ID: GF006474

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609




Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in response to your letter in which you requested an interpretation of the new tire information requirements in S4.3.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask if the tire and rim information specified in S4.3.3 of FMVSS No. 110 could be set forth separately from the certification label. As discussed below, the answer is no. However, as we have indicated in the past, it is permissible to provide a certification label in two parts under certain circumstances.

S4.3.3 reads (with emphasis added) as follows:

Additional labeling information for vehicles other than passenger cars.Each vehicle shall show the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for the tire appropriate for use on that vehicle, including the tire installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer, after each GAWR listed on the certification label required by 567.4 or 567.5 of this chapter. This information shall be in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 2.4 millimeters high and in the following format:

Truck ExampleSuitable Tire-Rim Choice

GVWR: 2,441 kilograms (5381 pounds).

GAWR: Front1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.0 rims at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

GAWR: Rear1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.00 rims, at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

The information required by S4.3.3 thus cannot appear separately from the certification label.

We note, however, that as we explained in a May 3, 1984, letter to Takeshi Tanuma of Nissan, NHTSA permits the use of a certification label in two parts, under certain circumstances. We explained that while the Part 567 certification regulations specify that "a label" must be used, the agency has permitted the use of a label in two parts in circumstances which will not lead to confusion and which will satisfy the basic intent of Part 567. Specifically, the two portions of the label must be placed in close proximity to each other, to permit individuals to readily find all the specified information and to leave no doubt as to the significance of either portion of the label. Further, the two portions must be oriented in such a manner that the specified information appears in the required order. As a practical matter, these considerations require that the two portions be affixed to the same vehicle part. While the agency did not specify a particular distance as a maximum permissible separation of the two portions of the label, we stated that the two portions must be located so as to leave the unmistakable impression that they provide related information.

Accordingly, the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be separated from the certification label. However, the certification label may be affixed in two parts under the circumstances described above.

We note that the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be added to the tire information placard required by S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. As the agency previously explained in amending the tire safety information regulations, additional information is not appropriate because it would overcrowd the already content-rich vehicle placard (see 69 FR 31306 at 31311).

Finally, we note that in the end of your letter, you requested that, if a separate label is not permitted, the agency treat your letter as a request for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 110 in order to afford vehicle manufacturers the option of specifying alternative tire and rim information separately from the certification label. However, your letter did not provide sufficient supporting information for us to determine whether rulemaking would be warranted.

If, after reviewing this letter, you still believe that rulemaking is needed, please submit a petition for rulemaking with detailed supporting information. Among other things, the agency would want to examine actual examples (photographs) of vehicles unable to display the information required by S4.3.3 on the usual certification label or a split certification label. We would also want to review additional information about spacing problems, and what location requirements might be appropriate for an additional label.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.11/16/05

ID: GF006496

Mr. Merrill Sutton
Tie Down Engineering, Inc.
5901 Wheaton Drive
Atlanta, GA 30336

Dear Mr. Sutton:

This responds to your facsimile and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding the possibility of placing your companys name on "side two" of brake hoses manufactured by Meiji Rubber and Chemical, Ltd. (Meiji). You indicated that Meiji is duly registered with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as a brake hose manufacturer. Further, Meiji is prepared to place your name, as a distributor, on "side two" of the brake hose.

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. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 (FMVSS No. 106) has certain labeling requirements. S5.2.1 of the standard states:

S5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opposite sides of the brake hose parallel to its longitudinal axis. One stripe may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option." (Emphasis added.)

Based on the language of the standard, Meiji, as a manufacturer of brake hoses, is permitted to enter "additional information" on the other side of the brake hose at its option. Such "additional information" can include, among other things, the name of your company.

We note that one side (or "side one") of the brake hose must contain information as required by S5.2.2. Specifically, the one side of the brake hose must include: (a) the symbol DOT; (b) a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose; (c) the nominal inside diameter of the hose; (d) the month, day and year of manufacture; [1] and (e) either "HR" to indicate regular-expansion hydraulic hose or "HL" to indicate low-expansion hydraulic hose.

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:106
d.10/9/03





---

[1] Your facsimile contained drawings of the brake hose in question. We note that the drawing of "side one" of the brake hose contains only the month and year of the manufacture but not the date.

ID: GF006498

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This responds to your facsimile dated August 29, 2003, seeking further clarification of our interpretation letter sent to you on August 7, 2003. In response to our August 7^th letter, you have reprogrammed the flash rate in your hazard warning signal flasher. You now ask whether the newly reprogrammed flash rate complies with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Standard No. 108).

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.

As previously discussed, SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966 (SAE 945), is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, as the Federal Requirement for Flashers. Paragraph 3 of J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash Rate and Percent Current On Time." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. This paragraph also specifies that:

"flashing rate . . . shall be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles." (emphasis added)

Your newly reprogrammed flash pattern operates as follows (in milliseconds):

ON	OFF	ON	OFF	ON	OFF
200	250	200	250	200	850

Our calculations indicate that the above flash pattern, taking into account the averaging procedure set forth in J945, is within the specified flash rate.

In considering this issue further, however, we believe this type of flash pattern is very different from what NHTSA contemplated in incorporating J945 by reference in Standard No. 108. As you know, existing flashers operate at an essentially constant rate. Moreover, while Figure 1 of J945 permits considerable flexibility in flash rate, our calculations indicate that the flash rate and percent current on time for each and every cycle of your flash pattern fall outside the figure.

As we have stated before, we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. The information currently provided by signal lamps, such as flashers, is well understood by the driving public, instantly recognized, and unambiguously informative. We are concerned that very different flash patterns have the potential to cause confusion. Therefore, we plan in the near future to modify Standard No. 108 in a way that would preclude your design.

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:108
d.4/2/04

ID: GF006627-2

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in response to your letter of September 8, 2004, in which you requested interpretation of the new tire information placard requirements in S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, as amended June 3, 2004 (see 69 FR 31306).

The standard currently applicable to the vehicles described in your letter (trucks and trailers) is FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that the tire information must appear on the vehicle certification label or on a separate tire information label affixed to the vehicle in the same manner and location as the certification label (see 49 CFR 567.4).

Effective September 1, 2005, FMVSS No. 110 will apply to trucks and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.S4.3 of that standard will require that each vehicle contain either a single vehicle placard with a revised list of tire information, or a vehicle placard and a supplementary tire inflation pressure label, affixed to the drivers side B-pillar.Prior to September 1, 2005, compliance with the new requirements in S4.3 is voluntary.Thus, until September 1, 2005, the vehicles described in your letter with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less may comply with either S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 or S4.3 of the amended version of FMVSS No. 110.

You ask whether a tire information placard, affixed to a previously certified vehicle that has been altered, may remain on that vehicle if it contains incorrect information because of the alteration.You also ask if it is permissible to remove or black out portions of the tire information placard that may contain incorrect information.Your letter does not specify whether the placard in question is one affixed pursuant to the current requirements of FMVSS No. 120 or the new requirements of FMVSS No. 110.Our answers follow.

First, irrespective of which tire information placard is affixed to the vehicle, the information on that placard must be correct. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a dealer may not sell vehicles or equipment that do not comply with applicable safety standards.Also, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits dealers, manufacturers, and certain other entities from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, a dealer must replace the tire information placard if, after the dealer installs additional equipment, the required information is no longer accurate. We note that, with respect to altered vehicles, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

In the event that a vehicle contains a tire information placard affixed pursuant to S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120, and a placard affixed pursuant to the requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, at least one placard must contain accurate information and must fully comply with applicable requirements.The other placard may remain if it is accurate, or must be removed or replaced, if it is not.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has consistently stated with respect to labeling requirements that additional information may be present (unless specifically prohibited), provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose."In the case at hand, a second, voluntarily affixed placard containing incorrect tire safety information would confuse the meaning of the required information on the required placard.Accordingly, the second placard would have to be replaced, or be removed.

In sum, until September 1, 2005, the altered vehicles described in your letter must fully comply with current requirements in FMVSS No. 120 or the new requirements in FMVSS No. 110.In both instances, the tire information placard must contain accurate information.If both placards are affixed to the vehicle, neither placard may contain information that would confuse the meaning of the required contents.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.12/22/04

ID: GF007036

Mr. Robert M. Clarke
President, Truck Manufacturers Association
1225 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005-6156

Dear Mr. Clarke:

This is in response to your letter of September 15, 2003, seeking clarification of the two effective dates for the new heavy vehicle antilock brake system (ABS) performance requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 121, and FMVSS No. 105. [1] In your letter, you indicated your understanding that "complete vehicle" manufacturers were subject to the effective date of July 1, 2005.You also indicated your understanding that "incomplete vehicle" manufacturers, including "final stage" manufacturers and "intermediate stage" manufacturers were subject to the effective date of July 1, 2006. You ask whether a "chassis-cab" manufacturer [2] would also qualify as an "incomplete vehicle" manufacturer, and thus be subject to the July 1, 2006, effective date. As discussed below, our answer is yes.

The new regulatory text of FMVSS No. 121 states, in relevant part:

"The service brake system on each bus and truck (other than a truck tractor) manufactured on or after July 1, 2005, and each bus and truck (other than a truck tractor) manufactured in two or more stages on or after July 1, 2006 shall, under the conditions of S6, meet the requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.3, S5.3.4, and S5.3.6"

The new regulatory text for FMVSS No. 105 contains similar language with respect to the effective dates.

The preamble to the final rule explains that "vehicles built in two or more stages must meet the braking-in-a-curve tests requirements on or after July 1, 2006." The preamble also indicates that the additional lead time was necessary in order to enable early stage manufacturers to provide complying incomplete vehicles to final stage manufactures. [3]

With respect to the effective date for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, the final rule does not differentiate between the different stages of the manufacturing process or different categories of incomplete vehicles. Instead, we provided an effective date of July 1, 2006, for all vehicles built in two or more stages. Accordingly, all vehicles built in two or more stages, including chassis-cabs, are subject to the effective date of July 1, 2006.

With respect to your last question, the abbreviation "LLVW" appearing in Table 1 of the August 11 Final Rule, stands for "lightly loaded vehicle weight." The term carries the same meaning in FMVSS No. 121 as it does in FMVSS No. 105 where it is defined as unloaded vehicle weight plus up to 1,500 lb. We intend to add this same definition to FMVSS No. 121 at a future date.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.12/3/03





---

[1] The new requirements were published in the Final Rule on August 11, 2003 (68 FR 47485).

[2] A "chassis-cab" is one type of incomplete vehicle.

[3] See Id. at 47493.

ID: GF007048

Jose M. Hernndez, President
Service Public Commission
PO Box 190870
San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00919-0870
ATTN: Maria Roln-Castillo, Esq.

Dear Mr. Hernndez:

This responds to your letter regarding certain rules and procedures that may be applicable to ambulance manufacturers. Specifically, you ask about the certification process for ambulance manufacturers. You also ask whether an ambulance manufacturer must obtain permission or a license in order to manufacture ambulances, and whether non-registered parties can rebuild existing ambulances using replacement chassis. We apologize for the delay in responding.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which all motor vehicle manufacturers, including ambulance manufacturers, are responsible for certifying that their vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

An ambulance manufacturer need not obtain permission or a license from NHTSA in order to manufacture ambulances. However, under the requirements of Part 566 (a copy of which is enclosed), all manufacturers of motor vehicles must submit to NHTSA certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce. Specifically, a manufacturer must indicate: (a) the full individual, partnership, or corporate name of the manufacturer; (b) the residence address of the manufacturer and state of incorporation, if applicable; (c) a description of the motor vehicle produced, including approximate ranges of the gross vehicle weight rating. The vehicle description should be specific enough to indicate the intended use. [1]

NHTSA does not generally regulate rebuilding or re-manufacturing of used motor vehicles. However, if the rebuilding or re-manufacturing involved sufficient manufacturing operations, the vehicle could be considered to be newly manufactured. This would mean that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of rebuilding (re-manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards.Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case by case basis.

In the event your use of the term "rebuild" refers to converting, prior to first retail sale, a new vehicle or the completion of an incomplete vehicle chassis into an ambulance, then such a manufacturer would be considered either a "vehicle alterer" or a "final stage manufacturer." These entities are subject to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 567 and Part 568, which generally require the entities to certify that the given completed or modified vehicle meets or continues to meet all applicable FMVSS.

We also note that 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. Therefore, a manufacturer who undertakes to "rebuild" or convert a previously sold vehicle into an ambulance is subject to the prohibitions of this "make inoperative provision."

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:566
d.12/8/03





---

[1] Please note that if the vehicle in question is produced in two or more stages (which is often the case with ambulances), the manufacturer must indicate the stage of completion for which this ambulance manufacturer is responsible (presumably the final stage), and include a brief description of the work performed.

ID: GF007210

Mr. Jeff Oldham
Performance Tires, LLC
22810 Pennyrile Lane
Katy, TX 77450

Dear Mr. Oldham:

This responds to your e-mail and previous phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding the legality of "knock off" style wheel hubs. You intend to supply these wheel hubs to Factory Five Racing, a kit car manufacturer, who will in turn, sell unassembled kits to consumers. You ask whether "knock off" style wheel hubs satisfy the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

In your e-mail, you describe the wheel hubs in question as follows: "An adapter goes over the existing studs which the wheel would typically mount to. The adapter is held on by lugs, then the wheel is slid over the adapter. The wheel itself is held on by an "knock off" style hub, which screws down onto the adapter on the face of the wheel. The knockoff screws on in a counter clockwise rotation (opposite direction of the wheels when the car is in drive)."

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 is no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard regulating "knock off" wheel hubs. Previously, FMVSS No. 211 (Standard No. 211), Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps (49 CFR Section 571.211), precluded certain wheel nuts, wheel hubs, wheel discs, and hub caps from having "winged projections." We were concerned that the winged projections could catch on clothing or strike legs or other body parts, posing a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. However, Standard No. 211 was rescinded as of June 5, 1996. [1]

We note that despite the fact that NHTSA does not directly regulate wheel hubs, any wheel hub designed to be used on a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" and is subject the recall and remedy provisions of Chapter 310. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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:211
d.11/17/03





---

[1] See 61 FR 20172, copy attached.

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: GF007220

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 is in response to your letters dated September 23, 2004 and October 11, 2004, in which you requested interpretations of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. Specifically, you raised certain issues with respect to the content of the tire information placard, and tire normal load requirements.

In your October 11, 2004 letter, you ask whether S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, as amended by the final rule in response to petitions for reconsideration published on June 3, 2004 (69 FR 31306), allows a light truck tire load identification of B, C, D, E, or F on the tire information placard. Our answer is no.

S4.3(i) specifies that only a tire load identification XL or reinforced may appear on the tire information placard (see 69 FR at 31318). No other load identification is allowed. We note, however, that we received several petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to permit load identifications B, C, D, E, or F on tire information placards (see Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17917-6). We are currently considering that request. We expect to issue our response in the near future.

In your September 23, 2004 letter, you ask about a technical correction to the June 3, 2004 final rule. In the correction notice published on August 19, 2004 (69 FR 51399), we amended S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 110. You state that the amendment to S4.2.2 was unnecessary. You ask to confirm which section of FMVSS No. 110 currently specifies the normal load requirements, and what section of FMVSS No. 110 will specify the normal load requirements in the future.

Currently, the normal load requirements apply only to passenger cars. S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifies normal load limits for passenger cars. Effective June 1, 2007, S4.2.1.2 will specify the normal load limits for passenger cars, and S4.2.2.3 will specify the normal load requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. You are correct to note that the August 19, 2004 document does not affect the date on which multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds will become subject to the normal load requirements. We intend to clarify this issue when we respond to the 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.1/3/05

ID: GF007509

Mr. Roger J. Davenport
General Highway Products, Inc.
PO Box 596
878 Sussex Blvd.
Broomall, PA 19008




Dear Mr. Davenport:

This responds to your August 26, 2005, letter asking for our analysis of an auxiliary electrical connection to a vehicles braking system, and the potential ramifications associated with the addition of a foreign electrical circuit to a braking system.

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.

While we are unable to provide you with a technical analysis of your question, we will discuss the Federal laws that can affect your situation.

Your letter describes an electrical device designed for emergency vehicles called 3M Emergency Vehicle Preemption System ("3M device"). The 3M device is installed on emergency vehicles and is used to send a coded infrared signal to the traffic light directly ahead of the emergency vehicle. Upon receiving the signal from the 3M device, the traffic light turns red, except in the direction facing the emergency vehicle. This assists emergency vehicles in safer passage through intersections. Your letter indicates that your customers request that the 3M device be automatically disabled when the parking brake is applied. However, this automatic deactivation feature would require an auxiliary electrical connection to the vehicle braking system.

The auxiliary electrical connection described in your letter is not specifically addressed by the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if an auxiliary device such as the 3M device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its 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.

Further, Federal law also limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Specifically, if the 3M device is installed after the first retail sale of the vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Thus, despite an absence of an express prohibition of auxiliary electrical connections to the braking systems, it is your responsibility to ensure that the installation of the 3M device would not adversely affect the vehicles compliance with any of our safety standards.

We note that because the 3M device described in your letter is designed to be used on a motor vehicle, it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B), and is subject the recall and remedy provisions of 49 U.S.C. 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 vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Finally, we note that you may wish to contact a private attorney to ascertain any potential State tort law liabilities you may incur as consequence of tampering with the vehicle braking system.

For your convenience we are attaching information materials for vehicle manufacturers. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.12/21/05