ID: nht89-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: RANDY BLACKMAN -- PER-LUX INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/19/88 FROM RANDY BLACKMAN -- PERLUX INC TO NHTSA; OCC 2462

TEXT: 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 requirem ents 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 (cop y 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 r estraint 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 eq uipment, 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 responsibili ties. 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 devi ce 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 fla mmability 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 Standa rd 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 vehi cles 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 applicabl e 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 acco rdance 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 1 09 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 m ake 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,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht91-1.33

DATE: February 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey S. Malinowski -- Small Business Center

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-14-90 from Jeffrey S. Malinowski to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5461)

TEXT:

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.

ID: nht90-3.90

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harold Williams

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-3-90 from H. Williams to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 4640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements on marketing your product, an aftermarket mirror wiper for truck mirrors that hooks into the truck's air system. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had requ irements for materials to be used with such a product. You also requested the agency send any regulations about such a product. The following discussion and the enclosed information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Equipm ent" explain your responsibility under NHTSA's regulations.

As way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Safety Act") authorizes this agency 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 perf ormance 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. Because of this provision in the law, NHTSA cann ot approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

Although NHTSA has no safety standard directly about a mirror wiper, the agency has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR S571.111; co py enclosed). This means that vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 111.

As for installation of your device on mirrors in the aftermarket, such installations are 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 b usiness from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as Standard No. 111. If installation of your mirror wiper resulted in a vehicle no lon ger complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed the mirror wiper would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed on the vehicle in compliance Cwith Standard No. 111. To a void a "rendering

operative" violation, you should examine your product to determine if installing your mirror wiper would result in the mirror no longer complying with the 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 whethe r that device renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

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

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

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do 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.

ID: 86-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 3/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter M. Kopanon -- Vehicle Inspection Services, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 22, 1985 letter to our office concerning Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381). You asked several questions about the provision in @ 103(d) which permits a State to establish higher safety requirements for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use. In a January 31 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that you were interested in how @ 103(d) applies to vehicles procured for school transportation purposes.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehcile equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Your first question asked whether vehicles "directly owned" by the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions fall within the category of vehicles procured by the State or its subdivisions for its own use. The answer is yes, if the governmental entities have purchased the vehicles for their own use. While governmental entities may specify additional safety features in their own vehicles, keep in mind that section 103(d) does not permit them to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

Your second question, referred to buses that are owned and operated by a private contractor who has contracted with Massachusetts or its political subdivisions to provide pupil transportation to and from public schools. You asked whether "vehicles privately owned while under contract with the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions" are considered "vehicles procured for the State's own use." The answer to your question is yes.

NHTSA addressed this question in an interpretation to the New York Department of Transportation in May 1976 (copy enclosed). In that letter, we concluded that a contractual arrangement between a State and a private contractor for the supply and operation of school buses for public school transportation is a "procurement" of those vehicles for the State's own use. The agency made this determination after reviewing the legislative history of @ 103(d), which indicated that Congress intended the term "procured for its own use" to refer to established practices used by governmental entities for obtaining goods and services. Those practices have included contracting for services from a private contractor who owns or leases the materials involved. Therefore, the State's provision of public school transportation is a service which can be obtained by contract from a private contractor, and those vehicles provided by the contractor would be considered "procured" for the State's own use. Massachusetts may therefore set requirements for those vehicles which impose a higher standard of performance than Federal standards, if the additional safety features do not prevent the vehicles from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

As stated in our 1976 interpretation, however, vehicles "procured for [the State's] own use" would not include vehicles provided by a private contractor to transport students to private schools. Therefore, in response to your third question which asked whether the State may prescribe nonidentical safety standards for privately-owned school buses that transport children to private schools, the answer is no.

We note that your questions about @ 103(d) referred to motor vehicles which operate intrastate. Whether a vehicle operates in interstate commerce is not a condition affecting the applicability of @ 103(d) to the States. We believe that Congress intended the Vehicle Safety Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of all new motor vehicles, and did not limit the Act's requirements to vehicles which cross State lines. Further, as a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any vehicle would never be in interstate commerce at some time during its lifetime. For example, the delivery of the vehicle from its place of manufacturer to its original place of sale will generally involve movement in interstate commerce. In addition, whether or not the vehicles cross State lines, their use on public roads substantially affects interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law. Thus, the effect of @ 103(d) on State standards is not conditioned on vehicle usage in interstate commerce.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hestate to contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Registry of Motor Vehicles

November 22, 1985

OCC 1599

Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel for RULEMAKING, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wood: Thank you for your prompt and thorough response to my recent telephone inquiry regarding the transportation of school pupils. I am sure you understand the problems that arise when one attempts to dovetail Federal laws, rules and regulations with State laws, rules and regulations and then intelligently advises and/or directs others.

As I mentioned on the telephone, I have, and am sure will continue to have, questions in this regard and certainly appreciate your cooperation.

Attached is a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Section 1392. My concern is how you interpret the third sentence. Specifically, what is meant by "equipment procured for their own use"? Does this mean that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may prescribe standards higher than a Federal standard on vehicles operated intrastate under the following conditions:

1. Directly owned by the Commonwealth or by any of its political subdivisions;

2. Vehicles privately owned while under contract with the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions;

3. Vehicles privately owned and operated transporting persons for hire.

Thank you for giving consideration to this request for information.

Very truly yours,

Peter M. Koparon, Director -- Vehicle Inspection Services

Enc.

ID: nht78-1.49

DATE: 12/08/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Conco Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 8, 1978 NOA-30

Mr. O. R. Schmidt Conco Inc. Mendota, Illinois 61342

Dear Mr. Schmidt:

This is in response to your letter of October 27, 1978, concerning the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 to final stage manufacturers and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has amended Standard No. 115 to shift the responsibility for assigning the vehicle identification number for vehicles manufactured in more than one stage from the final stage manufacturer to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer (copy enclosed). We appreciate your desire to comply fully with the standard but, with this recent amendment, compliance will not be required by final stage manufacturers.

In response to your question concerning the "model year" to be used for trailers, the calendar year is acceptable as the "model year." Should you have any other questions concerning your responsibility for assigning VINs to the trailers you manufacture, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosure

October 27, 1978

Mr. Nelson Erickson Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Revised Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number

Dear Sir:

The O'Brien Division of Conco Inc. is a small manufacturer of truck mounted and trailer mounted sewer cleaning equipment which is sold predominately to municipalities, counties, etc., and in some cases to private contractors. So far this year we have built 15 truck mounted units and 52 trailer mounted units.

With reference to the revised Standard No. 115 on Vehicle Identification Numbers, we presently have no major questions in regard to its application to our trailer mounted equipment, since we control the manufacture of these units from start to finish. We are, however, confused about its application to our truck mounted units, particularly as regards the second section of the VIN. Enumerated below are items that hopefully you can clarify for us:

1. The majority of truck chassis-cab units that we use are Fords, but we have used Chevrolet, GMC, and International trucks. Among these four truck manufacturers there are more than 40 different truck models that potentially we can use to mount our equipment on. (As a matter of information, our equipment is mounted on the truck chassis frame without making any alterations to the truck chassis, in the same way that a farmer would mount his own grain box on a similar truck chassis.) Some of these truck chassis we buy, and some are furnished to us or specified by our customers. The only thing we have concerned ourselves with to date is the appropriateness of the axle ratings and the GVWR. Since we don't always know in advance what truck we will be using, we have to anticipate in our coding of the second section of the VIN all of the potential truck models that we might be using. The second section has five characters available for deciphering eight items of information, including the identification of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer as spelled out in S4.5.2. In order to do this, it is necessary to combine some attributes into one character. Our intention would be to combine (1) the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, (2) the model or line, and (3) the series. Our first question - how is it possible to code a potential of 40 plus models of truck chassis into a single character that has available only 33 numbers and letters (Table III of S4.6) for identification purposes? Our second question - will the incomplete vehicle manufacturer such as Ford, Chevrolet, GMC, or International furnish us with a coded second section in their incomplete vehicle document that we could use in conjunction with our first and third section portions of the VIN, assuming, of course, that the attributes of the second section have not been altered? If this were the case, the first question would be resolved, and our only concern would be to furnish you data for the first and third sections of the VIN.

2. Is it permissible for the Vehicle Identification Number as specified in the revised Standard No. 115 to appear in the space provided on the certification label for "Vehicle I.D.", or is it mandatory for the VIN to appear on a separate label? This issue is confusing as regards trailers and trucks with a GVWR of over 10,000 lbs.

3. In the case of trucks, do we, as a final stage manufacturer, represent the model year as being the model year of the truck chassis, or the calendar year of final stage manufacture? Assume that on September 10, 1980 we mount one of our units on a 1981 model Ford truck. This would require the use of the code letter "B". Further assume that two weeks later, on September 24, 1980, we mount a unit on a 1980 model Ford truck which is a new truck that a dealer has left over from the previous model year inventory. In this case we would have to revert back to the code letter "A". This is inconsistent with the natural chronology of events. The above example represents a very real possibility and, therefore, as a final stage manufacturer, we would prefer to use the calendar year of manufacture where the sequence would be totally under our control. There is no way that we could control the model year sequence as illustrated in the above example.

Also, in the case of trailers such as we manufacture, the model year as used by auto and truck manufacturers is absolutely meaningless since we do not have annual model changes. Here again we would prefer to use the calendar year of manufacture as the basis for the code.

We would appreciate your comments and any clarification you can give us on the above listed items.

Yours very truly,

CONCO INC.

O. R. Schmidt Manager of R & D

ORS:jn

ID: 2771y

Mr. Richard Cahalan
Director of Core Services
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Human Services
Department of Mental Retardation
160 North Washington Street
Boston, MA 02114

Dear Mr. Cahalan:

This responds to Mr. Oscar Harrell's letter requesting information about Federal regulations concerning the modification of vehicles to accommodate mentally retarded individuals. According to that letter, in response to conversations about this issue with Mr. George Shifflett of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Harrell received copies of interpretation letters from my office to Mr. Vincent Foster dated September 4, 1986 and to Mr. W.G. Milby dated November 26, 1979. These letters express NHTSA's policy concerning modifications of vehicles to accommodate the special needs of handicapped individuals and the requirement in 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibiting commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Given the public interest against restricting the mobility of the handicapped, it is the agency's policy, depending on the particular situation, to consider certain violations of that section as technical ones justified by public need.

In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that a van conversion company modified new Dodge Maxi-vans for your agency before they were purchased. Among the steps taken by the converter to accommodate handicapped individuals are the removal of the "top," the addition of a new "bottom," and the installation of a wheelchair lift. According to Mr. Harrell's letter, the converter, when contacted last year, stated that the vehicles, after being converted, comply with State and Federal regulations. You indicated, however, that the converter failed to certify that the vans, as altered, comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Based on your letter and the telephone conversation with my staff, it appears that the van converter would be considered an "alterer" for purposes of of Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Section 567.7 defines "alterer" as

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale...

As an alterer, section 567.7 requires the vehicle converter to do the following:

(1) Supplement the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This supplemental label must state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see 567.7(a));

(2) Provide the modified values for the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered if they are different from those shown on the original certification label (see 567.7(b)); and

(3) Provide the type classification, if the vehicle as altered has a different type classification from that shown on the original certification (see 567.7(c).

If the converter did not comply with these requirements, then it did not fulfill its certification responsibilities under Part 567. From what you have written to us, we assume that is the case. However, this does not in itself mean that the vehicles, as altered, do not comply with applicable safety standards or are otherwise unsafe. If you believe that the conversion of these vehicles poses a safety problem, you should contact this agency's Office of Enforcement and explain the specific safety problem.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, 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:567 d:l/4/91

ID: nht92-1.23

DATE: 12/14/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT F. GAYER -- EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, SALT RIVER PROJECT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-5-92 FROM ROBERT F. GAYER TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 7855)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether certain trailers, manufactured in 1989, were required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. (49 CFR @ 571.121). You explained that you disagree with statements by the trailers' manufacturer that "these trailers do not need to comply with '121,' because they are 'Heavy Haul Trailers.'" You further stated that the trailers may not comply with certain provisions in Standard No. 121, including the reservoir requirements in S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.5.

I note that we previously responded to a similar letter from Salt River Project concerning certain trailers manufactured in 1987. Our letter (copy enclosed) was sent to Mr. Derral T. Crance on April 3, 1989. We explained that heavy hauler trailers are not excepted from Standard No. 121 unless they have a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds. Since you indicated that the trailers of current concern have a GVWR of 68,000 pounds, they would not be excepted from the standard as heavy hauler trailers. Moreover, the trailers do not appear to come within any of the other exceptions to Standard No. 121.

Standard No. 121 does, however, include a number of special provisions for heavy hauler trailers, including exceptions from certain requirements. Of particular note, S5.6 sets forth a number of specific parking brake requirements but permits heavy hauler trailers to meet the requirements of either that section, or, at the option of the manufacturer, the requirements of 49 CFR @ 393.43. Part 393 requires commercial motor vehicles to be equipped with various types of equipment, including brakes. Specifically, section 393.43 addresses brake requirements in breakaway and emergency braking situations.

Heavy hauler trailers manufactured in 1989 were generally subject to sections S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, the provisions about which you specifically asked. Under S5.2.1.1, a reservoir was required to be provided that is capable of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system. Under S5.2.1.5, each service reservoir was required to be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.

Notwithstanding the general applicability of S5.2.1.1, certain heavy hauler trailers which complied with the requirements of 49 CFR 393.43 instead of the specific parking brake requirements set forth in S5.6 would not have had to comply with S5.2.1.1. This is so because the vehicle is not required to have parking brakes. However, a braking system is required which applies automatically and promptly upon breakaway from a towing vehicle. Such a vehicle would also be required to carry sufficient chocking blocks to prevent movement when parked, as required by @ 393.41.

Since your letter suggests that you purchased trailers that may not have complied with Standard No. 121, I have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action.

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: nht88-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mike Kaizaki -- Manager, Truck Tire Engineering, Yokohama Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/1/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Gary M. Ceazan (A32; Std. 109; Std. 119); Undated letter from Erika Z. Jones to E.W. Dahl; 8/18/88 letter from Gary M. Ceazan to U.S. Dot (OCC 1951)

TEXT: Mr. Mike Kaizaki Manager, Truck Tire Engineering Yokohama Tire Corporation Corporate Office 601 S. Acacia Fullerton, CA 92631

Dear Mr. Kaizaki:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger cars. You asked whether it is permissible to place two tire size designations, 385/65R22.5 in larger letters and 15R22.5 in small letters, on the same tire. The answer to your question is no.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual size markings." Dual size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consu mers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency conclud ed that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109: 36 PR 1195, January 26, 1971.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section 56.5 of the standard. Section @6.5(s) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications d esignated in @5.1. Section @5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual manuf acturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section @6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section @6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in @5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire si ze. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 17, 1987

Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We at Yokohama Rubber Co., LTD are considering the double tire size designations (equivalent but different) marked on the tire sidewall of the medium truck tire.

We believe that it is in compliance with Standard No. 119. New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars as far as the tire size designations are equivalent to each other and the tire dimensions, and other markings, meet with the estab lished standard, TRA, ETRTO, and so on.

Accordingly, would you respond to our specific question below regarding this marking:

Yokohama places 2 tire size designations, 385/65R22.5 in larger letters and 15R22.5 in small letters. These sizes are different but equivalent to each other. The max load/inflation pressure marking is one specified by ETRTO for 385/65R22.5 but larger tha n one specified by TRA for 15R 22.5.

Is this compatible with FMVSS 119?

I would appreciate your specific response in writing at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Mike Kaizaki Manager, Truck Tire Engineering

ID: 7579

Mr. Tom Mario
Vice President Sales
Sealco Air Controls, Inc.
215 East Watkins Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Dear Mr. Mario:

This letter responds to your follow-up inquiry about a recent amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems that deletes the requirement for a trailer to have a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. The final rule allows air from the tractor supply lines to be used to release the parking brakes instead of air from such a reservoir. (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed)

In our earlier response to you dated May 21, 1992, we stated that a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment became effective. That letter explained that while the amendment deleted a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device.

You now ask what pressure must be retained in the supply line with any single leakage type failure in the service brake system if an original equipment manufacturer decides to use a system with a protected reservoir. You explained that you are aware of a system that has a 60 p.s.i. pressure amplification valve that results in having 90 p.s.i. holding off the spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to further explain our requirements to you.

In deleting the provision requiring a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake, the agency adopted requirements in S5.8 addressing supply line pressure retention. That provision states that under certain test conditions

"any single leakage type failure in the service brake system (except for a failure of the supply line, a valve directly connected to the supply line or a component of a brake chamber housing) shall not result in the pressure in the supply line falling below 70 p.s.i., measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. . ." (S5.8.2)

Based on the above provision, the pressure in the supply line is not permitted to fall below 70 p.s.i when measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. Accordingly, a system with 60 p.s.i. in the supply line measured at the forward trailer supply coupling would not comply with the express requirements set forth in S5.8.2. Please be aware that after October 8, 1992, the provision in S5.8.2 applies to all new trailers, including those manufactured with a protected separate reservoir.

Your letter appears to imply that there would be no safety problem in having the pressure in the supply line falling to 60 p.s.i. if a pressure amplification valve served to hold off the spring brakes. I note, however, that problems could occur if only one trailer in a mixed train, multiple trailer combination used such an amplification valve. For example, if a single leakage-type failure in the service brake system of such a trailer resulted in the supply line pressure falling to 60 p.s.i., this could cause the supply line pressure in following trailers to also fall to 60 p.s.i. If the following trailers were not equipped with an amplification valve, they could experience brake drag.

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: 121 d:9/25/92

ID: nht92-3.40

DATE: September 25, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Mario -- Vice President Sales, Sealco Air Controls, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/92 from Tom Mario to Steve Wood (OCC-7579)

TEXT:

This letter responds to your follow-up inquiry about a recent amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems that deletes the requirement for a trailer to have a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. The final rule allows air from the tractor supply lines to be used to release the parking brakes instead of air from such a reservoir. (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed)

In our earlier response to you dated May 21, 1992, we stated that a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment became effective. That letter explained that while the amendment deleted a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device.

You now ask what pressure must be retained in the supply line with any single leakage type failure in the service brake system if an original equipment manufacturer decides to use a system with a protected reservoir. You explained that you are aware of a system that has a 60 psi pressure amplification valve that results in having 90 p.s.i. holding off the spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to further explain our requirements to you.

In deleting the provision requiring a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake, the agency adopted requirements in S5.8 addressing supply line pressure retention. That provision states that under certain test conditions

"any single leakage type failure in the service brake system (except for a failure of the supply line, a valve directly connected to the supply line or a component of a brake chamber housing) shall not result in the pressure in the supply line falling below 70 p.s.i., measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. . ." (S5.8.2)

Based on the above provision, the pressure in the supply line is not permitted to fall below 70 p.s.i when measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. Accordingly, a system with 60 p.s.i. in the supply line measured at the forward trailer supply coupling would not comply with the express requirements set forth in S5.8.2. Please be aware that after October 8, 1992, the provision in S5.8.2 applies to all new trailers, including those manufactured with a protected separate reservoir.

Your letter appears to imply that there would be no safety problem in having the pressure in the supply line falling to 60 p.s.i. if a pressure amplification valve served to hold off the spring brakes. I note, however,

that problems could occur if only one trailer in a mixed train, multiple trailer combination used such an amplification valve. For example, if a single leakage-type failure in the service brake system of such a trailer resulted in the supply line pressure falling to 60 p.s.i., this could cause the supply line pressure in following trailers to also fall to 60 p.s.i. If the following trailers were not equipped with an amplification valve, they could experience brake drag.

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.