ID: 2858o

Mr. Derek Nash
Artech Corporation
2901 Telestar Court
Falls Church, VA 22042

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and follows up on the April 1, 1988 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff in which additional information augmenting your letter was provided. I apologize for the delay in responding.

In your letter, you said that you are refurbishing a type of passenger vehicle that was first produced 20 years ago. Your letter raises questions about Federal requirements for persons modifying used vehicles which I will address in the latter part of this letter and about Federal requirements for the design of the vehicle's chassis.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that the manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not clear from the information which you have provided us whether the vehicle you are refurbishing would be treated as a new or used vehicle under the Safety Act. A vehicle with a new body and new chassis would be a new vehicle required to meet the standards in effect on the day that manufacture of the vehicle is completed. A vehicle with a new body and old chassis would be a used vehicle.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., persons holding themselves out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that any person in the above categories modifying a new or used vehicle must do so in a manner that ensures the continued compliance of the vehicle with applicable safety standards. This prohibition affects vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, l968, the date on which the first Federal safety standards became effective. For instance, a commercial business that installs a new fuel system in a passenger car manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of Standard No. 301) must ensure that the new system at least meets the level of safety performance required of the fuel system originally installed on the vehicle. Persons violating section 108 are subject to potential civil penalties of $1,000 per violation.

In instances in which a new vehicle body is installed on an old chassis, section 108(a)(2)(A) requires that the reassembled vehicle meet the Federal safety standards that had been in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle. I have enclosed a copy of a January 14, 1976 letter to Mr. Tom Welland that describes generally the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to refurbished motor vehicles. Please note that the first situation referred to in the Welland letter addresses the modification of a vehicle by its owner. The prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I will now address the questions you expressly posed in your letter. Your first three questions asked:

What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of a passenger-carrying motor vehicle?

What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger-carrying motor vehicle chassis?

What form or test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

As Ms. Hom informed you, our safety standards apply to new vehicles and are performance-oriented. NHTSA has not issued any design specifications that directly establish minimum static or dynamic loads for vehicle chassis. These design parameters are established by the manufacturer independently of specific criteria set by the agency and might be available from the original manufacturer of the vehicle you are refurbishing. However, manufacturers of new vehicles are required by NHTSA to determine and specify the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings of their vehicles in the manner set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 of our regulations. I have enclosed a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Chassis manufacturers must be aware, however, of the following two considerations relating to the static and dynamic load capacities of vehicles and NHTSA's regulations. First, because manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that their vehicles will perform to the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, manufacturers must ensure that chassis design is compatible with the vehicle's ability to comply. Some of our safety standards specify that the performance of requisite vehicle safety systems will be evaluated in dynamic (i.e., crash) tests which enable the agency to evaluate the synergistic effect of a range of variables on a vehicle's compliance therewith. Manufacturers of new vehicles would therefore have to ensure that the design of the chassis will have no negative effect on their vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards.

Second, as mentioned above, NHTSA has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and to require manufacturers to recall and remedy such defects free of charge. Chassis manufacturers must therefore ensure that their products contain no safety related defects, which might well include a chassis member that is incapable of carrying loads for which it is intended.

Further, the vehicle manufacturer who provides the GVWR and GAWR information required by Part 567 must ensure that the information relating to the chassis static loads is correct.

On a separate matter, your letter also asked about the requirements manufacturers must meet when installing a plastic fuel tank in a motor vehicle. The standard we issued for vehicle fuel system integrity (No. 301) sets performance requirements for fuel systems in new motor vehicles. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) specifies the test that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the requisite safety system (e.g., the fuel system) on new vehicles selected for inclusion in its compliance test program. Manufacturers are not bound, however, to use the tests specified in the safety standards for evaluating the compliance of their vehicles or equipment with our standards. Instead, a manufacturer may test in any manner it chooses, so long as it can show that it has exercised due care in ensuring that its vehicles or items of equipment comply with the applicable Federal requirements.

In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed information that provides an overview of Federal requirements applying to manufacturers of new motor vehicles and instructions on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#108#301 d:4/29/88

ID: 1980y

Alan S. Eldahr, President
Optimum Building Technologies
P.O. Box 881105
San Diego, CA 92108

Dear Mr. Eldahr:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a "small LED display reader board for use in private vehicles." This device can be incorporated with the center highmounted stoplamp, or installed as a separate unit, also to be placed in the rear window. In the latter configuration, messages can be displayed continuously, or stop when the service brakes are applied. You have concluded that the device will not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked for our comments. I regret the delay in responding.

Our first comment is that the device cannot be combined with an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp, or with an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp used to replace original equipment center lamps, installed on vehicles manufactured on and after September l, l985. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08 forbids combining the center stop lamp with any other lamp. We view the LED reader board as a type of signal lamp within the meaning of the prohibition.

The legality of a combined LED-center stop lamp for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September l, l985, is not determinable under Standard No. l08, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Its installation by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses would be permissible under Federal law if the installation does not render inoperative in whole or in part any element of design, or device, installed in accordance with a safety standard. However, it would still remain subject to regulation by any State in which it would be sold or operated. We cannot advise you on State laws. You may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203).

As for the device's legality as a separate unit in the rear window area, when installed as an item of original equipment, it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. If it creates a noncompliance with the field of view requirements of Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors, an outside rear view mirror must be provided on the passenger's side. As an aftermarket item, it is subject to the render inoperative provisions of the Act. We believe that an additional original equipment light in the rear window, whether red or amber, and whether or not operating simultaneously with the center lamp but sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp. For the same reason, we believe that as an aftermarket item installed on passenger cars manufactured on or after September l, l985, your device could render the original equipment center lamp on those cars partially inoperative by distracting attention from its function. As for installation on vehicles that were manufactured before that date and thus lack center lamps, this again is a question to be answered under State laws. At all times, the field of view requirements of Standard No. lll must be maintained, regardless of whether the car was manufactured before or after September 1, l985.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/

VSA#108 d:8/l7/89

ID: 571-108 -- LED headlamps motorcycles -- Stanley Electric Co. -- 11-006845

ID: nht80-1.5

DATE: 01/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pierson, Ball & Dowd

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1979, to Taylor Vinson of this office requesting written confirmation of an oral opinion.

Specially you asked whether your client, Grumman Allied Industries, Inc. needed to obtain a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 in the situation where it, to use your words, "was considering converting a small number of their gasoline-powered trucks to diesel power on an experimental basis in order to sponsor a comparative fuel economy test which would be conducted by their consumers." The opinion for which you request written confirmation is that Grumman "would not need a temporary exemption if there existed a reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle as modified would still be in compliance with the fuel integrity safety standard."

That option is essentially correct assuming that Grumman is the manufacturer of the vehicles in question. Grumman may substitute diesel engines for conventional ones in the manufacturing process without barrier impacting its vehicles if a reasonable basis exists for concluding that its vehicles as modified will meet the standard. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not legally require a manufacturer to test its vehicles. It does, however, require conformance of those vehicles with NHTSA safety performance standards and although testing in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in the standards may provide the greatest assurance of conformity, a manufacturer may nevertheless resort to engineering studies mathematical calculations, computer simulations etc. as a basis for certifying that the vehicle does meet all applicable standards.

If Grumman is converting existing vehicles produced and certified by another manufacturer, the responsibility differs though the end result may be substantially similar. The Act imposes no restrictions upon the alteration of a vehicle by its owner, but the agent of an owner (specifically a manufacturer, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) may not "knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable safety standard . . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, if a person other than Grumman is converting existing vehicles to diesel power, it should not do so unless it is assured that at the end of the conversion process the vehicle continues to meet Standard No. 301-75.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

December 7, 1979

Taylor Vincent, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Vincent:

In a telephone conversation I had with you on December 3, 1979, I indicated to you that our client, Grumman Allied Industries, Incorporated (GAII), was seeking clarification on the need to acquire a temporary exemption with respect to FMVSS 301-75 (Fuel System Integrity). If you recall, GAII was considering converting a small number of their gasoline-powered trucks to diesel power on an experimental basis in order to sponsor a comparative fuel economy test which would be conducted by their consumers. It was your opinion that GAII would not need a temporary exemption if there existed a reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle as modified would still be in compliance with the fuel integrity safety standard.

Therefore, I would ask you to confirm my understanding of the substance of our conversation so that our client may have some documentation of its intention to maintain its operations in full compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and if you have any questions, please call me.

PIERSON, BALL & DOWD

E. Michael Flanagan

ID: nht81-3.44

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K. G. Moyer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/1/88 (EST) LETTER FROM MICHAEL FINKELSTEIN TO CARL KAPLAN (STD. 108); 3/7/88 MEMO FROM ERIKA JONES; 5/2/84 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1981, about your "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released." You wish our permission to install the device for experimentation and testing on other vehicles, as well as an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 whether your device is allowable.

As you know, the agency has devoted considerable effort to improve rear braking signals, culminating in its proposal that passenger cars be equipped with a single high-mounted stop lamp on the centerline of the vehicle. The concept of a pre-brake application signal is a familiar one to us, but the agency has conducted no formal research with respect to it, and in view of its stop-lamp proposal, is unlikely to do so. The technical issues that we consider relevant to your concept are (1) whether most rear-end accidents are preceded by a "panic" stop by the struck vehicle, (2) whether panic stops involve unique driver behavior that can be reliably discriminated from non-panic stop behaviour and used to trigger a pre-braking signal, and (3) whether the resulting signal will automatically result in a decrease in the reaction time of following drivers that is equal to the early warning time it provides. We know of no scientifically acceptable data that support these critical assumptions. We are especially concerned that a high rate of "false alarms" may lead to a decrease in the overall warning value of the stop lamp signal itself, i.e., the "cry wolf" phenomenon. This could lead to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any proposed system.

Paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, September 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, defines a stop lamp as one whose operation indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking."

Your device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, which could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps. We view any use of required lighting equipment for a purpose other than as defined, as an "impairment" within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 if the device is installed as original equipment. If the device is sold in the after-market, our laws preclude modifications that "render ineffective in whole or in part" required lighting equipment, if the modifications are performed by a person other than the vehicle owner. We would consider your system prohibited by this provision as well.

Noting your comment that the device may be used for testing on school buses, this means that there is no prohibition under the laws that we administer which would forbid a school district from installing your device on its fleet. Such a modification would be subject to laws of the jurisdiction in which the school bus is registered and operates.

SINCERELY,

September 22, 1981

To: Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTS Administrator

Subject: Installation of Automatic Safety Alert Device on Motor Vehicles

I currently have an alert device which automatically turns on the stop lights of the vehicle when the accelerator is released. This installation is simple, inexpensive and easy to install. I am requesting your consideration and permission for installing this device for experimentation and testing on school busses and other motor vehicles.

I am also requesting interpretation of 49 CFR 571, S108 to determine if this device meets the requirements for installation on motor vehicles under this provision.

On September 15, 1981, a vehicle (1981 Citation), with this alert device installed, was inspected by Dr. Carl Clark and his associates and all pertinent data is on file in his office.

If further testing or inspection of this car is required, I would return to Washington at any time. I would also consider allowing the use of this car for a period of testing by your office or will furnish any additional information required.

If interpretation of 49 CFR 571, S108 is not favorable, or if this alert device is not considered under this provision, I will petition for modification of the rules to allow use of this device on motor vehicles on an individual basis, in accordance with Part 552.

Your early consideration of this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Kenneth G. Moyer

PETITION

To: Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 SEVENTH STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

I, Kenneth G. Moyer, of 6400 Goldbranch Road, Columbia, S. C. 29206, petition for a change in rulemaking standards to allow this Automatic Safety Alert Device to be installed on motor vehicles, on an individual basis, in accordance with 49 CFR 571,S108.

Claim: An early-warning electrical system for vehicles of the type characterized by a normally open warning switch, mechanically co-operating with the accelerator pedal and throttle linkage and electrically connected to the vehicle rear light circuit to automatically light the brake lights when the pressure on the accelerator pedal is removed. The brake lights which are lit by applying pressure to the brake pedl are red in color and are universally recognized as indication that the vehicle is about to slow or stop. This alert device allows the brake light system to be activated when there is no pressure on the accelerator pedal.

The primary object of this device is to provide a simple and inexpensive warning system to be installed on vehicles without making changes to the linkage system and is designed to operate separately of the brake pedal switch.

This warning system alerts following drivers that the vehicles speed is decreasing and, therefore, provides time for the following driver to avoid a dangerous condition.

This alert device has been approved for use in the state of South Carolina. My contact is Maj. Lanier, phone-803-758-3315, of the South Carolina Highway Department.

I am to meet with the Highway Transportation Department in ten days to discuss installing this device on South Carolina school busses. My contact is Ralph Hendricks, phone-803-758-2762.

One U. S. car manufacturer and one foreign firm have requested information on this alert device for possible installation on new cars.

In view of the enclosed information, I request this petition be considered for a change in rulemaking standards, in accordance with 49 CFR 571,S108.

With this alert device installed on motor vehicles, it could possibly decrease the excessively high rate of rear-end collisions.

No alert devices are installed on any vehicles except those I personally own.

This alert device does not affect the normal operation of the brake pedal to operate the stop lights when the brake pedal is applied.

I am awaiting the results of consideration by the National Highway Safety Administration.

ID: 2836yy

Mr. Jeffrey S. Malinowski
Small Business Center
407 Avalon
Marine City, MI 48039

Dear Mr. Malinowski:

This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Leo McCallum, asking whether any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to his invention, a tie rod "safety bracket." You stated that the product would typically be installed by a vehicle owner to reduce tie rod end wear. As explained below, while no Federal safety standard directly applies to your client's product, he may nevertheless have certain responsibilities under this agency's regulations.

As way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Safety Act") authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product or particular materials; the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary performance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has no safety standard directly about tie rods or safety brackets used with tie rods.

As for installation of your client's device on vehicles in the aftermarket, such installations may be limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If installation of your client's product resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with a safety standard, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed the product would have rendered inoperative a device or element of design installed on the vehicle in compliance with a standard. To avoid a "rendering operative" violation, your client should examine his product to determine if installing his product would result in the vehicle no longer complying with a standard's requirements.

Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the "render inoperative" provision.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any device they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that device renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard.

Other statutory provisions in the Safety Act could affect your client's product. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as the "tire rod safety bracket" are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) on the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your client's product, your client as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the part so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the part with an identical or reasonably equivalent part which does not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, 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 Enclosures d:2/l/9l

ID: nht94-1.71

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your request, in a February 3, 1994, meeting, that we provide a letter clarifying certain Federal legal requirements related to a hydraulic brake lock that is sold as aftermarket equipment. You made this request on behalf of your client , MICO, Inc.

You indicated that the device is ordinarily added to used vehicles, but sometimes might be installed by a body builder prior to a vehicle's first sale to a consumer. The hydraulic brake lock at issue supplements the mechanical parking of a motor vehicle by providing supplemental holding capacity for the vehicle. The brake lock is installed in the hydraulic brake lines between the master brake cylinder and the foundation brakes. You particularly asked us to confirm your understanding that such a device is not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehi cle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA 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. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in this letter.

Nothing in Standard No. 105 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock that provides supplemental holding capacity for a vehicle, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering hydraulic brake locks. Therefore, MICO, as manufactu rer of the device, would not have any certification responsibilities. However, the requirements of Standard No. 105 are relevant to hydraulic brake locks. This standard applies to new motor vehicles and specifies a number of brake performance requireme nts. Since the installation of a hydraulic brake lock requires cutting into the vehicle's brake system, it is possible that such a device could be installed in a manner that affects a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105.

You indicated that the hydraulic brake lock at issue is ordinarily added to used motor vehicles. After the first purchase of a vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard i s set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of

the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Thus, the named commercial entities would be prohibited from installing a hydraulic brake lock only if such installation would take the vehicle out of compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as Standard No. 105. The "render inoperative" provi sion does not apply to modifications made to vehicles by their owners.

You indicated that the hydraulic brake lock at issue may sometimes be installed by a body builder prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer. Such a body builder would presumably be installing the hydraulic brake lock on either a completed veh icle that had previously been certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or as part of the final stage manufacture of a vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer had installed a brake system that complied with Sta ndard No. 105. In both cases, the body builder would have certification responsibilities with respect to the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, either as an alterer or as a final stage manufacturer. See 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

I hope this information has been helpful.

ID: 77-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Patton, Boggs & Blow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 20, 1977, petition to amend Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. In your petition, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permit the use of tires that have a maximum load rating of not less than 95% of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and not less than 95% of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Your petition is denied.

The problem addressed by your petition concerns a revision in the 1977 Tire and Rim Manual that alters the load rating of tires. In effect, this revision will result in lower load ratings for certain tires. According to the facts you submit, the change in tire load rating will be implemented by tire manufacturers throughout the next few months which may not provide vehicle manufacturers sufficient time to correspondingly alter the GAWRs of their vehicles in accordance with the new tire load ratings. Therefore, for a short period of time, you allege that it will be impossible to obtain tires that correspond to the GAWR indicated on the vehicle.

To alleviate the above problem, you recommend rulemaking that would permit vehicle manufacturers to install on their vehicles tires with load ratings slightly less than the GAWR of each axle. The NHTSA cannot permit the relief you request even for the limited time you propose. The intent of our tire standards is to provide minimum requirements for tires to ensure adequate safety. One of these minimum requirements mandates that the tire load rating be at least equal to the GAWR. Your request would have us reduce this minimum requirement. Since the matching of tires on a vehicle with the GAWR of each axle is such a basic principle of safety, the agency concludes that it would not be in the interest of safety to grant your request. Further, such an amendment might violate Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.), which requires that motor vehicles be equipped "with tires which meet the maximum permissible-load standards when such vehicle is fully loaded. . . ."

As you may know, the label requirements of Standard No. 120 which become effective in September permit you to list suitable tire and rim combinations on the vehicle. You need not equip a vehicle, however, with the tires indicated on the label. In this case, you may equip a trailer with any trailer tire that has a load rating equal to or greater than the GAWR of its associated axle. This may help resolve part of your problem with respect to a short term problem with matching tires on the vehicle with those indicated on the vehicle label.

ID: nht81-2.7

DATE: 03/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. Roger Fry, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

W. Roger Fry, Esq. Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis 900 Central Trust Bank Tower Fourth & Vine Streets Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Dear Mr. Fry:

This responds to your January 23, 1981, letter concerning tires used with multipiece rims. Specifically, you asked if this Department has considered whether tires should have a warning concerning use with mismatched multipiece rim assemblies.

We have not considered this question, nor have our studies of multipiece rim explosions considered the tires involved. The agency has determined through its investigations that mismatched multipiece rim assemblies are dangerous. These mismatched assemblies are highly prone to explosive separation, regardless of the nature of the tire mounted on them. Accordingly, our efforts have been directed toward labeling requirements for rim components (see the enclosed copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120) in an effort to reduce the incidence of mismatched multipiece rim assemblies. There are no labeling requirements for tires which specifically warn against use with mismatched multi-piece rim assemblies.

Per your request, I have enclosed a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (99 CFR S 571.119). Section S6.5 of this standard specifies the marking requirements for these tires. This standard took effect on March 1, 1975, and the enclosed copy represents the requirements which were applicable from that date to December 31, 1975.

This regulation does somewhat restrict the markings a manufacturer may put on the sidewall of its tires. For instance, the manufacturer cannot list more than one size designation (S6.5(c)) or more than one maximum load rating for single and dual loads (S6.5(d)). However, a manufacturer is free to include safety information in addition to that specified in section S6.5. Thus, a manufacturer might choose to print on the sidewall of its tires that the tires should only be used with a specified rim size or type. Such an additional warning need not be approved by this agency. In fact, this agency does not offer advance approval that a tire's markings comply with the requirements of Standard 119. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine that its tires are in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 23, 1981

United States Dept. of Transporation National Highway Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20591

Gentlemen:

I am involved in a matter in which I represent the manufacturer of a truck tire which was on a vehicle when a multi-piece rim suddenly came off and critically injured someone in the immediate vicinity of the tire and rim. The rim had been assembled, in some manner with incompatible parts from different manufacturers, which parts combined both two-piece and three-piece rim assembly parts.

My question of you surrounds the tire itself. Has the Department addressed the question of whether or not the tires shou1d have any kind of warning regarding use with either mismatched multi-piece rim assemblies, or multi-piece rim assemblies generally?

I would be very interested in seeing your regulations and requirements governing data which is to be legible on the tire itself, auch as tire size, maximum air pressure and identifying marks. Could you send me your regulations which we in force in 1975?

Do your regulations restrict the printing on tires to the specific items covered in your regulations, or is a tire manufacturer free to add and delete other messages?

Must "other messages" be approved by you?

Have your studies of injuries with multi-piece rim assemblies included consideration of the tires themselves? If so, to what extent?

Thank you very much for any help you are ab1e to give me on this.

Very truly yours,

RENDIGS, FRY, KIELY & DENNIS

W. Roger Fry

WRF:rst

ID: 1938y

Mr. Randy Blackman
Per-Lux Inc.
1242 E. Edna Place
Covina, CA 91724

Dear Mr. Blackman:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a head restraint that attaches to the rear window of pickup trucks. I hope the following information is helpful.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraint device sold as an item of "aftermarket" equipment for pickup trucks.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed), would also affect your head restraint if your product were installed by a commercial business on either new or used vehicles. A manufacturer installing your head restraint device on a new truck prior to certifying the truck as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as required by the Safety Act, has certain responsibilities relating to that obligation to certify. Standard No. 302 establishes flammability resistance requirements for trucks that must be met by certain vehicle components, including head restraints. The new vehicle manufacturer that installs your product on the new vehicle would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the head restraint device conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard.

A commercial business wishing to install the head restraint on new or used vehicles would be subject to statutory considerations that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle without violating the Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

In addition to the materials described above, I am also enclosing a Federal Register notice (53 FR 50047) that NHTSA issued on December 13, 1988, proposing to extend the applicability of Standard No. 202 to light trucks and vans. NHTSA has proposed to make this extension effective September 1, 1991. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding by this fall.

We are also returning herewith the sketch you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information which you asked us not to publicly disclose.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/MARCIA/SHAVON: PLEASE MAKE SURE THE SKETCH IS NOT COPIED FOR ANY FILE. WE ARE RETURNING IT, UNCOPIED, TO MR. BLACKMAN.

ref:VSA#202#302 d:8/7/89