ID: 9252

Mr. James Schaub
Midas Muffler Shop
180 Gause Blvd.
Slidell, LA 70458

Dear Mr. Schaub:

This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows:

(f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation.

We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:105#570 d:5/18/94

ID: GF003901

Dae-Ki Min, Esq.
38 West 32^nd Street, Suite 1600
New York, NY 10001-3816

Dear Mr. Min:

This is in response to your letter of June 1, 2004, and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether identical tires manufactured prior to the completion of the uniform tire quality grading process and submission of results to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) can subsequently be marked with appropriate grading information and sold in the United States.

49 CFR 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS), requires that all new pneumatic tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars be graded for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance, and that those grades or ratings be permanently molded onto the sidewall of each tire. In addition, 49 CFR 575.6(d)(2)(i) requires that each tire brand name owner or tire manufacturer submit to NHTSA the information obtained during the tire grading process, at least 30 days before offering the tires to prospective purchasers.

In your letter, you state that the tires in question are identical and of the same grade as the tires subjected to the tire grading process, but were manufactured prior to the completion of the tire grading process because they were originally intended for a market other than the United States.

Under 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A), tires of a new tire line need not have the UTQGS ratings molded into their sidewalls, if the tires were manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line. In previous letters, we interpreted this time frame to mean within six months of the initial production of the tire line for export to the United States (see July 12, 1983, letter to Robert Ainsworth). In your situation, some tires were manufactured prior to the decision to import them into U.S. Accordingly, the six-month period would begin on the date of manufacture of the oldest tire that you would import to the U.S. In sum, all tires of the line manufactured not more than six months after the manufacture of the first tire of the line imported into the U.S. need not be permanently molded with UTQGS grades. However, we note that tires eligible for this six-month period are still subject to the paper labeling requirements of 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B).

In addition to the six-month period, certain limited production tires are fully excluded from all UTQGS requirements. In order to qualify as limited production tires, the tires must meet all the following criteria of 575.104(c)(2):

(1) Total annual domestic production or importation into the United States of tires of the same design and size by either the manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 15,000 tires;

(2) The tire's size must not have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for new motor vehicles domestically produced or imported in quantities greater than 10,000 during the year prior to the tire's manufacture; and

(3) The total annual domestic production or importation by the tire's manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 35,000 tires.

In all other circumstances, your tires may not be sold in the United States unless they are graded for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance, and those grades or ratings are permanently molded onto the sidewall of each tire. Further, "molding" means the process by which the tires are shaped in the mold and imbedded with the required grading information during the actual production of the tire. Accordingly, a tire cannot be "molded" with the appropriate UTQGS grading information after it has been manufactured. Instead, the molding process must occur during the manufacture of the tire and not thereafter.

Finally, we note that in addition to UTQGS, there are several Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to tires sold in the United States. Please be advised that these FMVSSs also require that certain tire safety information be molded into the tire sidewall during the manufacturing process. Specifically, FMVSS No. 109 applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger vehicles, and FMVSS No. 119, applies to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles other than passenger vehicles. Further, tire manufacturers may choose to voluntarily comply with FMVSS No. 139, which applies to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles that have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less. FMVSS No. 139 is scheduled to become mandatory in the near future. For more information on effective dates and phase-in schedules please see 69 FR 38116, June 26, 2003; and 69 FR 31306, June 4, 2004.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:575
d.8/9/04

ID: 86-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald H. Giberson -- Assistant Director, State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety State of New Jersey 26 South Montgomery Street Trenton, NJ 08666

This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You asked whether vehicles equipped with "Mini-Max" brakes, produced by International Transquip Industries, Inc., comply with the standard. You stated that since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. Your question is responded to below. We note that Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40 is administered by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) rather than by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We have sent a copy of this correspondence to BMCS in order that they may respond to that part of your request.

By way of background information, NHTSA 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 manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part:

The parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified in either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing). . . .

The single diaphragm used in the Mini-Max brake is common to both the service and parking brake systems. As part of the service brake system, it is part of a brake system "other" than the parking brake system. Therefore, since the diaphragm is not a component of a brake chamber housing, section S5.6.3 requires that a vehicle must be able to achieve the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure.

We do not have sufficient data to determine whether particular vehicles equipped with Mini-Max brakes would meet the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure. The answer to that question could depend on the nature of the particular vehicle. It is possible, of course, that a vehicle could be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 as a result of the braking force provided by the other parking brakes whose diaphragms have not failed.

We note that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised this issue and other issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and an interpretation letter to International Transquip. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2768).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel Office of Rule Making U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Recently I have received several inquiries regarding the legality of the Mini-Max air actuated mechanically held air brake system judging from the technical data supplied by the manufacturer, International Transquip Industries Inc., the Mini-Max brake chambers do not contain the heavy. Since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used in the Mini-Max, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. In view of the foregoing , it is questionable as to whether the Min-Max complies with FMVSS-121 and Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40. I would be appreciative if you could clarify this matter.

Sincerely,

Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director

DHG/WH/rc

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: 1984-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Mr. Noel M. Torres

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Noel M. Torres 2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, California 92704

Dear Mr. Torres:

This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1984 asking questions about the relationship of your "Panic-Stop Detection Brake-Lite System" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The photographs you enclosed show a segmented lamp mounted on the centerline of a passenger car directly below the rear window. Another picture shows the lamp installed on the rear of a motorcycle above the license plate. These pictures contain the notation "The harder you brake the faster the lite sweeping motion." Your questions are:

"(1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108?"

Section 108(a)(2) ((A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device, or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would appear to preclude removal of the mandated center high-mounted stop lamp on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and replacement of it with your lamp.

"(2) Is it legally all right to use it now on cars and motorcycles?"

Standard No. 108 was recently amended to permit manufacturers to install the center high-mounted lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and General Motors is already equipping some of its 1985 models with it. Thus, a center high-mounted stoplamp already installed on a passenger car in accordance with Standard No. 108 would be subject to the prohibition in Section 108(a) (2) (A) discussed above.

As for other passenger cars, we assume that you wish to make your lamp available as an aftermarket device. In this circumstance, where it is installed on a vehicle in use, its permissibility is to be determined under local law; Federal law does not apply.

Finally, as to motorcycles, your photograph, by depicting your lamp mounted above the license plate, indicates that it substitutes for the original equipment stop/taillamp. Inasmuch as the stop/taillamp was installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) apply to it as well.

We are returning your tape to you and appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, Ca 92704 September 25, 1984

Madam Diane K. Steed NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Madam Steed:

I hope you don't mind my taking the liberty of sending you this letter together with a 10-minute videotape of a brake-lite system for cars and motorcycles which I thought you might want to review and evaluate, if you have the time.

I have been thinking for a while now that it is amazing in this day and age of space shuttles, maze of freeways and fast driving, our cars are still equipped with the most out-dated brake-lite system that have been in use for hundreds of years, and when driving on the road, there's no way of telling if a car braking in front of you is trying to make a panic stop.

An idea came to mind which I developed. I call it "PANIC-STOP DETECTION BRAKE-LITE SYSTEM", applicable for cars and motorcycles. I honestly believe it is a very effective system that would reduce more than 90% of rear-end collisions. You'll see what I mean when you view the videotape enclosed.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me: 1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108? 2) Is it legally alright to use it now on cars and motorcycles?

Thank you so much for your kind consideration and I hope to hear from you.

Yours truly,

Noel M. Torres

P.S. If you think you might want to see the prototype samples, I'll be more than happy to ship them to you.

Encls./ 3-photos, 1-videotape

ID: nht92-7.35

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Vernon Wright; Wisconsin Specification File

TITLE: Request for Interpretation: Reference: (1.) 49 CFR Part 571.131 Section S5.5. (2.) Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 300.64 - Stop Signal Arm

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Thomas Turner (A39; Std. 131)

TEXT:

Blue Bird Body Company is in the process of implementing changes to conform to the new stop signal arm requirements of FMVSS 131. Reference 1 requires that, "THE STOP SIGNAL ARM SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum WHENEVER THE RED SIGNAL LAMPS required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 ARE ACTIVATED (emphasis added); except that a device may be installed that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm." The standard continues with requirements for this device including the requirement that an audible signal shall sound when the device is activated.

These requirements are logical and can be implemented in conjunction with the use of the eight light warning systems currently required in 46 of the 50 states; however, when these requirements are considered in terms of a four light warning system, there are certain operational issues that need to be considered. Specifically, the state of Wisconsin requires a four light warning system and a stop signal arm on school buses and has the following requirements for stop signal arms per Reference 2; "(2) Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation."

To meet these requirements, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. In order to comply with the new FMVSS 131 standard, we are adding a warning buzzer that will sound when the alternating red flashing lights are activated but the service door has not yet been opened to activate the stop signal arm. We believe that this system meets the intent of Standard No. 131 but are concerned about compliance with the wording of the standard in terms of requiring "automatic extension" of the stop signal arm. The system described above for Wisconsin provides for manual activation of both the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm and is not "automatic." However, it appears to meet the intent of the standard by having the stop arm extend when the service door is opened and the alternating red flashing lights are on, and by having a warning buzzer activated whenever the arm is not extended and the lights are on.

It is our understanding that the Wisconsin requirements are necessary so that the alternating red flashing lights can be used to warn traffic of an impending stop and the stop signal arm is used to actually stop traffic. They do not

want the stop signal arm to extend automatically when the red lights are activated. For an eight light warning system, the amber lights are used to warn traffic of an impending stop and it is proper for the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm to be activated simultaneously to stop traffic. Since Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require as a minimum a four light warning system and allow an eight light warning system, the requirements of Standard No. 131 must be compatible with both systems.

Based on the above information and reasoning, and with the best interests of school bus safety in mind, Blue Bird requests confirmation that the warning light and stop arm system and operation, as required by Wisconsin and described above, conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 131 section S5.5. Specifically we request written confirmation that when a four light warning system is used and is activated by a driver actuated switch, it is permissible for the stop signal arm to be activated by opening of the service door, provided that an audible signal warns the driver when the alternating red flashing lights are on but the stop signal arm has not been extended.

Blue Bird is working to resolve all system design and operational issues regarding Standard No. 131 in the very near future so that changes in production can be implemented in time to meet the September 1, 1992 effective date. Your prompt consideration and response to this request is, therefore, urgently requested.

ID: 10907-2

Mr. Vladimir Salita
4269 Cloudberry Ct.
Burtonsville, MD 20866

Dear Mr. Salita:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to three inventions you are developing: a warning and teaching device for improving driving habits and fuel economy, a deceleration warning light, and a self-adjustable windshield wiper. The first item would "warn drivers by indicating the excessive deceleration, acceleration and dangerous speed at turns by emitting sound signals," and would be mounted on the dashboard. The second item would measure "actual vehicle deceleration" and control "the frequency of light flashing (preferable high-mounted brake light)," to alert the drivers of following vehicles. The third item would control "the rate of windshield wiper sweeps according to the intensity of rain." I am pleased to provide the information you requested.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your devices would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the devices installed. While we do not have sufficient information to identify all the standards that might be relevant to your devices, I would like to bring three standards to your attention.

Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, would be relevant to your dashboard-mounted warning and

teaching device. That standard specifies requirements to protect occupants from impact with interior components and could affect where or how the device could be installed in a vehicle.

Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, would be relevant to the deceleration warning light. That standard requires, among other things, that all original motor vehicle lighting equipment be steady burning in use, unless the standard provides otherwise. Since the standard does not specify deceleration warning lights as an exception to this requirement, they must be steady burning. Therefore, your added flashing deceleration light could not be installed on new vehicles. Because center high mounted stop lamps (CHMSLs) are not permitted to flash and must be activated only by the service brake, your use of the CHMSL as a deceleration light also is not allowed on new vehicles.

I am enclosing copies of two recent letters (addressed to Mr. Wayne Ferguson, July 30, 1993, and Ms. Teresa Thompson, May 11, 1995), which provide a more detailed discussion of requirements relevant to deceleration lights.

Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, would be relevant to your self-adjustable windshield wiper. That standard specifies a number of requirements for windshield wiping systems. The standard would not preclude the inclusion of a self- adjustable windshield wiping feature. However, a vehicle manufacturer would need to ensure that the windshield wiping system with such a device met all of the requirements of that standard.

No standards would apply to your devices to the extent that they were sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Therefore, your flashing deceleration light could not be installed by such businesses on used vehicles. If your device affects a CHMSL installed in compliance with Standard No. 108, it could not be installed by the above named businesses. Similarly, your other devices could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual States have authority to regulate modifications that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on State laws. You may wish to seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22303.

Finally, all three of your devices are considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that the manufacturer would be subject to Title 49 of the U.S. Code, sections 30118-30122, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You have obviously spent a great of time and effort thinking about how to improve driving safety. We appreciate your efforts in this area and the contributions that inventors such as you make to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. If you have any further questions about lighting requirements, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-2992. For further information about other safety standards, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at the same telephone number.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:104#108#VSA d:7/3/95

ID: nht88-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JERRY SWISHER, -- COOPER TIRE & RUBBER CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/20/88 TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA FROM JERRY SWISHER, RE REQUEST FOR OPINION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Swisher:

This responds to your letter of May 20, 1988, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you asked if either of three proposed courses of action would comply with the labeling requirements specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 109. That section reads as follows: "Each tire shall be labeled with the name of the manufacturer, or the brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer in the manner specified in Part 574." None of your proposed courses of action would satisfy this requirement, as explained below.

You first asked if it is permissible to have no identification on the sidewall as to the name of the manufacturer or the brand name owner, but to simply use the identification numbers assigned to Cooper Tire under Part 574. Section S4.3.2 of Standard No . 109 explicitly requires each tire to be labeled with the manufacturer's name or a brand name and the identification number assigned to the manufacturer. Tires that are identified solely by an identification number would not comply with this requiremen t.

Second, you asked if a tire could be labeled with three different brand names. Section S4.3.2 uses the singular tense to identify the name that must appear on the sidewall (name of the manufacturer or the brand name) and connects the alternative with the disjunctive "or." This grammatical structure indicates that only one name, either that of the actual manufacturer or the brand name owner, shall be labeled on the tire. The agency chose this grammatical structure to ensure that consumers would not be c onfused about the identity of the brand name or manufacturer of the tire. Accordingly, S4.3.2 prohibits Cooper from selling passenger car tires labeled with the names of three different brand name owners.

Third, you asked if a generic term such as "All Season" or "Performance" would satisfy the requirement of S4.3.2 that either the name of the manufacturer or a brand name be labeled on the tires. Clearly, a generic term like "Performance" is not the "nam e of the manufacturer," Cooper in this case.

The "brand name" refers to the name under which a tire is sold at retail, whether it is identical to the manufacturer's name (e.g., Firestone), a name owned by the manufacturer and used in place of its corporate name (i.e., a house brand, such as Falls t hat is manufactured by Cooper), or a name owned by someone other than the manufacturer (i.e., a private brand such as Atlas that is made by several manufacturers). My understanding of this proposed course of action is that the tires would be advertised and sold at retail as tires made by one of the three brand name owners, presumably using its brand name, not under the name "All Season" or "Performance." Therefore, these generic terms would not be considered brand names for the purposes of section S4.3 .2.

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,

ID: 2847o

AIR MAIL

Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek Chief of Machinery Plant Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda n. p., 707 02 Ostrava 7 CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Dear Mr. Vapenicek:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l20, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. You stated that the dimensions of your rims comply with dimensional specifications of the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation. You asked whether disc wheels provided with certain information can be regarded as complying with the requirements of U.S. standards. Your question is responded to below.

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 manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You provided the following example of your disc wheel marking on the attachment face of the disc:

(b) 8,0-20

(c) DOT-E

(d) symbol of the manufacturer

(e) 6 87

You stated that the information listed in (b) and (d) also appears on every part of your multipiece rim and that height and depth of the marking meets the requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. l20. Section S5.2 states:

. . . each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the case of a singlepiece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph . . . . The information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this paragraph shall appear on the weather side. In the case of rims of multipiece construction, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the rim base and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this paragraph shall also appear on each other part of the rim.

Your letter indicates that you plan to place your disc wheel marking "on the attachment face of disc." While it is not clear what you mean by the term attachment face of disc, I would like to note several requirements specified by section S5.2 for marking location. First, the marking must be placed on the rim, except that for singlepiece wheels manufacturers have the option of placing the marking on the wheel disc. Thus, assuming that your rim is a multipiece rim, the marking must be placed on the rim rather than the disc. Second, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) must be placed on the weather side. Section S4 provides a definition for the "weather side" of a rim. Third, for multipiece rims, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) must appear on the rim base, and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) must also appear on each other part of the rim. Section S4 provides a definition for "rim base."

Your sample disc wheel marking links by a hyphen the symbol "DOT" required by S5.2(c) and the designation "E" required by S5.2(a). The symbol DOT constitutes a certification by the manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, while the designation E indicates the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions, i.e., in your case, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation. While NHTSA expects the information provided in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to be grouped together, we do not recommend linking "DOT" and "E" by a hyphen. These symbols provide two different types of information, and the inclusion of a hyphen could cause confusion.

The information required by S5.2(b) is "(t)he rim size designation, and in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5." Your sample disc wheel marking is 8,0-20. I note first that the rim size designation (defined in S4 as "rim diameter and width") should use the symbol "x" between the width and diameter, as indicated by S5.2(b)'s example. Moreover, for multipiece rims, S5.2(b) requires both the rim size designation and the rim type designation. S4 defines the term "rim type designation" as "the industry or manufacturer's designation for a rim by style or code." If your disc wheel is a multipiece rim, the disc wheel marking should include the rim type designation.

S5.2(c) requires a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol. Your letter indicates that you plan to use a symbol. I note that, as discussed in an interpretation letter dated February l7, l986 (copy enclosed), 49 CFR Part 55l requires rim manufacturers to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Among other things, the designation of agent must contain information concerning marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name.

The information in your sample disc wheel marking under (e) is consistent with one of the examples provided in S5.2(e) to indicate the month and year of manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:120 d.4/13/88

ID: nht91-5.16

DATE: August 7, 1991

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Quang Van Nguyen -- Houston Express Reprographics, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-12-91 from Quang Van Nguyen to Samuel K. Skinner

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 12, 1991, to Secretary Skinner, with reference to your invention "Emergency and Safety Lights."

You have noted that when the hazard warning signal is operating, the vehicle turn signal lamps are not. You have told us of witnessing an accident in which safety was compromised by the inability to use the turn signal lamps when the hazard signals were operating, and your invention addresses this concern. From the drawings you enclosed, this invention appears to consist of a housing with the high-mounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by two lamps which would provide the hazard warning signal function, and which are completely separated from the center lamp by triangular dividers. You have asked that the Department of Transportation support and approve your invention "for all types of automobiles."

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" safety inventions, but we can advise you of the relationship of your device to the Department's statutes and regulations. In this instance, the relevant statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), and the relevant regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Further, we must distinguish between use of the invention as "original equipment" (installed on new motor vehicles, either by the manufacturer or the dealer, before its first sale), or "aftermarket equipment" (installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, after a vehicle's first sale).

Under Standard No. 108, the hazard warning function is provided by activating all four turn signal lamps. You are correct that simultaneous operation of the turn and hazard warning functions is impossible. Although Standard No. 108 contains no explicit requirements for hazard warning systems, it contains explicit requirements for the flashers and switches that must be used in hazard warning systems. Specifically, new motor vehicles must be equipped with flashers meeting the requirement of SAE Recommended Practice J945, Vehicular Hazard Warning signal Flasher, February 1966, and switches meeting the requirements of SAE Standard J910, Hazard Warning Switch, January 1966. The definitions of flasher and switch contained in each of the SAE materials specify that when the hazard switch is actuated, the flasher causes the turn signal lamps to flash. The effect of this is that the hazard warning signal lamps must meet the photometric and minimum lens area specifications for turn signal lamps, which are explicit requirements of Standard No. 108, specifically, the requirements of SAE Standard J588 NOV84, Turn Signal Lamps. Were your device installed on a motor vehicle, the hazard function would no longer be provided through the turn signal lamps, and the vehicle would

fail to comply with Standard No. 108. For this reason, your device could not be installed as original equipment.

With respect to the aftermarket the Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from wholly or partially rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your device does not appear intended for installation by the vehicle owner, who is exempt from the statutory prohibition mentioned above. Because it would render the hazard warning system inoperative, the device, if sold in the aftermarket, could not be legally installed.

Federal law, however, would not preclude its installation on a passenger car that was manufactured before Standard No. 108 became effective, that is to say, a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1969. Nevertheless, its legality would still be subject to State and local laws. We are unable to advise you on such laws, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Although we have no data indicating that accidents such as you witnessed are frequent, we appreciate the concern you have shown. If you are interested in carrying this matter further, we suggest that you investigate the possibility of turning your device into a supplementary turn signal system that could be activated by a separate switch when the hazard warning system is in operation. If this is feasible for you, and if you intend to use the device as planned at present, we shall be pleased to provide you with an interpretation on supplementary lighting, and on the requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps.

ID: 1984-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Alabama

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Teague State Superintendent of Education State of Alabama State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Dear Mr. Teague:

This responds to your June 27, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting information regarding the legal ramifications of converting school buses with gasoline or diesel fuel systems to propane or compressed natural gas fuel systems.

We are enclosing a copy of a letter that we sent on August 17, 1979, to Mr. Mike Champagne, which discusses the Federal requirements and implications of making such conversions of vehicle fuel systems. This letter should provide you with the information that you requested. You specifically asked about the possible liability in tort that the Department of Education may incur as a result of the conversion. We emphasize that the possibility of tortious liability, which is governed by State law, exists even where the modifications are made in compliance with the requirements of this agency. We suggest that you therefore discuss the matter of liability in tort with your insurance company and attorney.

You also asked whether there is an agency which can certify that the modified fuel system complies with a safety standard, thereby providing school systems and Department of Education with a defense in the event of a private lawsuit in tort. We are not aware of any Federal agency that provides this type of certification. You may want to consider having the modified fuel systems on your school buses tested by a private engineering or research facility to verify that the conversions were properly done.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

June 27, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. - NOA-30 U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

A variety of fuel alternatives is being offered by fuel innovators that will reduce gasoline fuel consumption or replace gasoline altogether. Some energy experts are calling for massive efforts on the part of industry and government to speed the development of the synthetic fuels industry to reduce the dependence on oil imports. However, even in light of all the research by government and private agencies, there are no Federal Department of Transportation Safety Standards relating directly to the use of propane or compressed natural gas on school buses. School buses powered by gasoline or diesel fuel are certified by the manufacturer as meeting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity.

Alabama's Minimum Specifications for School Buses require that school buses be certified by the manufacturer to the State Department of Education in the form of a certification plate mounted in the bus that states the vehicle is in compliance with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which include Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity.

It is the opinion of the Alabama State Department of Education that the safety inspection program conducted by the School Bus Equipment Inspectors approves the vehicle only as it relates to the original manufacturer's certification. Our questions are as follows: (1) If we allow the local school systems to remove the gasoline fuel system which is regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity and install a propane or compressed natural gas fuel system which is not regulated by the United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, would the State Department of Education be liable for any accident, injury, or death that may be caused by or related to the conversion? (2) Is there an agency which can certify that the fuel system, after conversion, meets a required safety standard that would protect the local school system and the State Department of Education from liability for any accident, injury, or death that may be caused by or related to the conversion?

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Wayne Teague State Superintendent of Education WT:nfd