ID: 11409.MLS

Mr. Milford R. Bennett, Director
Safety Affairs and Regulations
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Box 9010
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the thermal performance requirements in FMVSS No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Your specific question is what pedal force may or must be used during cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles for purposes of establishing allowable pedal force for thermal testing. As discussed below, it is our opinion that a vehicle must meet thermal test requirements at or below the average pedal force that achieves the shortest stopping distance during cold effectiveness tests conducted in accordance with the standard's test procedures.

The provisions in S7.5 set forth the cold effectiveness test for passenger car braking. That provision requires that the vehicle be capable of stopping within 70 meters from a speed of 100 kph with a brake pedal force that does not exceed 500 Newtons. Pursuant to S6.5.3.2, unless otherwise specified, the vehicle is to be stopped in the shortest distance achievable (best effort) on all stops.

As you correctly stated, the average pedal force used during the cold effectiveness test establishes the allowable average pedal force (and thus the stringency) for the hot performance test in S7.14 and the recovery performance test in S7.16. Specifically, S7.14 requires a vehicle with heated brakes to be capable of achieving at least 60% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force recorded during that cold effectiveness stop, while S7.16 requires the vehicle to be capable of achieving between 70% and 150% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force used during that cold effectiveness stop.

According to your letter, this test protocol is straightforward for testing non-ABS- equipped vehicles, but may be unclear with respect to testing ABS equipped vehicles. You stated that in testing ABS-equipped vehicles, GM rapidly applies and holds a constant 500 Newton pedal force throughout the cold effectiveness stop. You further stated that the presence of ABS allows the driver to apply a constant 500 Newton pedal force, stay within the standard=s wheel lock constraints, and meet the 70 meter stopping distance requirement. You stated that a problem arises because a lower pedal force could be used to match or possibly improve the stopping distance compared to a constant 500 Newton pedal force. This is so because at the 500 Newton level, the ABS would cycle to prevent excessive wheel lock, whereas a 400 Newton average level could result in an equivalent stopping distance if the driver modulated the braking force to avoid wheel lock and ABS cycling. You claimed that the pedal force difference would be unimportant for the cold effectiveness test since any force at or under 500 Newtons could be used to meet those requirements. However, it would be crucial in establishing the allowable pedal force and associated stringency for the hot performance and recovery performance tests. You stated that this could lead to compliance disputes between NHTSA and a vehicle manufacturer.

You suggested three alternatives to clarify the pedal force that may or must be used when conducting cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles:

(1) Allow a constant 500 Newton pedal force for cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles, notwithstanding the requirement in S6.5.3.2 to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance;

(2) Rewrite the thermal assessment provision of FMVSS No. 135 to use constant pedal force stops at the onset of the thermal sequence, rather than the pedal force obtained in the cold effectiveness stops, as the baseline for thermal performance assessment; or

(3) Stipulate that the pedal force used during cold effectiveness testing can exceed neither 500 Newtons nor the pedal force necessary to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance.

You recommended that NHTSA adopt Option #1 for a near term solution of this testing issue, and Option #2 as the longer term solution. You believe that Option #1 is practical, objective, repeatable, and provides a well defined pedal force constraint for the subsequent thermal tests. You acknowledged that there is a drawback to this option, i.e., that it may not result in a comparison of braking performance based upon the lowest possible average pedal force for the cold effectiveness stop. You stated that Option #2 would require rulemaking and the associated delay to implement. You stated that Option #3 would provide the intended "apples-to-apples" comparison of cold versus hot brake performance. You stated, however, that this option is not practical from a testing standpoint, since, for an ABS-equipped vehicle, a test driver could not be expected in the allowed six cold effectiveness stops to determine the minimum pedal force yielding the shortest possible stopping distance.

We anticipate that test drivers will utilize a variety of pedal forces during the six cold effectiveness stops in an effort to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance consistent with the test procedures. The average pedal force that resulted in the shortest stopping distance of

these six tests would be used to ascertain compliance with the thermal and recovery performance requirements under S7.14 and S7.16. If, as you suggest, the shortest distance can be achieved at more than one average pedal force level (e.g., if the ABS cycles at a variety of pedal forces below 500 Newtons, or the test driver is able to modulate braking forces to avoid wheel lock while matching the stopping performance of the ABS system), the vehicle must be capable of satisfying the thermal and recovery performance requirements at all such average pedal force levels.

This is consistent with the agency=s long-standing view that, as a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit the unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions. However, nothing about Standard No. 135 or its purposes provides a reason to limit the range of average pedal forces.

I hope you find this information 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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:135 d:5/16/96

ID: 8978

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, Va. 223l4

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We are replying to your letter of August 9, 1993, with respect to your views on the enforceability of a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code.

This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a "semitrailer" whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with "two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable." In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police you stated your assumption that the "two clearance lamps" are the "intermediate side marker lamps" specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps "then it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ." In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations.

Michigan replied on May 16, 1989, that NHTSA had not notified it that "the requirement of an additional 'clearance lamp' as near as to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by section 103(d)", and that "the lamp is not a marker lamp as mentioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations." You indicate that this is a reference to our letter of December 10, 1974, to the California Highway Patrol. You ask for our concurrence in your conclusion that Michigan is preempted from enforcing its requirements.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective devices, and Associated Equipment. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to

the front and to the rear as practicable, and with "intermediate side marker lamps", amber in color, "located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps." All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State "shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard" (emphasis added). In our opinion, the "aspect of performance" covered by Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same "aspect of performance" that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Because Standard No. 108 requires trailers more than 50 feet in length to be equipped with intermediate side lamps located not less than l5 inches above the pavement, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps on the same approximate vertical plane but as near the top of the trailer as practicable is preempted by Table II of Standard No. 108. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a "clearance" lamp rather than a "marker" lamp does not affect this conclusion (in fact, we regard all non-signal lamps other than headlamps as "marker" lamps, including the "clearance" lamps Table II requires on the front and rear of wide trailers). The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones.

The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent

that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Standard No. 108 those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel /BODY>

ID: nht95-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. du Plooy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: 0787

Mr. Dirk du Plooy
Motorcycle Safety Consultant
Motorcycle Rider Advancement Centre
P.O. Box/Postbus 46298
Mayfair 2108
Republic of South Africa

Dear Mr. du Plooy:

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

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

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

Because these Federal standards apply throughout the United States, I believe that they meet your request for information on "the most generally accepted standard." Under our laws, if any State has its own standard covering any aspect of performance that is covered by one of the Federal standards

listed above, that State standard must be identical to the Federal one. So, to that extent, State regulation of motorcycle trailers should be identical to the Federal requirements.

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

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:571 d:4/10/95

ID: nht68-1.11

DATE: 09/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Blaw-Knox Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1968, in which you provided certification information.

With reference to the Service Bulletin dated "4-10-68" in the second paragraph you state that mixer units mounted at the factory will display a "Certification of Compliance" plate. Blaw-Knox, when it is the party mounting a mixed to a chassis-cab, must insure compliance with Federal Standard No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis-cab, but it is required to furnish certification only when the completed vehicle is being shipped to a dealer or distributor for sale to the ultimate purchaser. No certification is required when such a purchaser brings a chassis-cab to the factory for mixer installation. With reference to the third paragraph, it is not necessary for you to supply a certification plate for mixer equipment, which is shipped from the factory for mounting elsewhere. Compliance with Federal Standard No. 108 is the responsibility of the party who mounts the mixer to the chassis-cab.

Since the chassis-cab manufacturer will have provided serial number information sufficient to determine the requirements of Standards No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacturer of the chassis-cab, it is not necessary to include the mixer serial number on the certification plate. We would suggest that you may comply with the certification plate. We would suggest that you may comply with te certification requirements of Section 114 of the Act when you deliver the completed vehicle to a dealer or distributor for sale to the ultimate purchaser by wording your certification as follows:

"Blaw-Knox Company certifies to the distributor or dealer that it has mounted the mixer unit to the chassis and that the completed vehicle conforms with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108."

A notice of proposed rule making which will result in more specific requirements with reference to certification will be published in the Federal Register in the near future. A copy of the notice will be sent Blaw-Knox.

Sincerely,

July 11, 1968

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau

Attention: Joseph R. O'Gorman -- Acting Director, Office of Performance Analysis Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

Gentlemen:

The following information is being sent to you at the direction of Mr. David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, per his letter of June 27th, 1968 (copy enclosed).

Mr. Fay's letter was in answer to the writer's letter of May 6th (copy enclosed) requesting approval of the method being used by Blaw-Knox Company in order to comply with the certification requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Mr. Fay indicated that the following additional information would be required.

1. The location on the vehicle at which the certification label or tag will be placed: This location is indicated on Blaw-Knox drawing C-8450-911 (enclosed).

2. Actual sample certification tag: Enclosed

3. The means by which the certification tag will be attached: Also indicated on drawing C-8450-911.

Should any additional information be required please write or call Blaw-Knox Company, Construction Equipment Division, Mattoon, Illinois.

Very truly yours,

BLAW-KNOX COMPANY

Construction Equipment Division --

J. M. Wright,

Assistant Sales Manager

Enclosures

ID: 86-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Joy Binkley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 28, 1986 Ms. Joy Binkley MJB Windshield Repair 3765 South Acoma Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Ms. Binkley: Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1986, concerning the application of our regulations to a product your company uses. The product, which is called the Novus method of windshield repair, is used to fill in breaks in vehicle windshields with a liquid resin. You explained that several companies in your area have asked whether the U.S. Department of Transportation has approved the use of the Novus product. I hope the following discussion answers your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation which has been delegated the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain 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 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and location requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Standard No. 205 does not contain performance requirements for repair kits, such as the Novus method, which are used to repair broken glazing. However,use of such a material or process in a new windshield which required repair, for example, as a result of damage sustained in shipment, would be affected by Standard No. 205. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. If a windshield is repaired prior to the new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our regulation on certification (Part 567). As an alterer, the person must certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205. In case of a used vehicle, use of a windshield repair kit could potentially be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In discussing the applicability of section 108(a)(2)(A) to the repair of windows in used vehicles, NHTSA has said that the prohibitions of that section do not apply to use of a product or process used in the repair of a windshield which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the windshield, and not any subsequent action by a person repairing the damaged window in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the glazing with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The manufacturer of the windshield repair kit is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, it is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 6962

Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein
Senior Counsel
PACCAR Inc.
P.O. Box 1518
Bellevue, WA 98004

Dear Mr. Brownstein:

This responds to your letter, requesting that the agency clarify a provision in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. (49 CFR 571.120) Specifically, you asked whether under section S5.1.3, a vehicle manufacturer could, if requested by the purchaser, install retreaded tires procured by the manufacturer on a new vehicle. You stated that allowing the vehicle manufacture to buy retreaded tires would be more efficient and would help the truck owner to avoid having to make a separate purchase. I welcome this opportunity to respond to your request for an interpretation.

Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 states:

In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol.

For the vehicle manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new truck, bus, or trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that five conditions must be satisfied. These are:

(1) the purchaser must request such a retreaded or used tire, (2) the vehicle must be equipped with the retreaded or used tire at the vehicle's place of manufacture, (3) the retreaded or used tire to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser, (4) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle, and (5) used tires equipped on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 (and contain the DOT certification symbol).

Your letter indicates that in buying the retreaded tires at the purchaser's request, PACCAR's actions would comply with the first condition (and presumably the second condition). However, since PACCAR and not the vehicle purchaser would supply the tire, your requested action clearly would not comply with the third condition which requires the retreaded or used tire to be owned by the purchaser. This condition permits a purchaser to order a new vehicle without any tires and install any tire it may choose. It is not clear from your letter whether the fourth condition would be satisfied. The fifth condition is not applicable to retreaded truck tires, since such tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on their sidewalls. Based on the above, we conclude that having a vehicle manufacturer supply a retreaded or used tire for a new vehicle would not comply with S5.1.3.

We disagree with your view that the purpose of section S5.1.3 is to allow the purchaser to choose whether the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure it has knowledge of this fact. As discussed in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the purpose of the provision is to accommodate a practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to the vehicle manufacturer for installation on new vehicles they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been taken off vehicles no longer in service. (49 FR 20822, 20823, May 17, 1984).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref:120 d:3/23/92

ID: 7322

Mr. Douglas Berg
President
Ascend Productions
9823 Lake Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44102

Dear Mr. Berg:

This responds to your letter requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provide "recognition and support" for your item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Hazard Helper Safety Sign." You explained that this reversible device attaches to the driver's window and displays either a help needed symbol (a stick figure with extended arms and legs) or a hazard alert symbol (a triangle). Your sales literature indicates that the help needed symbol is intended to be displayed in the event of medical emergencies, mechanical breakdown, having a flat tire, or being stuck in snow or being out of fuel. The hazard alert symbol is intended to be displayed for going for gasoline, doing roadside repairs, resting, or awaiting known assistance.

As discussed below, this agency does not recognize, support or otherwise endorse particular products. Moreover, based on the information provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed).

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

Section S3 of Standard No. 125 specifies that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.) Your device has no self-contained energy source, is designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and is not permanently affixed to the vehicle. Another condition set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance, are not subject to Standard No. 125. An example of such a device would be a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade.

The "help needed" portion of your device appears to be designed to function in the same manner as other non-warning devices, i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. This portion of the device would therefore not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the "hazard alert" portion of your device does appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, and must therefore comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. From the enclosed copy of the standard you will see that some of the specific requirements with which your device must comply include minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information you provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements.

Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref:125 d:7/28/92

ID: nht92-5.7

DATE: July 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Berg -- President, Ascend Productions

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/15/92 from Douglas Berg to NHTSA Legal Council (OCC 7322)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provide "recognition and support" for your item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Hazard Helper Safety Sign." You explained that this reversible device attaches to the driver's window and displays either a help needed symbol (a stick figure with extended arms and legs) or a hazard alert symbol (a triangle). Your sales literature indicates that the help needed symbol is intended to be displayed in the event of medical emergencies, mechanical breakdown, having a flat tire, or being stuck in snow or being out of fuel. The hazard alert symbol is intended to be displayed for going for gasoline, doing roadside repairs, resting, or awaiting known assistance.

As discussed below, this agency does not recognize, support or otherwise endorse particular products. Moreover, based on the information provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed).

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

Section S3 of Standard No. 125 specifies that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and USED TO WARN APPROACHING TRAFFIC OF THE PRESENCE OF A STOPPED VEHICLE, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.) Your device has no self-contained energy source, is designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and is not permanently affixed to the vehicle.

Another condition set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance,

are not subject to Standard No. 125. An example of such a device would be a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade.

The "help needed" portion of your device appears to be designed to function in the same manner as other non-warning devices, i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. This portion of the device would therefore not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the "hazard alert" portion of your device does appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, and must therefore comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. From the enclosed copy of the standard you will see that some of the specific requirements with which your device must comply include minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information you provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements.

Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1994

FROM: Robert E. Fouts -- President, Earl's Performance Products

TO: Phillip Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Meeting with Mr. Jim Gilkey 11/05/95

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO ROBERT E. FOUTS (A43; STD. 106)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

Flexible brake hose of extruded teflon armored with stainless steel braid have been the worldwide standard for racing cars since the mid 1960s. The reasons are two-fold:

(1) The virtual elimination of hose swell under pressure results in a significant reduction in brake pedal travel.

(2) The same reduction in hose swell gives a much firmer brake pedal feel - allowing the driver to modulate braking force more precisely.

For the same reasons there is a significant market demand for these hoses on road going vehicles, especially high performance vehicles and cars that have been retro-fitted with upgraded brake systems. There is also interest from OEM vehicle manufacturer s for limited production vehicles.

Earl's Performance Products Inc. has been the leading supplier of this type of hose, as well as other types of high performance fluid handling hoses and fittings, to the racing industry for more than twenty years.

The stainless braid armored brake hoses of teflon, supplied to the racing industry, easily meet all of the physical specifications of FMVSS No. 106 with the exception of the whip test. The whip test requires that one end of the hose be fixed to a normal end fitting while the other is attached to a disc of 8 inch diameter. The assembly is pressurized and the disc is rotated at 800 revolutions per minute. The hose assembly must endure 35 continuous hours of cycling without losing pressure.

The standard racing specification hoses typically fail at the interface between the hose and the upstream end of the swedge collar at the fixed end of the assembly. The failure is due to the aggravated cyclic stress.

Earl's determination to develop a flexible brake hose of stainless steel braid armored extruded teflon has led us to design and manufacture our own in house whip test machine to the specifications set forth in FMVSS No. 106.

After some years of experimentation and testing we have developed our "whip dampener" device which allows our hose assemblies to easily surpass the whip test. We have successfully tested hose assemblies from 9.0" to 24.0".

Briefly, the whip dampener consists of a spherical bearing enclosed in a machined housing. The housing clips into the OEM bracket where the OEM hard brake tubing joins to the flexible brake hose. The flexible brake hose of stainless armored teflon is i nserted through the bearing on assembly and cannot be removed. Suitable threaded couplings to JIC, DIN etc. standards are provided at each end of the assembly to match the OEM threads at the end of the hard lines and at the caliper of wheel cylinder. D etails of these couplings are dependant on the specifications of the individual vehicle and installation. No modifications are required (or allowed) to the threaded couplings or ports on the vehicle.

We intend to meet the marking requirements of Section S 5.2.1 by marking a clear plastic extruded overlay with the required lay lines, manufacturer's ID # etc. or by etching the same information onto the stainless steel braid.

Assemblies will be supplied with clear and graphically detailed instructions.

We met yesterday in Washington with Mr. Jim Gilkey of the enforcement division. Mr. Gilkey stated that he felt that our assembly was a reasonable approach to the requirements of Section S 5.3.3 but, since this is a new concept and no device of this natur e had been seen before, your office should be informed. We have left samples, photographs, descriptive literature and a model of the whip dampener test device with Mr. Gilkey.

Upon receipt of a favorable reply we will submit sample assemblies to an independent testing lab for certification with regard to the complete requirements of FMVSS No. 106 and proceed to apply for a manufacturer's ID #.

We are prepared to return to Washington when required. In the meantime, should you or your staff require further information please feel free to contact me at any time.