ID: 8375

Mr. A. L. Bragg
Laboratory Manager
Truck-Lite Co., Inc.
310 East Elmwood Ave.
Falconer, NY 14733

Dear Mr. Bragg:

We have received your letter of February 22, 1993, to Paul Jackson Rice, the former Chief Counsel of this agency, with respect to his letter of December 30, 1992, to Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. In your opinion, the letter, which interpreted Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to light- emitting diodes (LEDs), raises certain problems.

You are correct that NHTSA equates individual LEDs with lighted sections. Currently, this is the only way in which NHTSA can relate LEDs to Standard No. 108, a standard based upon lamps with incandescent light sources. For this reason, NHTSA has begun to consider possible amendments to Standard No. 108 that would recognize, as the SAE has done with J1889, the advent of lamps with LED light sources. Should NHTSA then publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject, we would welcome your further comments.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/24/93

ID: nht81-2.21

DATE: 05/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 8 1981

Mr. William G. Finn, Merchandizing Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

Dear Mr. Finn:

This is in response to your letter of April 22, 1981, regarding marketing of Continental's ContiContact steel belted mud and snow tire as an all-season tire. You ask whether there are any governing criteria for what constitutes an all-season tire, and, if a tire is advertised as an all-season tire, whether it must be graded under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards. You also ask whether it would be legal to market this tire as an all-season tire.

As you know, deep tread, winter-type snow tires are not within the coverage of the UTQG regulation (49 CFR S575.104(c)(1)). On May 24, 1979, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published in the Federal Register its interpretation that all-season tires are not considered deep-tread, winter-type snow tires within the meaning of the regulation (44 F.R. 30139). All-season tires were described in that notice as those with a tread depth which permits safe operation throughout the year. The notice indicated the agency's intention to exempt from the coverage of the standard "a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger cars inadvisable." Thus, a tire offered for sale by its manufacturer or brand name owner as suitable for all-season use could not be considered a deep tread, winter-type snow tire for UTQG purposes.

With regard to the legality of marketing the ContiContact tire as an all-season tire, mud and snow tires must meet Federal safety standards in the same manner as other passenger car tires. Also, a tire not suitable for its intended use could be considered to contain a safety-related defect in performance, construction, or materials, for purposes of the recall authority of Title I, Part B of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq.). Beyond these limitations, statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA do not restrict the sale of all-season tires. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Richard Hipolit Dept. of Transportation Legal Dept. Washington, DC 20590 April 22, 1981

Dear Dick,

Thank you for taking the time to speak to me on the phone yesterday.

As per our discussion, Dick, we are considering marketing our ContiContact steel belt M + S tire as an "all season" tire in the fall of 1981. Enclosed is a photograph of the tze, should such a recall be necessary. As long as Michelin maintains accurate records of the size codes assigned to the various tire sizes, it would be permissible to assign more than one size code to each tire size.

At the outset, it is important to note that the size code in the tire identification number is not the means used by the consumer to determine the size of the tires on his or her car. Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 and section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specify that the tire size designation must be labeled on both sidewalls. The size designation is the exact size and is not the same as the size code. To satisfy this requirement, Michelin should label all tires of the same size with just one size designation.

For purposes of record keeping, paragraph S574.5 requires that each tire be labeled with a tire identification number, and that this identification number contain four groupings of information. The first grouping is a symbol identifying the manufacture.

ID: 17247.wkm

March 13, 1998

The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo
House of Representatives
415 South Mulford
Rockford, IL 61108
ATTN: Mr. Bryan Davis

Dear Mr. Manzullo:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Don R. Etnyre, asking whether the new Federal regulations requiring antilock brake systems (ABS) on vehicles equipped with air brake systems apply to export units during tow-away to the port of shipment. The answer to your question is no.

Our statute generally requires any person manufacturing, selling, importing or offering for sale any motor vehicle or item of motor equipment to ensure that such vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 30112(a) of Title 49, United States Code, copy enclosed. However, the requirement does not apply to "a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle or equipment and on the outside of any container of the vehicle or equipment, and exported;" (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(3)). Similarly, our safety regulations provide that no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to such a vehicle or equipment. See 49 Code of Federal Regulations, 571.7(d), copy enclosed.⁽¹⁾

Accordingly, your constituent's vehicles that are intended solely for export are not required by the regulations of this country to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, which requires that vehicles equipped with air brake systems be equipped with ABS. Such vehicles can be driven, towed, or otherwise transported to the port for further shipment to a foreign market, so long as they are appropriately labeled on the vehicle or equipment clearly indicating intent to export, or if in a container, as long as the container is labeled indicating intent to export. There is no prescribed form or format for the export label. However, the label must be legible, obvious, and clearly indicate "For Export Only."

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact me at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
[Original signed by:]
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:121#571
d.3/13/98

1. Paragraph 571.7(d) erroneously cites 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5). The correct citation should have been 108(b)(3), 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3). In any case, the Act was recodified in 1994 and 108(b)(3) is now 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(3), cited above.

ID: nht94-4.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 25, 1994

FROM: Matt Decker -- Project Engineer, Wenger Corporation

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Petition for Exemption of FMVSS 108 (Section only with reference to the addition of trailer conspicuity)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/16/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MATT DECKER (A42; STD. 108; PART 555)

TEXT: The Wenger Corporation of Owatonna, Minnesota, U.S.A. is petitioning for exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment as it relates to the conspicuity treatment in S5.7 (effective date December 1, 1993).

The Wenger Corporation manufactures and sells a complete line of music education and performance equipment. Wenger Showmobiles, mobile performance stages in trailer form, are offered and sold primarily to city municipalities such as Park and Recreation Departments throughout the United States. As you can see from the enclosed advertising literature, aesthetics is of major concern to our customers. The addition of the conspicuity striping is unacceptable for many of our potential customers because of how it would impact their graphics on the sides and rear of the product.

The annual sales volume for this particular product is approximately 20 (twenty). The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) is 13500 lbs. Average annual mileage after delivery of this product ranges from a low of 25 miles to a high of 500 miles. Our cust omers generally store this product within their city yards. This product is typically towed by a 1-1/2 ton pick-up truck or city truck to the performance site which is normally within the city limits. The performance sites can vary from a closed off st reet to the middle of a city park.

In summary the Wenger Showmobile product is a low mileage vehicle that is generally parked off-road at night, either on private city property or city parks. Exterior appearance (graphics) is very important to owners of this product. With utmost importa nce it is Wenger Corporation's opinion that exemption from the conspicuity requirement would not have an adverse effect upon safety with regards to the Showmobile product.

Please review the information included with this petition and offer your ruling as soon as possible. If there are any questions relating to this petition please direct them by telephone or in writing to:

The Wenger Corporation

Attention: Matt Decker

555 Park Drive Owatonna, MN 55060

Telephone: (507) 455-4100 Ext. 174

ID: nht68-2.1

DATE: 02/07/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: N.G. Davey

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 17 to the Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, in which you ask about the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards so that you may determine whether a Canadian made right hand drive automobile may be modified in accordance with them.

While it is not clear from your letter the status of your visa or how long you wish to have the car in the United States, a solution to your problem may be provided by the regulations governing the importation of motor vehicles subject to the Federal standards, which became effective on January 10. You will see from 19 C.F.R. section 12.80(b)(iv) of the regulations enclosed that a nonresident of the United States may import a nonconforming motor vehicle for personal use for a period of up to one year.

The Bureau has not been informed of the manner in which vehicles of Canadian manufacture, including those with right hand drive do not comply with the Federal standards. It would be best to communicate directly with the Canadian manufacturer as to the extent of modification necessary, should you not come within the 12.80(b)(iv) exception. For your information among domestic manufacturers, American Motors built a right hand drive passenger car during the 1967 model year for use by the United States Post Office Department, and it may be that this company plans production of a similar vehicle this year which would be available to you.

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

ID: nht81-1.42

DATE: 03/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. O. Willbrand, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Lawrence O. Willbrand, Esq. Suite 873 Paul Brown Bldg. 818 Olive Street St. Louis, MO 63101

RE: Ms. Sharon James

Dear Mr. Willbrand:

This is in reply to your letter of February 19, 1981, with respect to motorcycle tires.

The agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119), New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. This standard specifies requirements for new tires designed for highway use on motorcycles, among other vehicle types. I enclose a copy for your information. The agency has issued no standards for off-road vehicle tires such as trail bike tires as our jurisdiction is limited to those items produced for installation on vehicles manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

If the motorcycle in question was originally sold with trail bike tires installed (i.e., any tire not stamped with a DOT symbol indicating its conformance to Standard No. 119), that sale might be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). But the Act does not prohibit the owner of an on-road motorcycle from putting off-road tires on his bike and using it on the public roads.

If you have any further questions, I would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 19, 1981

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards % Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591

RE: Mrs. Sharon James

Dear Sir:

Does your office possess or prepare standards relating to tires on a trail bike or and public road motorcycles.

Specifically I am seeking this material in connection with a tire for said vehicle which propells rocks because the tire was made with "knobs" for trails but was being used on the public roads and had equipment qualifying it to do so.

I would be happy to pay for such materials, references, or citations.

I am most appreciative for any attention you might give this matter.

Very truly yours,

Lawrence C. Willbrand

LCW: mw

ID: nht95-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive And Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Department of the Army

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Overbay:

This letter follows up a telephone conversation between Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff and Mr. John Hretz of the U.S. Department of the Army in which Mr. Hretz requested a clarification of a February 17, 1995, letter that we sent to you. In that letter, w e discussed the testing of air braked vehicles under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. We explained that, as a result of a court decision, the emergency stopping test requirements, set forth in S5.7.1 of the standa rd, are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers.

As Mr. Glancy explained, subsequent to that letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule reinstating emergency stopping tests in FMVSS No. 121. The amendments reinstating these tests take effect on March 1, 1997 , for truck tractors and March 1, 1998, for other medium and heavy vehicles that are equipped with air brakes. Once these amendments take effect, the provisions in S5.7.1 will again be applicable to air braked vehicles.

Mr. Hretz asked whether, in conducting the emergency stopping distance tests, removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test. Your question is addressed below.

Section S5.7.1 states that

When stopped six times for each combination of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1, except for a loaded truck tractor with an unbraked control trailer, on a road surface having a PFC of 0.9, with a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake chamber housing), the vehicle shall stop at least once in not more than the distance specified in Column 5 of Table II.

In describing the failure conditions for which stopping distance requirements must be met, S5.7.1 broadly specifies "a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid," except for certain listed part s. It is our opinion that the failure mode Mr. Hretz described in which one disconnects the service air signal line at the rear service air relay comes within this language. Therefore, a vehicle would not comply with FMVSS No. 121 if it did not meet th e specified stopping distance requirements after disconnection of the service air signal line at the rear service air relay.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive And Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Department of the Army

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Overbay:

This letter follows up a telephone conversation between Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff and Mr. John Hretz of the U.S. Department of the Army in which Mr. Hretz requested a clarification of a February 17, 1995, letter that we sent to you. In that letter, we discussed the testing of air braked vehicles under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. We explained that, as a result of a court decision, the emergency stopping test requirements, set forth in S5.7.1 of the standard, are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers.

As Mr. Glancy explained, subsequent to that letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule reinstating emergency stopping tests in FMVSS No. 121. The amendments reinstating these tests take effect on March 1, 1997, for truck tractors and March 1, 1998, for other medium and heavy vehicles that are equipped with air brakes. Once these amendments take effect, the provisions in S5.7.1 will again be applicable to air braked vehicles.

Mr. Hretz asked whether, in conducting the emergency stopping distance tests, removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test. Your question is addressed below.

Section S5.7.1 states that

When stopped six times for each combination of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1, except for a loaded truck tractor with an unbraked control trailer, on a road surface having a PFC of 0.9, with a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake chamber housing), the vehicle shall stop at least once in not more than the distance specified in Column 5 of Table II.

In describing the failure conditions for which stopping distance requirements must be met, S5.7.1 broadly specifies "a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid," except for certain listed parts. It is our opinion that the failure mode Mr. Hretz described in which one disconnects the service air signal line at the rear service air relay comes within this language. Therefore, a vehicle would not comply with FMVSS No. 121 if it did not meet the specified stopping distance requirements after disconnection of the service air signal line at the rear service air relay.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 23189ogm

Mr. Mark Doody
Technical Manager
Timoney Group
Gibbstown
Navan, Co. Meath
Ireland





Dear Mr. Doody:

This responds to your recent electronic mail message requesting an interpretation of how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems, applies to truck air brakes. Specifically, you ask whether it would be "legal" under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards for a 6 x 6 vehicle to have an emergency braking system using two "L-split" circuits. Your message describes the "L-split" as two circuits with each circuit braking one rear axle and one front wheel.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (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.

NHTSA has issued several standards applicable to brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. I note that, under Standard No. 121, trucks equipped with air braked systems are effectively required to have a dual braking system that is commonly called a split braking system as the result of the requirements in S5.7.1 and S5.7.2. Section S5.7.1, which is referred to as "Emergency brake system performance," requires air braked trucks to comply with a performance requirement that sets forth the distances in which they must stop if there is a leakage failure in the brake system. Section S5.7.2 requires the emergency brake system to be operated by a service brake control.

Although the performance requirements of Standard No. 121 are usually met by use of a "split circuit" emergency braking system, the Standard does not explicitly require such a system or declare that any "split circuit" system have a particular configuration or design. What is required is that the emergency brake system meet all applicable performance requirements.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121

d.8/31/01

ID: nht95-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1995

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

TO: Ed Irvine -- Midwest Conservation Systems

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/20/94 letter from Ed Irvine to Phillip Recht

TEXT: Dear Mr. Irvine:

This responds to your letter asking whether a newly manufactured commercial utility trailer must be equipped with an emergency breakaway system. You state that your customer wishes to purchase a trailer without the battery powered breakaway system that comes with the trailer. Instead, you would like to install your solar energized breakaway system. In a December 7, 1994 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the trailers in question are typically small utility traile rs that do not rely on the use of air pressure. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicable requirements issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). You may also wish to request an interpretati on of 49 CFR 393.43 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which is the agency that issued that regulation.

By way of background information, NHTSA and FHWA are both part of the United States Department of Transportation. Each agency has the authority to issue regulations related to your question. NHTSA, which regulates newly manufactured vehicles, has the a uthority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. FHWA, which regulates the use of commercial motor vehicles, has the authority to issue Federal Motor Carrier Saf ety Regulations (FMCSRs), which are applicable to commercial motor vehicles and their operators. We have referred your letter to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Office of Motor Carrier Standards, since that agency issued 49 CFR 393.43.

While NHTSA has the authority to issue FMVSSs, the agency has not issued any FMVSS that would directly affect the braking performance of a small utility trailer, unless the trailer relies on air pressure. Therefore, if the trailers in question are not a ir braked vehicles, then you would not need to certify that such a trailer's braking performance complies with an FMVSS, since no applicable FMVSS exists.

Please note that your solar energized trailer breakaway system would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the statute administered by NHTSA. If this system contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

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. If you wish to contact someone in the FHWA's Office of Chief Counse l concerning the motor carrier standards, please call Charles Medalen at (202) 366-1354.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht