ID: 8668

Mr. Richard Muraski
President/CEO
Equa-Brake, Inc.
1105 Terminal Way, Suite 202
Reno, NV 89502

Dear Mr. Muraski:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation about the use of your product, the Equa-Brake mechanical auxiliary air brake system. You stated that this product "increases brake force and improves brake performance on all vehicles that are equipped with air brakes." You were concerned about whether the use of your product would be affected by an agency decision to deny a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Washington Company. That petition had requested the agency to require a device that regulates air pressure differential between the two wheels on each axle (57 FR 29459, July 2, 1992).

As explained below, neither the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems nor those of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), under which the standard was issued, prohibit the installation of your product in most situations. The one exception is that if your product is installed on a vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, neither the act of installation nor the operation of the device may render inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle.

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

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about auxiliary brake systems. However, since this device is tied to a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If the Equa-Brake is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, 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. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).

Your letter expressed concern about the effect of the agency's decision to deny the rulemaking petition submitted by the Washington Corporation. Please note that the Washington petition requested that the agency amend Standard No. 121 to require a device that regulates a brake system's air pressure differential between two wheels on each axle. In denying the petitioner's request to require such a device, the agency emphasized that its decision not to require a product in no way prohibited the optional installation of the device provided the vehicle continued to comply with the applicable standards.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:121 d:8/5/93

ID: nht72-4.5

DATE: 03/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Dockets

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: Conversation with Jensen Motors representative on Monday February 7, 1972

Howard D. Panton, Chief Designer for the Jensen Motors Company, met with representatives of NHTSA to discuss rulemaking actions of concern to his company. Representing the NHTSA were Robert Crone, Office of Crashworthiness, and John Womack, Office of Chief Counsel.

The major areas of concern to Jensen are Standard 206, 208 and 214, and the proposed rulemaking on Standard 201.

Standard 206 bears on Jensen's plans to develop a car with gull-wing doors. Their problems with the test procedure are similar to those expressed by Mercedes and they were invited to submit suggestions for changes in the test procedure.

Standard 214 also affects the gull-wing car, which would have a very high sill. The company feels that a test with the ram five inches above the bottom of the door would require then to have an unsatisfactory height for the door structure, with corresponding reduction in the glass area. It was indicated that Jensen's problem could not be met by an interpretation of the standard, and that they would have to seek an amendment of the procedure. Panton indicated that the company would consider doing this.

Standard 208 is of particular concern due to the apparent need for impact testing of several cars. This is said to be a serious problem for a small company (1000 cars a year) with a high cost per car ($ 10,000 plus). The NHTSA representatives indicated that the agency was aware of the problem. On the question of exemption authority, which Jensen considered to be a possible remedy, they were told that the agency no longer has exemption authority but that if such authority were returned to the agency it might be used to give the smaller manufacturers additional time on complex standards if they can establish the need for delay.

The current proposal on Standard 201 concerns Jensen in several ways, most notably with respect to the proposed changes in the windshield header location. They were advised that this requirement is undergoing careful review and that any detailed comments they could make would be welcome.

ID: nht78-2.21

DATE: 07/19/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Lighting and Optic Laboratory

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 8, 1978, to Mr. Vinson of this office concerning the version of SAE J567, Bulb Sockets, applicable as a subreferenced standard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The SAE standards which are specified in Standard No. 108 are cited by a number and letter to indicate the applicable version. These directly referenced SAE standards often subreference other SAE standards by inclusion of such terms as "reference is made to SAE J " or "reference SAE J " in which case, unless otherwise specified in Standard No. 108, the subreferenced standard is the version contained in the 1970 SAE Handbook (See paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 108).

The subreferenced SAE standard closest in subject matter to J567 is J573d, "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units", December 1968. By NHTSA interpretation J573 is not exclusive, and other bulb designs including tubular type bulbs are permitted which are not included in SAE J573. There is no subreferenced notation to SAE J567 contained in SAE J573d. Further, although the agency issued an interpretation in 1968 indicating that SAE Standard J575d, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components, August 1967, referenced J567, that statement was incorrect and J575d contains no such reference. Therefore SAE J567 is not a subreferenced standard in Standard No. 108. When an SAE Standard is not referenced or subreferenced by a Federal Standard, compliance with it is voluntary, and you may therefore use (or not use) SAE J567 or any version thereof as you choose, as long as the assembled lamp complies with Standard No. 108.

SINCERELY,

FIAT SETTORE AUTOMOBILE

8th May, 1978

TAYLOR VINSON Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS N. 108 - Lamps, Reflective devices and Associated equipment.

Dear Mr. Vinson,

on behalf of Italian Electrotechnical Committee (CEI) I pose to you a question regarding SAE Standard related to bulb and socket.

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) issued a number of Standard sheets applicable to bulb base, socket, and lampholders for automotive use.

The Italian Committee made a reserve with explication that IEC dimension and tolerances are not compatibles with ones stated in SAE Standard J 567b.

In many cases the lighting devices for motor cars are the same for European market and for North-American market. Car manufacturers and lamp manufacturers obviously wishes to use only one type of lampholder, for internal standardization, cost reduction.

The IEC/Technical Committee 34 (Lamp and holder) affirmed that SAE J 567 b is not longer applicable because she is obsolete, replaced by J 567 c and the applicable SAE Standard for lighting equipment reported only the reference to "SAE Standard J 567" without any indication of edition.

Finally, the Chairman of IEC/TC 34, Mr. E.M. Kooker (G.E. - Lamp Division) suggested us to present the question directly to NHTSA.

The questions are the following:

"In the case of SAE Standard J 567, which is the edition applicable: the J 567 b, current at first publication of Standard 108 (1966), or the new one, J 567 c (1970)?

If either "b" or "c" are applicable, and the lamp manufacturer chose the "c" edition, how he can demonstrate the compliance with the Standard?

Should he declare that the lampholder would be checked with the gages of tables 1 and 2 in J 567 c and not with a caliper or other instrument?".

We think that your explanation will be very useful in our daily work for motor vehicle safety.

(G. Bertella) Chief, Lighting and Optic Laboratory

ID: garymiller

The Honorable Gary Miller
Member, United States House of
Representatives
22632 Golden Spring Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765





Fax: (909) 612-1087





Dear Congressman Miller:

Thank you for your telephone inquiry seeking information for a constituent about the Federal requirements applicable to the marking of automotive wheel rims. Mr. Jonny Vong of your staff has advised us that the constituent is a rim manufacturer who believes that other rim manufacturers may not be marking their rims as required by law.

There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that apply to wheel rims, one for passenger cars and the other for rims for all other types of motor vehicles. Markings are only required to appear on rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, to be certain that I answer your question fully, I will explain our requirements for both passenger car rims and rims for use on other motor vehicles.

The two applicable standards are FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims - Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.110), and FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120). I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information.

For passenger cars, section S4.4 of FMVSS No. 110 specifies two requirements. First the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in FMVSS No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional requirements shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, including the Tire and Rim Association, The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, or the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application. No markings are required on passenger car rims.

For rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, FMVSS No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either FMVSS No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not the rim manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will actually be mounted on the rim.

The second requirement, set forth in S5.2, is that rims be marked with five specified items of information. These are:

(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions;

(2) The rim size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

(3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards;

(4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and

(5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

If, after reviewing this information, your constituent continues to believe that other rim manufacturers are not complying with any applicable standard or standards, he or she may wish to contact John Finneran in NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-0645.

For your constituent's information, I am enclosing fact sheets we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





cc: Washington Office





Enclosures
ref:110
d.7/31/00

ID: nht75-5.45

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - California

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This reponds to your letter of June 12, 1975, requesting confirmation that you as a final-stage manufacturer would only have to check the application and release times of a truck whose chassis you shortened or lengthened in order to certify that vehicle to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Certification of vehicles to the standard is an area which our statutory scheme leaves to the manufacturers, and in which, aside from discussion of general principles, the agency has declined to issue statements of approval.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has stated that actual road tests by final stage manufacturers are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard No. 121 or other standards, where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. The agency has recognized that small organizations cannot be expected to test to the same scale or by the same methods as the large integrated automotive manufacturers. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assemblers are expected to use statutory "due care" to see that their products conform.

From this discussion it should be apparent that verifying only the brake actuation and release functions will probably be an insufficient basis for certifying that the vehicle will comply, for example, with the stopping distance requirements of the standard. Engineering calculations may, however, satisfy you, in the exercise of due care, that the vehicle as modified meets all the requirements of the standard.

The incomplete vehicle documentation provided with the vehicle would generally serve as the basis of certification to equipment requirements, to the degree that the equipment is undisturbed. The addition of an axle may cause the air reservoirs to no longer satisfy the air volume requirements of the standard.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OFFICE OF EQUIPMENT

SINCERELY,

June 12, 1975

File M 18.03

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator

We are final stage truck manufacturers and often our equipment and operating requirements requires the shortening or lengthening of frame rails of certified cab and chassis equipped with air brakes.

Upon completion of our modifications, i.e.; lengthen or shorten the frame rails and air brake lines, we propose to certify the unit to be in compliance with FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems. Our certification will be based upon test data indicating the following two functions remain within compliance limits of the standard:

1. The brake system complies with the requirements of FMVSS 121 Paragraph No. S 5.3.3 Brake Actuation Time.

2. The Brake System complies with the requirements of FMVSS 121 Paragraph No. S 5.3.4 Brake Release Time.

The test data reflecting compliance would become a permanent part of our vehicle record files.

We request an answer to the following question.

Is the above proposed method and support data acceptable for FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems Vehicle Recertification?

Your prompt response would be appreciated.

ROSSELL O. LIGHTCAP, Chief Office of Equipment

ID: maxzonenew

Mr. Galen Chen
Marketing Department
Maxzone Vehicle Lighting Corp.
5100 Walnut Grove Avenue
San Gabriel, CA 91776

Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reply to your email (copy enclosed) concerning replacement lighting equipment. We apologize for the delay in our response.

You reported that your company is developing "a new headlamp" for 1998-2001 model Honda Accord passenger cars (we shall refer to this as the "Maxzone headlamp"). You informed us that the original equipment (OE) headlamp for these vehicles consists of "High Beam (9005 bulb), Low Beam (9006 bulb), Park Signal and reflector. No fog lamp function." (We would also note that the OE headlamp on this model Honda Accord appears to incorporate the required front turn signal and side marker lamp as well.) The Maxzone headlamp consists of "High Beam (H1 bulb), Low Beam (H3 bulb), Park Signal and weve added Fog Lamp (H3 bulb) to this headlamp assembly. It also comes with reflector." You informed us "the numbers of different functions after tests all pass SAE/DOT requirements." You asked whether the Maxzone headlamp could be certified and sold as legal replacements for the 1998-2001 Honda Accord models. As discussed below, the answer to this question is no.

Under S5.8, Replacement equipment, of Standard No. 108, "Each lamp . . . manufactured to replace any lamp . . . on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform to this standard." (S5.8.1)

S7.1 of Standard No. 108 requires a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, to "be equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3, S7.4, S7.5, or S7.6." Maxzone stated that the OE headlighting system on the 1998-2001

Honda Accord consists of headlamps with HB3 (9005) and HB4 (9006) replaceable light sources. Thus, a replacement headlamp for this vehicle must be evaluated according to the requirements of S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems.

S7.5(b) requires that each headlamp in the system be designed to conform to the photometrics as specified in S7.5(c) through (e) using any light source of the type intended for use in such system.Considering that this particular vehicle incorporates HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources in its OE headlighting system, we view S5.8.1 and S7.5(b) as requiring each replacement headlamp for this vehicle to be designed to conform to the specified photometry when using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources. Because replaceable light sources are, by regulation, designed to be non-interchangeable, it would not be possible for the Maxzone replacement headlamp to comply with the applicable photometry using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources when the Maxzone headlamp is designed to use replaceable light sources other than HB3 and HB4. Therefore, the Maxzone headlamp could not be certified and sold as a replacement for a 1998-2001 Honda Accord headlamp. This also means that a headlamp dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not remove the original headlamp and install the Maxzone headlamp as a replacement without violating 49 U.S.C. 30122. This section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

You also informed us that the Maxzone headlamp "comes with reflector." We are unsure of your meaning. We interpret S5.8.1 as requiring replacement lighting equipment designed for specific motor vehicles to incorporate, at a minimum, the same required functionality as included on the original equipment lamp it is intended to replace. If the original Accord headlamp incorporated an amber side reflex reflector in compliance with Standard No. 108, each replacement headlamp for that Accord must also incorporate an amber side reflex reflector if we are to regard it being "designed to conform to this standard" within the meaning of S5.8.1.

I hope that this information is useful to you. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.3/13/03

ID: nht78-1.28

DATE: 01/26/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Howard J. Dugoff; NHTSA

TO: Howard Sturtz, M.D.

COPYEE: RALPH NADER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Ralph Nader forwarded to me your letter dated November 23, 1977, concerning your difficulty in determining whether your 1977 Ford Econoline van is equipped with an energy absorbing steering column.

Ford Econoline vans are equipped with conventional steering columns that are not energy absorbing. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 203, Steering Control Impact protection, and No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, are currently only applicable to passenger cars, so manufacturers are not required to have energy absorbing steering columns on van vehicles. Ford has not voluntarily equipped its vans with such steering systems.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shares your concern in this subject. As a matter of fact, the agency has initiated high priority rulemaking proceedings to extend the applicability of several passenger car standards, including Standards 203 and 204, to both vans and light trucks.

Please let me know if you would like further information on automotive safety matters.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 23, 1977

Ralph Nader -- Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Nader:

I am an orthopedic surgeon and am most interested in automobile safety. I belong to various organizations regarding automotive safety. Recently, I bought a Ford Van after prolonged investigation, believing that it was safer because of a supposed impact absorbing front end. However, the brochure did not indicate whether the steering column was energy absorbing. I have checked with the dealer, a local assembly plant, as well as "Ford Listens Better." A copy of this latter letter is enclosed. I have not to date received a reply. I have also checked with various organizations, none of which will provide me with an answer. I was hoping that perhaps you could "stimulate" the Ford Motor Company to provide me with some concrete information. I suspect that vans, being considered trucks, do not have the safety features such as an energy absorbing steering wheel that automobile drivers enjoy. Apparently, the automotive industry believes that truck drivers are expendable.

Any help that you can give me in this matter would be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Howard Sturtz, M.D.

Enclosure

October 11, 1977

Ford Listens Better P.O. Box 1973 Dearborn, Michigan

Gentlemen:

I own a 1977 Ford Econoline Van in the 250 series. I have been most unsuccessful in determining whether the van has an energy absorbing steering wheel. I have been unable to get an answer from Ford other than the usual brochure on the van which does not include this information. I have also inquired from the National Safety Council and other agencies without success. I would appreciate it if you can inform me as to the type of steering column in the van and what the results might be in a front-end collision.

Sincerely,

Howard Sturtz, M.D.

ID: 1983-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Ms. Pamela Cox NADA Management Education National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, Virginia 22102

Dear Ms. Cox:

This responds to your request to Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff to verify the record retention checklist your organization plans to distribute to its members. The checklist indicates that automobile dealers must maintain records of "New and retread tires, name, address of purchaser, tire seller and identification number," and "Tires on each vehicle sold." This is not an accurate description of the recordkeeping requirements imposed on automobile dealers with respect to tire sales.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. The tire registration requirements applicable to motor vehicle dealers are set forth in section 574.9. Motor vehicle dealers are not required to register the tires on each vehicle sold; they are only required to register tires in two instances. First, if the dealer is selling a new vehicle, the tires must be registered by that dealer only if the vehicle is equipped with tires other than those installed on the vehicle or furnished with it by the vehicle manufacturer. In the far more common situation where the dealer delivers a new vehicle with the original equipment tires installed on or furnished by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle dealer has no registration responsibility for those tires.

Second, if the motor vehicle dealer is selling a used vehicle or leasing a vehicle for more than 60 days, the dealer must register the tires on that vehicle only if he has installed new tires on it. Again, it is more usual for a used vehicle to be equipped with the used tires already on it, and, in that case, the vehicle dealer is not required to register the tires. Moreover, tire registration is not required for any dealer when a vehicle is equipped with retreaded tires, even if the dealer installed the retreaded tires on the vehicle.

Even when motor vehicle dealers are required to register tires, they are only required to record tne purchaser's name and address if the dealer's business is owned or controlled by a tire company. I presume this would be a very unusual situation. This agency published an interim final rule establishing voluntary tire registration requirements for "independent" dealers in the Federal Register of May 19, 1983 (copy enclosed). "Independent" dealers means those whose business is not owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer. When one of your members is required to register tires and qualifies as an independent dealer, he must simply record the tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold on a registration form provided by the tire manufacturer, together with the dealer's name and address, and give the form to the tire purchaser. It is up to the purchaser to fill in his or her name and address on the form and return it to the manufacturer. The dealer is not required to retain any record of this. Even if the motor vehicle dealer were owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer, that dealer would simply be required to complete the entire registration form and return it to the tire manufacturer, and the tire manufacturer would be required to retain a record of the registration form for three years.

I trust that this information will help you in your efforts to educate your members about their responsibilities under Federal laws. If you need any further assistance in those efforts; please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

August 8, 1983

Mr. Steven Kratsky Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratsky:

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me over the phone in April regarding retention of tire and retread records. As I said, we are in the process of compiling a Federal Records Retention Checklist for our members. I have enclosed a copy of it and would appreciate your verifying our infomation by initialing beside the appropriate records and returning it to me in the postage paid envelope by September 1st.

Thanking you in advance, I remain

Sincerely,

Pamela Cox NADA Management Education

Enclosures

RETENTION OF RECORDS

"INSERT"

ID: nht80-3.19

DATE: 07/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 10, 1980, letter requesting an interpretation of the appropriate tire size markings required to appear on a vehicle's certification label by 49 CFP. Part 567. More specifically, you stated that Michelin intends to supply truck tires to an American truck manufacturer labeled with the tire size designations set forth by the International Standardization Organization (ISO).

Michelin listed the following as an example of an ISO size designation: 275/80R22.5 143/140K. The labeling in that example would not comply with the requirements of Standard 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119), so the tire manufacturer, Michelin in this case, would be permitted to sell tires with only that labeling. Further, any truck manufacturer citing tire information in this manner on its certification label would be violating Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120) and Part 567.

Paragraph S6.5 of Standard 119 specifies that all tires for vehicles other than passenger cars must have certain markings on the sidewalls. Among other things, these tires must show the actual number of plies in the tire, the composition of the ply cord material (S6.5(f)), and a letter designating the load range (S6.5(j)). As you stated in your letter, the ISO designation does not show the number and composition of the plies and, therefore, does not satisfy this requirement of Standard 119. You further stated in your letter that the 143/140 designation in the ISO marking shows the load carrying capacity of the tire. In the ISO system, the letter K denotes the speed rating for the tire, and not the load carrying capacity. Standard 119 explicitly requires a letter marking to denote the load range of the tire and your proposed use of the ISO marking fails to satisfy that requirement also.

The vehicle manufacturer is required by paragraph S5.3 of Standard 120 to affix a label to the vehicle providing information on appropriate tires and rims for the vehicle. Similarly, 49 CFR @ 567.4 requires a vehicle manufacturer to list a suitable tire size after the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) on the vehicle certification label. Subparagraph S5.3.1 of Standard 120 requires the label to include the size designation of tires appropriate for the GAWR.

To list the tire size designation appropriate for the GAWR, the vehicle manufacturer must list more than the dimensions of the tire (e.g., 7.50-20 in the truck example following S5.3 in Standard 120). This is because many truck tires have identical dimensions, but widely varying load carrying capacities. For instance, the 7.50-20 size tire comes in load range D, F, and G, with its load carrying capabilities ranging from 2,750 pounds for load range D up to 4,150 pounds for load range G. Thus, for the vehicle manufacturer to comply with the requirement that it show an appropriate tire size, the manufacturer must show both the dimensions and the load range of the appropriate tires.

The reason for requiring the vehicle manufacturer to list appropriate tires for the vehicle is to give the vehicle user a permanent and useful record of the tires that can safely be used on the vehicle. If a vehicle manufacturer were to use an ISO designation to indicate the load range of those tires, the user of the vehicle would be given information different from the letter designations which are required by Standard 119 to appear on the tires. Since needless confusion could arise from this situation, and this confusion would impair the purpose of the tire information labels, Standard 120 and Part 567 necessarily require that the load carrying capabilities of the tires be expressed in terms of a letter, as specified in Standard 119.

SINCERELY,

REF: PART 567

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION -- Technical Group

10 June 1980

Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Part 567 Certification

Dear Sir:

We intend to supply truck tires to an American truck manufacturer with size designations according to the standards of the International Standardization Organization (I.S.O.). An example of such a size marking is:

275/80R22.5 143/140K

You can see that there is no ply rating in this designation; the load carrying capacity being designated instead by the load index 143/140. These load indices have been established by the I.S.O.

As you know, Part 567 requires that truck manufacturers list a suitable tire size after the GAWR on the certification plate. We do not see anything in the regulations that would prohibit listing a tire with the I.S.O. size designation. However, the truck manufacturer has requested that we confirm that listing such a tire will be in accordance with D.O.T. regulations.

We are therefore requesting your written confirmation in this regard.

Your prompt attention to this request would be appreciated.

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: pedlok.ogm

Mr. Chris Webre
President
Safety Systems and Controls, Inc.
2400 Campbell Rd. #H
Houston, TX 77080

Dear Mr. Webre:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal standards to a product you have developed. You stated that your company produces a product known as the PED-Lok. According to your letter, the PED-Lok automatically applies service brake pressure to the rear brakes of a school bus when the loading and unloading warning lights are flashing and the passenger door is opened. You asked if Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) apply to this product.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

A review of Standard No. 121 indicates that this standard does not contain any provisions directly applicable to your product. However, I note that as your product is directly connected to the air brake system, a leak or malfunction in the device could have an effect on brake performance.

If an auxiliary device such as the PED-Lok is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 121. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122). Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" prohibition does not require manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses to certify that vehicles continue to comply with the safety standards after any aftermarket modifications are made. Instead, "make inoperative" prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards.

Please note that the "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

In addition, as the manufacturer of the PED-Lok, Safety Systems and Controls would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer. Safety Systems and Controls would be subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). A "defect" includes "any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle safety" is defined as "the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance." 49 U.S.C. 30102.

If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. Repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. Replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the determination that defect existed.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.6/20/00