ID: elliswatts_6838

Mr. John E. Getz
Vice President, Mobile Products Engineering
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, OH 45103




Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, are applicable to lift equipped trailers produced by your company. As explained below, FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are applicable to lifts and trailers, as you have described.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA adopted FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, which establish minimum performance standards for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles and motor vehicles installed with platform lifts, respectively. The purpose of the standards is to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. The standards were established December 27, 2002. Compliance with FMVSS No. 403 has been required as of April 1, 2005. Compliance with FMVSS No. 404 has been required as of July 1, 2005.

In your letter, you stated that your company manufactures trailers equipped with mobile medical units (e.g. , MRI, PET, PET/CT units). You explained that all of these units have lifts that are used by patients on gurneys and wheelchairs as well as ambulatory patients. You further stated that patients are not transported in the trailers, and that when on location the trailers are essentially "fixed medical suites". You then stated that you believe these lifts would be considered "special purpose lifts," which as discussed in an October 1, 2004 final rule, are not subject to FMVSS No. 403 (69 FR 58843). You further stated that while the lifts installed by your company do not comply with specific requirements of FMVSS No. 403, the lifts as manufactured do provide for safe operation.

In the final rule in which FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were established, we stated that individuals that rely on platform lifts should have assurances that lifts are as safe as possible and that these individuals should be protected from the risk associated with using unregulated equipment (67 FR 79418). Providing lift users with such assurances necessitates the uniformity of performance of the regulated lifts. This was in part the purpose for establishing uniform standards applicable to all platform lifts manufactured for installation on motor vehicles and to motor vehicles equipped with such lifts.

The lifts as you described would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Further, a motor vehicle, including a trailer, equipped with a lift as you described would be subject to the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 404. In the October 2004 final rule, the agency did state that FMVSS No. 403 would not apply to what some commenters referred to as "special purpose lifts," e.g. , lifts designed specifically to transport gurneys or mobile incubators. We clarified that FMVSS No. 403 is applicable to lifts manufactured to assist individuals that rely on canes, wheelchairs, and other mobility devices (69 FR 58844). The lifts you described are manufactured to transport individuals relying on canes and wheelchairs. Therefore, the lifts would be subject to FMVSS No. 403.

In further support of your assertion that FMVSS No. 403 was not intended to apply to lifts as you described, you noted that the applicability section of FMVSS No. 403 (S3) states that the standard applies to platform lifts that are designed to carry passengers into and out of motor vehicles. You stated that because your trailers do not transport people, the individuals that rely on the platform lifts are not passengers. Therefore, you concluded that FMVSS No. 403 does not apply to the lifts manufactured by your company.

The issues associated with safe operation of platform lifts as persons enter and exit a vehicle are not dependent on whether the person is also transported in that vehicle to another location. As stated in S1 of FMVSS No. 403, the standard "specifies requirements for platform lifts used to assist persons with limited mobility in entering or leaving a vehicle". As such, platform lifts installed on trailers are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 403 and those trailers are subject to FMVSS No. 404.

Your letter continued that if FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were applicable to the lifts installed on the trailers manufactured by your company and to the trailers, compliance with several provisions of the standards would conflict with the operation of the trailer as a medical suite. For example, you noted that the audible threshold warning required for public use lifts (S6.1.5 of FMVSS No. 403) could unduly disturb elderly or sedated patients. You also informed Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff that the visible threshold warning could prove to be an annoyance.

It is important to note that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 differentiate between public use lifts and private use lifts, and that different requirements apply based on a lifts designation. Under S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, lift-equipped buses, school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs. ) must be equipped with a lift that complies with the public lift requirements of FMVSS No. 403. All other vehicles, including trailers, must have a lift that complies with either the public or private use lift requirements. Several of the requirements with which you raised issue, including the audible threshold warning, are specific to public use lifts. The public use lift requirements would not apply to the case addressed here, as your trailers would not be required to be equipped with such lifts.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.11/4/05

ID: EPA_008378.cmc.2

Mr. Anthony J. Tesoriero
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2498

Dear Mr. Tesoriero:

This is in response to your letter and phone conversations with my staff requesting an explanation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to the modification and operation of motor vehicles for experimental purposes. As explained below, the applicability of the FMVSS is dependent upon when the vehicles are altered in relation to the vehicles certification, and the type of entity installing the experimental system.

In your letter you stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was planning to modify a total of six vehicles through the installation of an experimental hybrid drive system. Your letter further stated that several of the vehicles would be retained at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) for testing and demonstration purposes, and that the remaining vehicles would be loaned to vehicle fleet operators in order to gain performance and durability data. Initially you stated in a phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff that several vehicles would be purchased by NVFEL as chassis-cabs, while others would be purchased "retail" from a local automotive sales dealer. You explained that the installation of the experimental drive system would be performed by EPA personnel and engineers contracted from outside engineering firms. In a subsequent phone conversation, you stated that only fully certified vehicles that have been purchased and are owned by the EPA would be modified. As such we will address only those issues regarding the modification of fully certified vehicles owned by the EPA.

Additionally, you requested that the plans and details about these vehicles incorporated into your letter be kept confidential. In response to your request, it is our

position that this information is exempt from disclosure under exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)). Accordingly, we will honor your request that the information be granted confidential treatment.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112(a):

[A] person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle unless the vehicle complies with [all applicable FMVSS] and is covered by a certification issued under Section 30115 of this title.

Generally, our standards do not apply to vehicles after the first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale). Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (enclosed), it is the manufacturer that must certify that a vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS.

While the Section 30112(a) applies only new motor vehicles, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122). Accordingly, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to any entity so long as that entity is not of the type listed above and does not fall with in the definition of "motor vehicle repair business." The agency has defined "motor vehicle repair business" as follows:

The term motor vehicle repair business is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30122(a) as "a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." This term includes businesses that receive compensation for servicing vehicles without malfunctioning or broken parts or systems by adding or removing features or components to or from those vehicles or otherwise customizing those vehicles. (49 CFR 595.4.)

Based on your letter and subsequent conversations, it appears that the vehicles in question will not be modified by an entity specified in 49 U.S.C. 30122. As such, the prohibition would not apply.

Your letter also asked about regulations governing the operation of the experimental vehicles. NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Additionally, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to a vehicle by its owner. We recommend that you check with the appropriate State authorities to determine if any State laws would be applicable to the modification and operation of these vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita, of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:121
d.3/1/04

ID: ES004934

Mr. Gerald Plante
Manager, NHTSA Compliance
Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc.
Subaru Plaza
P.O. Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This is in response to your recent e-mail to Mr. George Feygin, in which you requested clarification of the June 3, 2004, final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration, which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less (69 FR 31306). Paragraph S4.3(h) of that standard allows a vehicle manufacturer to place an optional bar code or vehicle identification number (VIN) on the righthand edge of the vehicle placard and tire information label. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible under paragraph S4.3(h) to continue the use of certain two-letter codes on the vehicle placard to track and coordinate the correct application of specific placards with specific vehicle types on or after September 1, 2005, the effective date of the rule.

By way of background, the June 3, 2004, final rule is related to an earlier final rule published on November 18, 2002, which sought to improve the information readily available to consumers about tires (69 FR 69600). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has stated that it believes that overcrowding the vehicle placard and tire inflation pressure label with information considered non-critical for regular maintenance would discourage the use of tire inflation pressure information in those key locations, so the agency decided upon a general prohibition against the addition of "other information" to these sources (69 FR 31306, 31311).

As you are probably aware, the agency is in the process of responding to petitions for reconsideration of the June 3, 2004, final rule, and we expect to issue our response shortly. Our review suggests that the issue raised in your recent e-mail is already before the agency in the context of a petition for reconsideration submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) (Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17917-4). The Alliances petition seeks to amend paragraph S4.3(h) to permit inclusion of an optional part number on the righthand edge of the vehicle placard and tire information label. We view the two-letter code described in your correspondence as a variation of the part number issue discussed in the Alliances petition, and we will address the issue you raise in our response to the petitions for reconsideration.

Beyond the code marking issue, please note that the Fuji label provided with your correspondence does not follow the format specified in paragraph S4.3 and Figure 1 of the June 3, 2004 final rule for FMVSS No. 110. Specifically, paragraph S4.3 provides in relevant part, " This information shall be in the English language and conform in color and format, , as shown in the example set forth in Figure 1 in this standard."

Should you have any remaining or additional questions once the response to the petitions for reconsideration is published, please feel free to submit them to the agency. If you have further questions in the interim, you may contact Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.9/10/04

ID: ES02-002690

Bruce Vokoun
3745 Pioneers Blvd.
Lincoln, NE 68506

Dear Mr. Vokoun

This responds to your correspondence directed to Senator Nelson and forwarded to the U.S. Department of Transportation regarding the obtainment for you of a waiver of DOT's regulations so that you may obtain a non-breakable windshield. I apologize for the delay in our response. As explained below, the agency has determined that an exemption for your windshield from the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205) is permissible in this situation.

By way of background, the NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under the Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicle and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 205 establishes performance and marking requirements for all glazing installed in motor vehicles. The standards incorporates by reference the requirements of Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," of the American National Standard Institute. Standard ANS Z-26 requires that glazing materials for windshields must pass a specified group of test requirements designed to address safety concerns related to both visibility and occupant protection in the event that the windshield breaks. Under Federal law, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses normally are prohibited from deactivating components that have been installed to comply with such safety standards.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). The exception, codified at 49 CFR Part 595, was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle. Accordingly, it does not apply to vehicle manufacturers or alterers. Vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to negate the vehicle's compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards.

While portions of several FMVSSs are included in the Part 595 exemption, FMVSS No. 205 is not. This is because NHTSA is generally unaware of circumstances where there would be a need to install glazing materials that do not meet the standard. NHTSA does, on occasion, issue letters of non-enforcement to address vehicle modifications that are not covered by the Part 595 exemption. In accordance with our policy of case-by-case consideration of specific situations, and in view of your son's medical condition, NHTSA will not enforce this provision against any dealer or repair business that installs a non-breakable windshield in your vehicle.

You should show this letter to your dealer or repair business when you take your vehicle to have the windshield replaced. If the dealer or repair business wishes to verify the authenticity of this letter, they may call the telephone number below.

Because of the safety benefits provided by glazing that complies with FMVSS No. 205, we strongly urge you to have the original windshield reinstalled in your vehicle prior to selling your vehicle. In addition, it is imperative that you use your safety belt at all times.

If you have any questions, pleas call Nancy Bell of my staff, who may be reached at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.4/18/03

ID: ES05-007900drn

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
2903 Boulevard, Suite 8
Colonial Beach, VA 23834




Dear Congressman Forbes:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Chris Thompson of Richmond, who asks about our school bus regulations.

Mr. Thompson is the director of administrative support services for Jackson-Feild Homes (Jackson-Feild), a residential group home. Jackson-Feild is preparing to purchase a 12-passenger van. The motor vehicle dealership asks that Mr. Thompson provide a statement that Jackson-Feild is "purchasing this vehicle in compliance with Federal Regulations".

Mr. Thompson describes his facility as follows:

Jackson-Feild Homes is a residential group home for abused adolescent females ages 11 to 17 and their babies. Many of our residents exhibit behavioral problems because of previous abuse and neglect. Jackson-Feild Homes operates 4 cottages (units). The units are designed to assist the girls with management of their behaviors through a well established behavioral management program which utilizes a points and level system in order to set limits and maintain structure. The girls also receive therapy services on site. The girls live on campus, eat in our cafeteria, and go to Gwaltney School which is located on our campus. Our girls walk to school from their dormitories. We do not transport day students to the school. In order to attend our school, the child must live on campus. Gwaltney School is a fully accredited private school licensed by the [Virginia] Department of Education.

We currently operate Windstar type vans (7 passenger), a Ford Taurus (5 passenger) and several 12 and 15 passenger Ford Vans. We use these vehicles to transport residents to doctors appointments, the movies, skating, etc. Each living unit is assigned a vehicle. Each living unit houses between 10 and 14 residents. We also

have transportation staff which assist the unit staff in transporting residents. Our school also takes an occasional field trip and we use the previously stated vehicles to transport our residents to the field trips. The school conducts an average of 4 field trips a year. These field trips are the only trips associated with the school. All other transports are related to unit (dormitory) activities.

Discussion

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling a new vehicle to sell a vehicle that meets all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, persons selling a new "school bus" must sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applying to school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed to carry 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events.

Over the years, we have been asked to interpret how our school bus regulations apply to vehicles sold to residential treatment facilities (see a July 15, 1999, letter to Ms. Sharon Elsenbeck and an April 8, 1998, letter to Mr. Gary Hammontree, copies enclosed). However, unlike the Jackson-Feild Homes, these facilities did not have a school as part of their facility.

Federal law has been revised since the letters to Mr. Hammontree and Ms. Elsenbeck. On August 10, 2005, P.L. 109-59, the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users" (SAFETEA-LU) was enacted. Section 10309 states in part:

a school or school system may not purchase or lease a new 15-passenger van if it will be used significantly by, or on behalf of, the school or school system to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school, unless the 15-passenger van complies with the motor vehicle standards prescribed for school buses and multifunction school activity buses under this title.

For purposes of Section 10309, 15-passenger van is defined as:"a vehicle that seats 10 to 14 passengers, not including the driver". The civil penalty for a violation of Section 10309 is $10,000, with a maximum penalty of $15,000,000 for a related series of violations.

The relationship between Jackson-Feild and Gwaltney school is unclear to us. We cannot determine, based on Mr. Thompsons information in his letter, that Jackson-Feild is a separate entity from the Gwaltney School. Because of this possible exposure to the new statutory civil penalty provision for purchases of new "15-passenger vans" (which, by definition, includes purchases of 12-passenger vans), we recommend that Mr. Thompson consult a private attorney about the implications associated with Jackson-Feilds purchase of a van that did not meet the school bus safety standards if the facility were subsequently deemed to be a "school".

Before Mr. Thompson makes a decision about buying a vehicle, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. We therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSAs school bus safety standards. NHTSA created a vehicle type, the multi-function school activity bus (MFSAB), for situations similar to that of Mr. Thompson. A MFSAB is a bus that is certified as meeting the school bus standards and therefore provides a comparable level of crash-worthiness safety as does a school bus. The main difference between MFSABs and school buses is that MFSABs do not have traffic control features such as the school bus stop arm and the rear flashing lamps.

We note also that State law determines the requirements that apply to the use of school vehicles. Thus, whether Jackson-Feild can use vans to transport the children is determined by Virginia law. For information on Virginias requirements, Mr. Thompson may contact Virginias State Director of Pupil Transportation:

June Eanes
Associate Director, Pupil Transportation
Virginia Department of Education
P.O. Box 2120
Richmond, VA 23218-2120
Phone: 804-225-2037
e-mail:jeanes@mail.vak12ed.edu

If you have any further questions about NHTSAs programs please feel free to have your staff contact Dorothy Nakama, Attorney-Advisor, or me at this address, or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
cc: Washington Office
ref:VSA#571.3
d.11/4/05

ID: nht95-6.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 23, 1995

FROM: Margaret Fisher, MD -- Kaiser Permanente

TO: James J. Gregorio

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/7/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to James J. Gregorio (VSA 108 (a)(2)(A); A43; Std. 207; Std. 208)

TEXT: I am writing to request authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim in order to accomodate my physical handicap. Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviate a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand controls. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees. Enclosed is a statement from my physician validating my medical condition. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at your convenience. Your prompt reply to this painful condition would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Attachment

September 22, 1995

To Whom It May Concern:

Mr. James Gregorio is under my care for tendinitis of the right ankle and both knees. Recovery could take up to several years.

Sincerely yours,

Margaret Fisher, MD Kaiser Permanente

ID: nht95-6.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11123); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3/4/77 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO DENNIS G. MOORE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, on the subject of "optical combination" as that term is used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You enclosed a copy of a letter sent to you from this Office on March 4, 1977, and refer to a "Rider" in "a proposed change [around 1990] that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, 'NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING.'" You ask how "[using] the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976, and 1977, and the Re-Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support."

You are talking of events of 18 to 20 years ago that are no longer relevant today. The definition that NHTSA supports contains no reference to lamp housings. Standard No. 108 was amended four years ago, in 1991, to clarify that the term "optical combination" is to be interpreted as defined by SAE Information Report J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV87. Under the SAE definition, optical combination results when a lamp "has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb)", and when "its optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions." It is immaterial to this definition whether the light sources are in the same or different housings. I enclose a copy of a rulemaking proposal and final rules dealing with this issue that were published on November 6 and 8, 1990, and June 7 and November 7, 1991.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office by FAX (202-366-3820).

ID: nht95-6.56

DATE: October 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hugh J. Bode, Esq. -- Reminger & Reminger

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM HUGH J. BODE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bode:

This responds to your letter concerning whether 49 U.S.C. @@ 30101 et seq. (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to ensure that its vehicle continues to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) after the first retail purchase of the vehicle.

You specifically ask about FMVSS No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems," and its application to a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck. It appears from the questions you ask that corrosion developed inside the carburetor of the pickup truck at some point during the life of the vehicle, such that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

You asked us to "confirm the accuracy" of a number of statements. Your first statement, concerning the application of the FMVSSs generally, is as follows:

As we understand it, former @ 108(a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former @ 108 (b) (1), 49 U.S.C. @ 30112 (b) (1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former @ 108(a) (2) (A), 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

Your general understanding is correct. However, a manufacturer has responsibilities in addition to those in @ 30112, that may bear upon on "continuing compliance" of its vehicle. Under @@ 30118-30122 of our statute, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge.

This is not to say that the development of the corrosion in the carburetor necessarily constitutes a safety-related defect. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility of such a finding in certain circumstances, such as where the corrosion developed unreasonably quickly in the vehicle and the problem was such that it could lead to crashes involving injuries or fatalities.

State law could also be relevant to this issue. For example, as part of its vehicle inspection requirements, a State could require that the accelerator control systems on vehicles "continue to comply" with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

With the above discussion in mind, I will now address your other four questions on Standard No. 124.

Question 1. We ask that NHTSA confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle.

As explained in our answer above, your understanding is correct with regard to our requirements (49 U.S.C. @ 30112). There may be State requirements that apply.

Question 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124.

Your understanding is essentially correct. As permitted by Federal law, Chrysler sold the truck based upon its own certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 124. That corrosion developed in the system may or may not be relevant with respect to the existence of a safety-related defect.

Question 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5.

While your understanding is essentially correct, note that Standard No. 124 and other motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards.

Question 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance.

Standard No. 124 does not specify a test for corrosion resistance. It is unclear what you mean by "durability." The requirements of the standard must be met when the engine "is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between - 40 degrees F. and + 125 degrees F. . ." (S5) In addition to the performance regulated by Standard No. 124, each manufacturer must ensure that its motor vehicle does not have a safety-related defect.

If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-6.57

DATE: October 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President of Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/6/95 LETTER FROM LARRY W. STRAWHORN AND EARL EISNHART TO JOHN G. WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock malfunction indicator requirements set forth at S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This provision explains the situations in which the trailer lamp malfunction indicator must remain activated. Section S5.2.3.3 reads as follows:

S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including a trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2006 shall be equipped with a lamp indicating a malfunction of a trailer's antilock brake system. Such a lamp shall remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system. The display shall be visible within the driver's forward field of view through the rearview mirror(s), and shall be visible once the malfunction is present and power is provided to the system. (Emphasis added.).

In particular, you request that the agency confirm your belief that the lamp activation pattern for trailers may be such that the bulb be ON when the antilock system is working properly and OFF when a malfunction exists, the antilock system is not getting electrical power, or the lamp bulb is burnt out. You contended that such an activation pattern provides a fail safe pattern i.e., it will signal an inoperative antilock system even when the system is not receiving electrical power or the lamp bulb is burnt out.

NHTSA disagrees with your suggested reading of the malfunction indicator requirements. Such a reading would be inconsistent with S5.2.3.3's language stating that the lamp must "remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system." As with other malfunction indicators, the agency intends the malfunction indicator to activate when a malfunction exists and not activate when the system is functioning properly. To require otherwise would be inconsistent with our requirements for other indicators and thus would create confusion. Please note that NHTSA provided a lengthy discussion about the issue of a malfunction indicator's activation protocol in the March 10, 1995 final rule. (60 FR 13216, 13246) The agency stated that in response to an ABS malfunction, a trailer or tractor indicator must activate and provide a continuous yellow signal. The agency explained that such a common indicator pattern standardizes the activation format, thus reducing ambiguity and confusion and expediting Federal and State inspections.

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: nht95-6.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: D. L. O'Connor -- Manager, Government & Customer Compliance, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/95 LETTER FROM D. L. O'CONNOR TO WALTER K. MYERS (OCC 11043)

TEXT: Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on July 12, 1995, followed up by your letter of July 13, 1995.

You stated that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Colombia, South America, in that Colombia wants verification that Goodyear complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) when placing the DOT symbol on tires. You believe that Colombia will permit importation of Goodyear tires if NHTSA recognizes that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and that Goodyear's placing the DOT symbol on its tires is accepted as valid certification of compliance by the U.S. government.

As Mr. Myers stated in your telephone conversation, other U.S. tire manufacturers and exporters have had similar difficulties with Central and South American countries. All those countries regard the FMVSSs as acceptable assurances of tire safety, but they do not seem to understand or are skeptical of our system of manufacturer self-certification. They want assurances from a responsible U.S. government agency that manufacturer self-certifications are accepted as valid by the U.S. government.

Enclosed is a statement similar to those that we have provided other manufacturers and exporters. Since the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment, this statement is as far as we can go in getting the Federal government involved in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility.

I hope the enclosed statement will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

8/9/95

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject: Tires Manufactured by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

United States law requires tire manufacturers themselves to certify that the tires they manufacture for sale in the United States comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is no provision in U.S. law for approval or certification by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the agency responsible for implementing the Federal law. NHTSA enforces the standards by randomly selecting and testing approximately 100 passenger car tires and 70 other than passenger car tires per year to ensure the validity of the tire companies' self-certification programs.

NHTSA states that all motor vehicle tires of any type or size manufactured by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and bearing the symbol "DOT" are recognized by the United States as having been produced and certified in conformity with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards of the United States.

Any questions or requests for additional information regarding this matter may be directed to Walter Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Signed by S. Wood)