identification of B, C, D, E, or F on the tire information placard. In our response, we stated that S4.3(i) of FMVSS No. 110 permits only a tire load identification XL or "reinforced". We noted, however, that we were considering petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to permit light truck load identifications of B, C, D, E, or F on tire information placards.

We have reconsidered our previous interpretation. While the agency declined to allow load index numbers on the tire placards (see id. at 31311)

, we decided to allow load identifications of XL and "reinforced". The preamble to the final rule did not elaborate on other load identifications (see id. at 31312).

As you note in your letter, load identifications of B, C, D, E, or F are used for light truck tires to identify load carrying capability in the same way XL is used for passenger car tires to identify extra load carrying capability. In permitting the use of XL for passenger car tires, we stated:

"the agency agrees with petitioners that when the vehicles are equipped with these tires, consumers should be made aware of this information so that they know to replace them with tires capable of holding a similar load. "

In making this change, it was not our intent to allow the load identification for passenger car tires, but prohibit it for light truck tires. Accordingly, while S4.3(i) currently specifies only that a tire load identification XL or "reinforced" may appear on the tire information placard (see id. at 31318), we interpret that section to permit use of the corresponding light truck tire load identifications of B, C, D, E, or F. We intend to make this clear in the regulatory text as part of our response to petitions for reconsideration of the June 3, 2004 final rule.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:110
d.2/18/05

ID: aiam4678

"Dear Mr. Andrlik: This responds to your letter asking about Federa regulations that would apply to the 'Milford Cargo Barrier' that Milford Industries, an Australian company, manufactures. Your enclosure indicates that the barrier is a type of wire screen that is generally anchored to the sides and floor of a vehicle directly behind the front seat(s). The barrier is intended to protect occupants in a crash from impact with objects carried in the rear of cars, trucks and vans. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you describe. Our standard for glazing materials (Standard No. 205) applies only to interior barriers or partitions that contain glazing, and not to wire screens. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of Milford's barriers. If the barrier were installed as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Installation of the barrier could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, installation of the barrier could affect compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, which sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat, to protect occupants in the rear seat who may be thrown forward in a crash. The barrier could also affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (safety belts and other restraint systems), and Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (driver field of view). Copies of each of these standards are enclosed. If the barrier were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle (e.g., a completed van) prior to the vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an 'alterer' under 49 CFR /567.7. This would occur if the installation of the barrier constituted something other than a 'readily attachable' component (such as tires or rim assemblies). To determine whether installation of the barrier involves a readily attachable component, the agency considers factors such as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise in installing the barrier. The advertising brochure you enclosed states: 'Expert installation available Australia wide.' It also indicates that the barriers are 'designed...to the individual dimensions' of the consumer's motor vehicle and are 'load rated' (which we understand to mean that the barrier and its attachment are capable of withstanding a rated load). These factors appear to indicate that a degree of special expertise and analysis are needed to install the barrier so that it will perform in the manner intended. In light of these considerations, the barrier appears to be something other than a readily attachable component under /567.7. (If Milford would like to send us information indicating otherwise, we would be happy to review it.) If the cargo barrier were installed in a new or used vehicle by a commercial business such as a motor vehicle dealer or repair shop, the installer would be subject to Safety Act considerations affecting the installation. Section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....' Thus, the commercial installer would have to make sure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards (such as Standards 111, 201 and 208). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. In addition to the FMVSS considerations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment should also be aware that they are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed a copy of our regulation for defect responsibility of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers (49 CFR Part 579) for your information. Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. In addition to the regulations described above, we also bring to your attention a procedural rule which applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. Subpart D of 49 CFR Part 55l, Procedural Rules, requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information: l. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made, 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer, 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name, 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer, 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation, and, 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4090

Dear Mr. Luce: This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121 *Air Brake Systems*. You asked several questions relating to whether vehicles equipped with 'Mini-Max' brakes, a type of brake produced by your company, comply with the standard. Your questions are responded to below. We note that while Question 4 was not asked directly by your letter, the question is implicit with respect to one of the questions you did ask.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; *Question 1: Is delayed mechanical parking permissible under sectio S5.6.3 as long as the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 are satisfied?*; The second sentence of section S5.6.3 provides that '(o)nce applied the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means.' As discussed by a recent notice granting a petition for rulemaking submitted by the California Highway Patrol (copy enclosed), there are at least two issues relating to whether a braking system such as Mini-Max complies with these requirements.; The first issue is whether the system meets the requirements that onc applied, the parking brakes must be held solely be mechanical means. As currently designed, the Mini-Max parking brake can be held by air and not by mechanical means, solely or otherwise, for many hours. Indeed, since a driver will often park the vehicle for a period of time shorter than that required to obtain mechanical holding, there will be many instances when the vehicle is parked and the parking brake never is held by mechanical means. The second issue is whether the parking brakes are held in the applied position. With the current design of the Mini-Max braking system, the air pressure leaks down over time until the mechanical lock is activated. Since the position of the brake components necessarily changes during this time, resulting in reduced parking brake force, there is an issue whether the parking brake is being held in the applied position.; While NHTSA has never concluded that a brake system resulting in fals parking is safe or provided an interpretation that the current Mini-Max system complies with section S5.6.3, we recognize that some past interpretations, as well as one issued by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, could contribute to ambiguity concerning whether some of the features incorporated in the Mini-Max design are permitted by the standard. In light, of that ambiguity and for the other reasons discussed in the grant notice, NHTSA decided to grant the CHP petition to initiate rulemaking on the delayed mechanical park issue rather than issuing an interpretation whether or not such a brake system complies with these requirements.; *Question 2: Is an external pressure separation assembly consisting o a two-way check valve and accompanying steel hex nipple considered to be a component of a brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3 if the assembly is 'permanently bonded' to the housing?*; The answer to this question is no. Section S5.6.3 provides in relevan part that '(t)he parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (*except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing*).' (Emphasis added.) The dictionary defines 'housing' as 'a fully enclosed case and support for a mechanism.' See *Random House Dictionary of the English Language* (unabridged edition). Thus, the term 'brake chamber housing' refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. An external pressure separation assembly does not become part of the brake chamber housing merely because it is attached to the housing, whether by 'permanent bonding' or some other means. However, a brake chamber housing could be cast or molded to include a fitting, serving the same purpose as the external pressure assembly, as an integral part of the brake chamber housing.; *Question 3: Is an internal assembly consisting of a diaphragm with th brake chamber housing considered to be a component of the brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3?*; The answer to this question is no. As discussed above, the term 'brak chamber housing' refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. A diaphragm within the brake chamber is not a component of the case enclosing the brake chamber.; *Question 4: Does section S5.2.1.1 require that capability of releas must be unaffected or that air pressure in the tank must be unaffected?*; Section S5.2.1.1 provides that '(a) *reservoir shall be provided* tha is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i. of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once *and that is unaffected* by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system.' (Emphasis added.) The word 'unaffected' refers back to reservoir.' Thus, the required reservoir is not permitted to be 'affected' by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system, i.e., it must be protected. A reservoir would not meet this requirement if a loss of air pressure in the service brake system resulted in a loss of air pressure in the reservoir, even if the reservoir was still capable of releasing the parking brakes.; *Question 5: If the emergency brakes on trailers can be modulated so a to provide a driver with several applications and releases to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system, is it unnecessary for an S5.2.1.1 reservoir to be capable of releasing the brakes?*; The capability of modulation after activation of the low air warnin system does not satisfy the requirements of section S5.2.1.1 (quoted above). That section requires that the reservoir not be affected by loss of service air, i.e., that it be protected, and that, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i. (a pressure that corresponds to the lower end of the range of pressures maintained by compressors), it be capable of releasing the parking brakes at least once. A vehicle's emergency brakes could be capable of modulation after activation of the low air warning system and not meet either of these requirements.; In addition to the notice granting the CHP petition, we are enclosin copies of interpretation letters concerning the Mini-Max system addressed to Navistar, P.T. Brake Lining Company, and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4297

Dear Mr. Liu: This responds to your letter concerning planned modifications to a use Class 8 truck/tractor. I regret the delay in this response. The answers to your questions are provided below.; It should be noted that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that it complies with all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; >>>1. If we take a used Class 8 truck/tractor and modify it by addin an axle to increase the GVWR, do we have to make sure that the modified vehicle complies with the braking requirements of FMVSS 121/CFR 49?<<<; By way of background information, new motor vehicles and items of moto vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, which applies to trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that their new vehicles satisfy the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Also, if a vehicle is modified prior to first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.; A person who modifies a used vehicle is not required to attach certification label. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its GVWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Safety Standard No. 121. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of July 20, 1977, to the Truck Body and Equipment Association in which the agency discusses in more detail how section 108(a)(2)(A) applies to the installation of additional axles in a used vehicle.; >>>2. Do we have to revise the nameplate or install a new nameplat giving the new GVWR and axle ratings?<<<; Under 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, manufacturers of motor vehicle are required to affix a certification label to their vehicles. The label is required to specify, among other things, the gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) and the gross axle weight ratings for each axle. See S 567.4(g). In addition, Safety Standard No. 120, *Tires Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, requires that specifications concerning tire and rim selection be placed on either the certification label or a separate tire information label. See S S5.3.2.; As indicated above, persons who alter certified vehicles prior to firs sale are required to certify that their vehicles, as altered, conform to all applicable safety standards. Such alterers are required by Part 567 to leave the original certification label on the vehicle and add an additional label. See S 567.7. If the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values must be specified. See 567.7(b).; Persons who modify used vehicles are not required to attach certification label. However, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its GVWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Safety Standard No. 120. We encourage you to supplement the original certification label and/or tire information label by an additional label to reflect changes in gross vehicle weight rating, axle ratings, and tire and rim specifications, to avoid confusion on the part of vehicle users.; >>>3. Do we have to adopt a new VIN (vehicle identification number)?<<< The answer to this question is no. Safety Standard No. 115 Require that manufacturers of new motor vehicles provide vehicle identification numbers. The vehicle identification number is not affected by the subsequent modification of the vehicle.; >>>4. Do we have to tell a buyer that he is buying a modifie vehicle?<<<; NHTSA does not have any regulations requiring seller of used vehicle to inform buyers about axle modifications.; Our answers to your questions cover the Federal regulations and law administered by NHTSA. I have also enclosed a general information sheet which provides additional information concerning our regulations.; You should be aware that by adding an axle you are considered manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act and subject to its provisions concerning safety-related defects. Under the Act, manufacturers must notify purchasers of safety-related defects and remedy such defects without charge. Our engineering staff reviewed your plans and noted that without charge. Our engineering staff reviewed you plans and noted that in some instances that addition of an axle to a vehicle could constitute a safety-related defect, by making the vehicle unsafe for anticipated usage. You should carefully analyze this issue for the vehicle in question. Among other things, you should consider whether, as modified, the overall vehicle structure, including the truck's frame, will be able to adequately accommodate the load distribution resulting from the additional axle and/or the higher GVWR, throughout the truck's anticipate length of service.; You may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration's Office o Motor Carrier Standard Concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to your planned modifications. Also, with respect to Question 4, you may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it has any applicable regulations. Finally, a local attorney can advise you concerning the state law implications of your plans.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel