ID: 7742-2

Mr. Paul Gould
Senior Engineer - Friction Materials
Lucas Heavy Duty Braking Systems
Grange Road
Cwmbran, Gwent
South Wales NP44 3XU
Great Britain

Dear Mr. Gould:

This responds to your letter asking about the dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term "average deceleration rate" and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as "only a target" in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. 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.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force--relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

With respect to your question about the meaning of "average deceleration rate," that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows:

For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration.

We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are "only a target" in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +0.5 ft/s/s.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure:

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:121 d:11/19/92

ID: MCI_removable_lift

Ms. Michelle Filippi
Motor Coach Industries
1700 E. Golf Rd. Suite 300
Schaumburg, IL 60173




Dear Ms. Filippi:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, with respect to vehicles designed to accept a platform lift by means of "quick connects". In your letter you stated that your company, Motor Coach Industries (MCI), manufactures over-the-road coach buses, including wheelchair accessible coaches. You explained that some of your customers have requested that MCI offer a vehicle/wheelchair lift system that would allow a lift to be removed from one coach and installed on an acceptable coach through the use of quick disconnects.

You expressed concern with the implications of FMVSS No. 404 to such a system, in that the lifts "can be taken out and re-installed by various MCI or customer technicians". You asked that we advise you about the agencys position on this issue.

I will reply to your letter by discussing how FMVSS No. 404 applies in the situation you described.

By way of background, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. Platform lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 403. Vehicles manufactured with platform lifts on and after July 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 404.

Applicability of FMVSS No. 404 to a "Quick Connect" System

The central factor in determining the applicability of FMVSS No. 404 to a "quick connect" vehicle/lift system is whether the vehicle is originally equipped with the lift. 49 U.S.C. 30112 prohibits, in part, the manufacture for sale and the offer for first retail sale of a vehicle that is not certified as complying with all FMVSSs applicable at the vehicles date of manufacture. Each vehicle manufactured with a lift on or after July 1, 2005, must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift and must comply with FMVSS No. 404. If a lift is installed after a vehicle is certified by the vehicle manufacturer, but prior to first retail sale, the vehicle as altered must comply with all standards affected by the alteration; i.e. , the vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404 and all other applicable standards. Conversely, if a vehicle is manufactured to accept a "quick disconnect" platform lift, but is not equipped with a platform lift up to the point of first retail sale, then FMVSS No. 404 would not apply.

"Make Inoperative" Provision

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first retail sale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" provision).

If a vehicle not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 (e.g. , a "quick connect" bus that was not equipped with a lift as manufactured or sold at first retail sale) has a "quick disconnect" lift added by one of the above named businesses after the first retail sale, the vehicle would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if a "quick disconnect" lift were added by any of the above named businesses, the addition of the lift must not cause any applicable FMVSS to be made inoperative.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses would be prohibited from removing a vehicle certified to FMVSS No. 404 from compliance with that standard. While a vehicle certified to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift, we would not consider removal of the lift a violation of the "make inoperative" provision. In that instance compliance was premised on the presence of a platform lift. However, if a lift were then reinstalled on such a vehicle, the vehicle would be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 based on that lift model.

Applicability of FMVSS No. 403

As noted above, a "quick disconnect" platform lift manufactured on or after April 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 403. The equipment standard requires in part that the lift be accompanied by instructions that identify the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed (S16.13.1), and that the instructions specify procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational and compliant (S16.13.2).

However, the agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, with a system for which a vehicle was designed to accept a lift, we would not expect such alterations to be necessary.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.2/11/05

ID: nht71-1.37

DATE: 06/15/71

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Hill; Lewis; Adams; Goodrich & Tait

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 10 to Francis Armstrong, Director of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of Vehicle Industries, Inc. Your client wishes to import dune buggy chasses, either in kit or assembled form, for sale to a distributor-dealer organization and subsequent resale by them to retail customers who will complete the final manufacture of the incomplete vehicle as a dune buggy. You have asked questions concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("safety standards") and other regulations.

Your letter indicates that you are familiar with our two Mini-Bike Interpretations and the criteria we use in determining whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act"). There have been no further additions to these Interpretations. We view a dune buggy as a "motor vehicle" primarily because it is licensable for use on the public roads. Conversely all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and some categories of mini-bikes are not considered "motor vehicles" because of State statutory prohibitions forbidding their registration for on-road use. Because a dune buggy is constructed with "special features for occasional off-road use" it is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" ("MPV") under the safety standards, and must, at the time of its manufacture, comply with all safety standards applicable to MPVs. Equipping a vehicle with speed restrictive components would not affect this opinion unless the equipment rendered the completed vehicle unlicensable for on-road use.

Until January 1, 1972, the product Vehicle Industries wishes to import, either in kit form or as an assemolage, is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Act. It is not a chassis-cab, as you suggested, because it has no cab. Since section 102(5) of the Act includes an importer in the definition of "manufacturer." Vehicle Industries is considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle equipment it imports, and responsible for compliance of that equipment with applicable safety standards.

Regulated equipment items for MPVs and corresponding safety standards are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), brake fluid (No. 116), glazing (No. 205), seat belt assemblies (No. 209), and wheel covers (No. 211). If the kit or assemblage contains any of these items, the item must comply upon inportation, and Vehicle Industries must provide certification to the distributor-dealer that the equipment item meets the appropriate safety standard. The certification obligation is imposed by section 114 of the Act as amplified by a notice published on November 4, 1967, copy enclosed. There are no other labeling or informational obligations. The requirements of this paragraph remain in effect after January 1, 1972, to any dune buggy chassis imported in kit form.

If the chassis is imported in assembled form, on and after January 1, 1972, Vehicle Industries as importer - manufacturer of an assemblage will be considered an "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" and the assemblage an "incomplete vehicle" as those terms are defined in 49 CFR Part 568, the regulations governing vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I enclose a copy of Part 568 for your guidance and call your attention to @ 568.4, requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Section 568.4(a)(7) will require Vehicle Industries to provide with the incomplete vehicle a list of those standards applicable to MPVs, together with one of three appropriate statements for each such standard. If Vehicle Industries has provided certification prior to January 1, 1972, covering an equipment item in the assemblage, for instance brake hoses, the appropriate statement on and after January 1, 1972 would appear to be set out in @ 568.4(a)(7)(i), that the vehicle when completed will comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hose and Brake Hose Assemblies, if the final assembler makes no change in the brake hoses or brake hose assemblies. You ask if these regulations may be followed as a "guideline" before January 1, 1972. Because the @ 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement is a representation of compliance, it is a de facto certification of compliance and, in my opinion, Vehicle Industries may provide such a @ 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement in advance of January 1, 1972, that includes a regulated equipment item, to satisfy the existing equipment certification requirement.

You have also asked if it is possible to "retail the unit in its present form with an item of equipment on it" that doesn't comply with the safety standards. The answer is no, if that item is directly regulated by a safety standard. However, if a safety standard applies to vehicle categories only - and most of them do - then an item encompassed in that safety standard need not comply until time of final assembly. For example, Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, applies to MPVs and passenger cars, and not to the equipment items specified therein. Consequently, the horn ring and steering wheel assembly hub of the assemblage need not have a finish in accordance with Standard No. 107, but these items must comply with reflectance requirements when the assemblage is completed as a dune buggy.

In closing, I want to call your attention to section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR @ 551.45, which require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment who offer their products for importation into the United States appoint a resident agent for service of process. I enclose a copy of @ 551.45 with the informational requirements underlined and request that you ask the Spanish manufacturer of the dune buggy chassis to file a designation of agent with us.

If you have any further questions I shall be happy to answer them for you.

Enclosures

ID: nht71-3.6

DATE: 05/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Louisiana Independent Tire Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have further questions, please let us know.

ID: nht73-4.44

DATE: 08/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hank Thorp Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1973, which asks if the Manufacturer Code proposal (38 FR 14968, June 7, 1973) as it applies to wheel nuts (1) requires all manufacturers, including vehicle manufacturers, to label their products, (2) permits labeling with self-adhesive stickers, and (3) has authorized the issuance of codes at this time. In addition, you requested a clarification of an interpretation of Standard 211, Wheel nuts.

The answer to your first question is yes. The labeling requirements apply to foreign and domestic manufacturers of passenger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles and to manufacturers of equipment for those vehicles. The term "manufacturer" includes an importer of vehicles or regulated equipment.

The use of a self-adhesive sticker in satisfaction of the permanent and legible labeling requirements of the proposal is permissible, so long as the information printed thereon is indelible and the label is affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.

No codes have been assigned at this time. Assignment will not occur until a decision is reached as to issuance of a final rule.

The small hexagonal nuts which you import and which you describe as serving the same purpose as the small hexagonal nuts which secure factory-mounted, steel wheels to an axle, are not wheel nuts under the standard. The reference to normal coverage by a hub cap or wheel disc is simply descriptive of their location.

MINILITE

July 7, 1973

James E. Wilson Associate Administrator Traffic Safety Programs U.S. Department of Transportation

I am writing to you with respect to the proposed rules (49CFR Parts 566, 567, 568, 571) as published in Volume 38, #109, of the Federal Registration of Thursday, June 7, 1973. I have a number of questions concerning these proposed rules which should also be construed, in part, as comment upon the proposed rules before adoption.

1. As exclusive U.S. Importer of light alloy road wheels, trademarked MINILITE(register) (Registration #893174), we also import wheel nuts and hub caps used with these wheels.(Illegible Word) 1 January 1968, we were required by the U. S. Bureau of Customs to clearly(Illegible Word) the containers in which these products were imported to indicate that they complied fully with Section 571.211. At that time, manufacturers of identical products for the aftermarket within the United States were not required to show similar statements of compliance on their packages. Do the proposed rules referenced above affect all manufacturers of these products, whether or not they are imported or not and whether or not they are used in the assembly of new motor vehicles?

2. Please refer to the specifics of Part 571; S211-1. This standard was revised effective 7/25/69 to add an interpretation as follows.

"INTERPRETATION"

A clarification of the term "wheel nut" as used in the requirements section S3 of Standard No. 211 has been requested. This section states that "wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections." A "wheel nut" is an exposed nut that is mounted at the center or hub of a wheel, and not the ordinary small hexagonal nut, one of several which secures a wheel to an axle, and which is normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc."

The wheel nuts we import are small hexagonal nuts and 4 or 5 are used to hold each wheel to the axle. The U. S. Bureau of Customs has not considered these to be of the type affected by this standard. However, due to the nature of light alloy wheels, our wheels nuts are not "normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc". I am requesting a written interpretation as to whether the small hexagonal wheel nuts used with light alloy wheels but not normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc are covered by Standard 211.

3. If the answer to #2 above is no, I would comment that it would seem appropriate to change the language of Standard 211 and designate that the standard covers "center lock wheel nuts" rather than "wheel nuts".

4. Regards hub caps; our cap is a smooth chemically brightened aluminum cap of either 2 5/8 or 3 1/8 diameter which is pushed through the center hole from the back of the wheel before the wheel is mounted to the axle. It is clear that this is covered by the Standard and would, therefore, require manufacturers identification if the proposed rules are passed. Does the comment that "each wheel nut, wheel disc, and hub cap to be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the manufacturers code number . . ." permit labeling to take the form of a self-adhesive label affixed to the inside of our hub cap so as not to be visible when the cap is fitted to an automobile?

5. If your answer to question #1 indicates that stateside manufacturers of after-market hub caps are not affected by the standard and/or the proposed manufacturers certification requirements, I would comment that the standard is missing the main(Illegible Word) of its purpose; that is, to eliminate winged extensions from center lock wheel nuts and hub caps on vehicles used on the public highways of the United States. The prime source of hub caps produced with eared extensions is from automotive aftermarket manufacturers located in this country.

6. Are assignment of manufacturers identification numbers being made now, or will this assignment be made after the proposed rules are adopted?

I look forward to a reply from you on the above points.

Hank Thorp

ID: nht75-3.37

DATE: 11/21/75

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

TO: National Association of Motor Bus Owners

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

November 13, 1975

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

Dear Dr. Gregory:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Charles A. Webb -- PRES.

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

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

November 12, 1975

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

Dear Dr. Gregory:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Charles A. Webb -- PRES.

cc: Richard Dyson

ID: 86-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Michael Love

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager Porsche Cars North America. Inc. 200 South Virginia Street Reno, NV 89501

Dear Mr. Love:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, with respect to an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp kit that Porsche wishes to offer through its dealer network.

You initially reference the preamble of August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34488) in which NHTSA stated that it would study the request of General Motors to supply an aftermarket kit "and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use". You ask the following questions:

"1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?"

NHTSA has not proceeded to the study referenced because it subsequently decided such a study was unnecessary for the reasons set forth in our answer to your second question.

"2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?"

NHTSA does not consider that any Federal impediments exist to the sale, installation, and use of such aftermarket devices, and further is not aware at this time of any State impediments to such sale, installation and use. However, we strongly recommend that these devices be designed to comply as closely as possible with those meeting Federal requirements. For example, a State may have a law prohibiting interior-mounted lamps that cause reflections on the rear window; Standard No. 108 requires original equipment center high-mounted stop lamps to be provided with means to minimize such reflections, and aftermarket lamps should also be so designed to minimize reflections in order to comply with the State requirement.

"3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?"

NHTSA believes that retrofitting passenger cars with a center high-mounted stop lamp meeting original equipment specifications will prove to be as beneficial in reducing the incidence of low speed rear end collisions as in the population of passenger cars on which it has been installed as original equipment, and NHTSA encourages such retrofit. However, NHTSA's research study did not include other types of motor vehicles such as buses, trucks, and trailers though intuitively the concept would appear to have some merit.

(4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any States passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights?"

No.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

Z. Taylor Vinson Office of Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

Due to customer demand, Porsche AG is considering offering through Porsche Cars North America, Inc., a Center High Mounted Stop Light (CHMSL) aftermarket kit for sale and installation by its Dealer network.

This kit would be intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985 and not originally equipped with a CHMSL. Porsche has several questions regarding the language in the supplementary information for the August 31, 1984 final rule on FMVSS 108, 49 FR 34488. It states:

"GM further commented that the proposal did not address the after market package which General Motors had intended to make available through our dealers, since it only speaks of passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1989 and September 1, 1985".

Also,

"The agency was not aware that GM had intended to offer an aftermarket package until receiving its comment. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of the proposal, and accordingly, was not considered. Under paragraph S4.7.1, the standard covers the aftermarket only to the extent that GM (or any manufacturer) offers a lamp intended as replacement for an original equipment center high-mounted stop lamp. However, to encourage retrofit in the aftermarket, NHTSA will study GM's request and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use".

Specifically,

1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?

2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?

3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?

4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any states passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights:

Respectfully,

Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager

cc: Kurt Meier

ML/ma

ID: GF005919

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your July 1, 2005, letter asking us to clarify certain issues discussed in our response to petitions for reconsideration of the April 4, 2004, final rule expanding parts marking requirements. Specifically, you ask us to clarify the phase-in calculation procedures, and how exempted vehicle lines should be considered relative to the phase-in calculation.

On May 19, 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published its response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule expanding parts marking requirements (see 70 FR 28843). As a part of this response, we adopted a phase-in of the expanded parts marking requirements over a two-year period. Specifically, a new section 541.3(c) reads as follows:

"For vehicles listed in subparagraphs (1)(i) to (iv) of this section that are (1) not subject to the requirements of this standard until September 1, 2006, and (2) manufactured between September 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007; a manufacturer needs to meet the requirements of this part only for lines representing at least 50% of a manufacturers total production of these vehicles." [emphasis added]

In your letter, you describe two possible interpretations of the phase-in requirement. In short, the first interpretation states that at least 50% of the production volume of the affected vehicles must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. The second interpretation states that at least 50% of the affected vehicle lines must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. To illustrate your question, you also offered the following hypothetical example:

Manufacturer XYZ has seven vehicle lines that are affected by the parts marking expansion.

Line	Production Volume
A	500,000
B	300,000
C	200,000
D	200,000
E	100,000
F	100,000
G	100,000
Total:	1,500,000

The first interpretation is correct and accurately reflects the regulatory text.That is, at least 50% of the production volume of affected vehicles must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. Using the example provided in your letter, the XYZ manufacturer could comply with the phase-in by marking the A and B lines, or A and C and E (or F or G lines) because together, these lines represent more than 50% of the production volume of affected vehicles.

The second interpretation does not accurately reflect the regulatory text because at least 50% of the vehicle lines (instead of the actual vehicles) could nevertheless amount to a smaller percentage of the vehicle fleet subject to the expanded parts marking requirements. For example, if the XYZ manufacturer marks lines D through F, the number of lines marked (4) will exceed 50% but the number of vehicles marked (500,000) would amount to less than 34% of the affected fleet. This outcome was not contemplated by the agency when issuing the response to petitions for reconsideration.

We note that the discussion on page 28848 of the preamble, which you believe raises the question of how to interpret the phase in requirements, sought to underscore the necessity of marking the entire vehicle line chosen for phase-in. For example, if the XYZ manufacturer chooses to mark A, C, and E lines, it must not stop marking the E vehicle line, once the total number of marked vehicles reaches 750,001.

You also ask how the exempted vehicle lines should be considered relative to the phase-in calculation. You are correct to note that the newly exempted vehicle lines must be included in the numerator and the denominator when calculating compliance with the phase-in. Using the XYZ manufacturer example, let us assume that vehicle line B was exempted from parts marking requirement. If XYZ manufacturer marks vehicle line A, it would be in compliance with the phase-in requirements because vehicle lines A and B represent more than 50% of the affected vehicles.

Finally, in your letter, you suggest that the agency amend the scope of the de minimis exemption for vehicle lines manufactured in quantities of not more than 3,500. That language currently reads as follows:

"(b) Exclusions. This standard does not apply to the following:

(2) Passenger motor vehicle parts identified in 541.5(a) that are present in a line with an annual production of not more than 3,500 vehicles."

You ask that we change the regulatory language such that the vehicle lines sold in the U.S. in quantities of not more than 3,500 would be exempted. We believe that no amendment is necessary. Ordinarily, our standards apply only to vehicles manufactured for sale in the Unites States. Thus, the de minimis exemption applies to vehicles lines manufactured in quantities of not more than 3,500 for sale in the U.S.

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:541
d.8/5/05

ID: aiam4493

Dear Mr. Apple: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1987 in which you ask whether a U-Turn Indicator 'is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product.' Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-turn indicator. However, a U-turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the importance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment. Standard No. 108 does not cover a U-turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment that was installed pursuant to Standard No. 108. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) The legality of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 120l Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, may be able to advise you further on State laws. Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the general type of crash for which U-turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-turn crashes is substantially less than the 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles. We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator 'will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent'. However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing our Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted. We appreciate your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel CC: Michael Finkelstein;

ID: aiam2825

Dear Mr. VanderLinden: Administrator Claybrook has asked me to respond to your recent lette concerning the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van vehicle for the purpose of securing wheelchair patients. Apparently, your legal counsel has advised you that such installation might be prohibited by Federal law or might give rise to private litigation problems in the future.; In answer to your questions, there is nothing under Federal law or th Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would prevent the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van to secure wheelchairs. In fact, Administrator Claybrook and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration encourage you to make the installation requested by the senior citizens home. The safe transportation of disabled persons is currently a serious problem and every effort should be made to ameliorate the situation.; The only instance in which you would have any responsibilities unde Federal law would be an installation of additional safety belts prior to first purchase of the van by a consumer. In that case you would be a vehicle alteror, (sic) and under our certification regulations you would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle is still in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7, copy enclosed). For example, you should not destroy the vehicle's compliance with our Fuel System Integrity standard by penetrating the gas tank with the safety belt anchorage bolts.; Concerning your liability in private litigation, the general provision of negligence law would be applicable, as with any maintenance, repair or alteration done by a motor vehicle repair business. I must defer to the advice of your own counsel on that matter, however.; Once again, the agency does encourage the installation of safety belt for the securement of wheelchairs, since the disabled are seriously endangered without some type of restraint to protect them in a crash. Further, I believe that your fears of liability should be minimal as long as the installation is accomplished with normal consideration and due care.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any furthe questions (202-426- 2992).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel