ID: nht81-2.30

DATE: 06/01/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning section 4.2(d) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Section 4.2(d) provides that after seat belt webbing has been subjected to an abrasion test, it must have not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraded webbing set in section 4.2(b) of the standard. You pointed out that section 5.2(d) is inconsistent with section 4.2(d). As explained below, section 4.2(d) correctly states the requirement intended by the agency and section 5.2(d) needs to be corrected.

The abraded webbing strength test procedure set forth in section 5.2(d) of the standard is incorrect. It specifies that the median value of the breaking strengths of the abraded and unabraded webbing are used to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained. Such a test procedure unfairly penalizes a manufacturer that produces webbing with an unabraded breaking strength far in excess of the requirements specified in section 4.2(b).

For example, section 4.2(b) specifies that Type I webbing is to have a breaking strength of 6,000 pounds. Assume that the unabraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 8,000 pounds and the abraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 5,600 pounds. The median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is substantially more than 75 percent of the 6,000 pound breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b). However, the median abraded breaking strength is only 70 percent of the median unabraded breaking strength.

The agency intends to modify the standard so that the abraded webbing strength test procedure specifies that the median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is compared to the breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b) to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

British Standards Institution

JANUARY 6, 1981

F. BERNDT -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs

FMVSS

Many thanks for your letter of 12 December 1980 on the above subject.

You say in your letter that Standard Number 209 requires abraded webbing in manual belt systems for use in motor vehicles to have not less than 75% of the strength of unabraded webbing.

Clause @ 4.2(b) at the end states 'the median value shall be used for determining the retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of this section'.

Clause @@ 4.2(d) states that 'after abrasion, the webbing shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the breaking strength listed in @@ 4.2(b). For clarity surely this should read - not less than 75% of the median value obtained during tests to clause @@ 4.2(b)'.

I would appreciate your comments.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM SENIOR TEST ENGINEER

British Standards Institution

FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs

FMVSS - 209 SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES

Clause 5.1 (b) reads . . . . the median value shall be used for determining the retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (d) (e) and (f) of the section.

Clause 4.2(d) reads . . . . shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the breaking strength listed in Clause 4.2(b) for that type of belt assembly.

Please clarify the level to which the webbing strength after abrasion is to be compared. Is it:-

1. 75% of median breaking strength found under clause 5.1(b) or

2. 75% of minimum breaking strength listed in clause 4.2(b)

I have written to you on this subject before and would appreciate a speedy reply.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- SENIOR TEST ENGINEER, MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY COMPONENTS SECTION

ID: nht81-2.33

DATE: 06/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagon of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 27, 1981, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your company is considering, for fuel economy purposes, use of an engine stop/start system by which the engine would be switched off within a few seconds after a vehicle has come to a complete stop, and, to save battery capacity, the headlamps would also be deactivated. The parking lamps, however, will remain on. You believe that Standard No. 108 would not preclude such a system.

Although your letter does not mention it, we assume that when the parking lights are activated, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps would also be on, as required by S4.5.7(a) of Standard No. 108. The question then arises whether the system described is prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 which states that "No . . . motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Although the primary function of headlamps is to illuminate the roadway in front of the driver at night or under conditions of reduced visibility, they also serve to indicate the presence of the vehicle to traffic approaching from the opposite direction. In a situation where, on a two-lane road, a car has pulled to the shoulder temporarily, a headlamp will be perceived at a greater distance than a parking lamp to oncoming traffic. Headlamps also serve an illuminating function when people have paused in unfamiliar neighborhoods in an effort to discern their whereabouts. We believe, therefore, that your device could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of headlamps within the meaning of S4.1.3.

This, however, is not a view dispositive of the issue. Compliance with Standard No. 102 would also appear to be affected as that standard requires that the engine starter be inoperable when the transmission shift lever is in the forward or reverse position. Last year the agency granted a rulemaking petition with respect to an engine stop/start system such as you have discussed. I enclose a copy for your information. Although no notice has yet been published on this question, we shall endeavor to include a reference to headlamp switching devices in any future rulemaking activity on this subject.

ENC.

MAY 27, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

In order to further improve fuel economy, Volkswagen is investigating the possibility of using an engine stop/start system. This system would automatically switch the engine off within a few seconds after the vehicle has come to a complete stop. When the accelerator is depressed the engine will start again automatically (or, on vehicles with manual transmission, it will start when the gear shift lever is put into first gear). We estimate a fuel savings of 6 to 10 percent, a significant reduction in exhaust emissions and noise pollution with the stop/start system in city driving conditions.

In order not to excessively burden the battery capacity, the stop/start system will have to use a switch mechanism which turns the headlamps off together with the engine. The parking lights will remain on. Once the engine is restarted, the headlamps will be switched on automatically.

When reviewing FMVSS 103, Volkswagen concluded that the standard would not preclude an automatic headlamp switching system as described above. We request your interpretation as to whether Volkswagen's conclusion concerning automatic headlamp switching systems is correct. Your early response to this will be greatly appreciated.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations

ID: nht78-4.23

DATE: 12/04/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHSTA

TO: U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Material Readiness Command

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEC 4 1978

NOA-30

Mr. Robert J. Shirock Safety Director U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Material Readiness Command Department of the Army Warren, Michigan 48090

Dear Mr. Shirock:

This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1978, to the Administrator questioning whether certain trucks procured by your Command comply with paragraph S4.5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That paragraph states "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You wrote that "when the hazard warning lights are activated the stop lamp cannot be activated upon application of the service brakes." The system you describe would be in compliance with Standard No. 108, if the stop lamps and signal lamps are optically combined, for the following reasons. Paragraph S4.4.1 allows combination of a stop lamp with a turn signal lamp (which provides the hazard warning signal). Paragraph 4.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970 (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 as the operative standard for stop lamps) requires that "When a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing."

This, of course, means that in a combination lamp the stop signal cannot be given while the hazard warning signal is being operated. If the Army deems it desirable it could require a different circuitry in combination lamps by which the stop lamps and hazard warning signal lamps could operate simultaneously, as military vehicles need not conform to Federal safety standards (49 CFR 571.7(c)).

Because several jurisdictions require slow-moving vehicles to use the hazard lamps while in motion, I am asking our Office of Rulemaking to review this prohibition. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE MATERIEL READINESS COMMAND WARREN, MICHIGAN 48090

DRSTA-CZ 13 November 1978

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook

Reference is made to FMVSS 108, paragraph S4.5.4.

Referenced paragraph states "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Inspection of the lighting system in some commercial trucks recently procured by this Command disclosed that when the hazard warning lights are activated the stop lamp cannot be activated upon application of the service brakes.

While it is recognized that the primary purpose of hazard warning lights is to warn approaching traffic of a disabled vehicle, several states require the use of hazard warning signal for slow moving vehicles, i.e, NY Thruway, and Pennsylvania Turnpike. Application of the service brakes under this condition would not activate the stop lamps to warn following traffic.

Request this office be provided the DOT position as to whether or not the system described above meets the requirements of FMVSS 108, S4.5.4.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT J. SHIROCK Safety Director

ID: nht79-1.9

DATE: 10/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Orient Glass, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. J. Ohmura Orient Glass, Inc. 445 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90071

Dear Mr. Ohmura:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether a bus bar extension on rear-window passenger car glazing would comply with Safety Standard No. 205. I assume from your letter that the bus bar is a defrosting template that is embedded in the glazing material.

Safety Standard No. 205, through the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference, requires glazing materials requisite for driving visibility in passenger cars to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent (Test No. 2 in ANS Z26). This requirement would be applicable to rear-window glazing for passenger cars, since these windows are necessary for driving visibility. Rear-window glazing that contains a bus bar extension and electrical template wires would still have to comply with the 70-percent luminous transmittance requirement, when tested in accordance with Test No. 2. The .67-inch bus bar extension would not preclude compliance with this requirement, although it obviously has no luminous transmittance, if the remaining parts of the glazing meet the 70-percent requirement. However, if the electrical wires of the template are so numerous or located so near each other that a tested section of the glazing would not have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent, the rear window would not be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 22, 1979.

U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA Office of Standards Enforcement Washington, D. C. 20590 (Att: Mt. Frank Berndt)

Dear Mr. Berndt,

We have been referred to you by Mr. Heath, of The California Highway Patrol for approval of bus bar extension on rear window auto glass.

As shown in the enclosed attachments this particular bus bar extends 0.67 inch from the edge of the AS-2 approved Tempered Auto Glass. We need written confirmation that this bus bar design complies with your standard, FMVSS 205.

Please let us know if there are any other requirements for approval.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

Thank you.

ORIENT GLASS, INC.

J. Ohmura

JO/mw

August 15, 1979

File No.: 62.A661.A4381

Mr. J. Omura Orient Glass, Inc. 445 S. Figueroa Street Suite 2430 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Mr. Omura:

This is to confirm your telephone conversation of August 2 with Mr. Max Mizoguchi of this office regarding the location of the electrical bus bar in glazing materials.

Original equipment safety glazing meeting the requirements established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is acceptable for sale in California. If you feel that your design may not comply with FMVSS 205, you may wish to contact their legal department to seek clarification. Questions should be directed to:

U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA Office of Standards Enforcement Attention Mr. Frank Berndt Washington, D.C. 20590

Please supply us with a copy of all correspondence on this subject.

We trust this information will be helpful to you.

Very truly yours,

W. W. HEATH, Chief Engineer Acting Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section

ID: nht78-1.15

DATE: 01/20/78

FROM: F. BERNDT FOR J. J. LEVIN -- NHTSA

TO: Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated November 29, 1977, asking about the procedures for obtaining approval of hydraulic brake hoses. Your company is altering the labeling on some of its hose and asks whether the hose must be retested and whether notice of the changes must be given.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve in advance motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. It is up to manufacturers to certify that their products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations. The NHTSA conducts compliance testing for purposes of enforcement.

It is, therefore, up to your company to decide whether to test its hose according to the procedures specified in Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. The NHTSA only requires that you determine in the exercise of due care that the hose meets all requirements specified in the standard. Further, you do not have to give the NHTSA notice when you change the labeling information on your hose, unless you change the designation identifying your company. In that case, the new designation would have to be filed with the NHTSA according to the specifications of paragraph S5.2.2(b) of Standard 106.

You will have to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators directly to determine their requirements for approval and notification following your labeling changes.

Please contact me if our office can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

November 29, 1977

Richard B. Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson,

Subject: Inquiry about the procedure for equipment approval for hydraulic brake hose assembly

This company is a maker of brake hoses, and has received the following certificates of equipment approval from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators as the equipment approval of its products now. Certification No. Dated 741092 November 27, 1974 750423 April 8, 1975 750449 April 22, 1975 761132 November 12, 1976 761133 November 16, 1976

This company implements the labeling of brake hoses prescribed in FMVSS No. 106, S5.2, according to the following two ways.

a. One side: DOT NCRN (date) 1/8 HL

Other side: (stripe)

b. One side: DOT NCRN (date) 1/8 HR

Other side: NCRN 1/8 (date) SAE J1401

Other side: NICHIRIN RUBBER JAPAN 1/8 SAE J1401 AAA

(private lot No.)

In this connection, please instruct us in the procedure for this change.

1. In case of changing the indication of labeling from HR (Regular expansion hydraulic hoses) to HL (Low expansion hydraulic hoses),

(1) Is it necessary to obtain again the original report by the approval test organization?

(2) Or, is it enough to obtain the appendix report by undergoing the test of the concerned test item only (expansion test)?

(3) Or, the test report is not required, and is it enough only to submit the notice about the change?

2. In the FMVSS No.106, S5.2.1, of labeling on the other side, when the labeling prescribed as the additional information at the manufacturer's option is changed, this company interprets that the test is not required, but is it right?

Moreover, also in case of changing the content of labeling on the other side, is some notice required?

Would you please instruct and answer us in the above-described points?

Sincerely yours, Takashi Shimoda -- Technical department

ID: 77-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: McElwee, Hall & McElwee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether the Holly Farms Service Center would qualify as a "motor vehicle repair business" as that term is defined in Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.). This is an elaboration of our letter to you of November 8, 1977.

According to your description, the Holly Farms Service Center only repairs and maintains vehicles owned by Holly Farms, except for an occasional repair as an accomodation to another company whose vehicle has broken down on the premises.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) specifies that "motor vehicle repair business" means

"any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Based on your description of the function of the Holly Farms Service Center, it would not be considered a "motor vehicle repair business" for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. The fact that the Service Center occasionally repairs another company's vehicles does not change our interpretation, provided the Service Center does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of making such repairs for compensation.

Since the Service Center would not be considered a "motor vehicle repair business", it could alter the braking systems on Holly Farms' vehicles without violating the "render inoperative" provisions of Section 108(a)(2)(A).

SINCERELY,

McELWEE, HALL & McELWEE

December 2, 1977

Hugh Oates Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc. FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems

In accordance with our telephone conversation of this date, I enclose herewith a copy of our letter of November 17, 1977. We would appreciate an immediate reply to the questions posed therein.

MCELWEE, HALL & MCELWEE William C. Warden, Jr.

ENC.

McELWEE, HALL & McELWEE

November 17, 1977

Hugh Oates Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc. FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems

Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc. has as one of its divisions a unit called "The Service Center." This garage repairs Holly Farms' own vehicles such as tractor-trailers. There are approximately 139 tractors, and Holly Farms has service center shops in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Texas. Only Holly Farms' vehicles are repaired or maintained at these centers, except occasionally if another company's vehicle should break down at the Holly Farms premises, as an accommodation, this service center will perform some minor repairs to get the vehicle back on the road. Holly Farms Service Center does not repair vehicles for compensation for the general public.

In reference to your letter of November 8, 1977 to Congressman Stephen L. Neal, we would like to clarify with you and have an expression of your opinion as to whether or not the Holly Farms Service Center comes within the prohibitions of 15 U.S.C.A. 1397 (a) (2) (A). In particular, as to whether or not the Service Center is included in the term "motor vehicle repair business." As you are no doubt aware, Holly Farms is contemplating disconnecting portions of the brake systems upon vehicles it owns and operates itself, and would like to have its own Service Center do this. Therefore, does the aforementioned section of the Code prohibit Holly Farms Service Center from disconnecting the safety device. Please express your opinion in a letter to me.

William C. Warden, Jr.

cc: ODELL WHITTINGTON; VERNON CHURCH

ID: nht92-6.3

DATE: June 19, 1992

FROM: Tim Flagstad

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/92 from Paul J. Rice to Tim Flagstad (A39; Std. 115; Part 591)

TEXT:

I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Taylor Vincent, Legal Counsel, regarding the FMVSS 115 Standard and exemption from the seventeen digit Vehicle Identification Number requirement.

On February 12, 1990, I imported a 1981 Kenworth from Canada where it was manufactured by Kenworth of Canada. At the time of manufacture the vehicle complied with all applicable United States Federal Safety Standards and was labeled from the factory as such. I am faxing you a letter from Kenworth of Canada stating this, along with a letter form Catapillar Inc., the United States manufacturer of the motor, stating that the motor was in compliance with E.P.A. requirements.

The truck was brought into the United States through a licensed broker and all necessary declarations and papers were properly submitted. The vehicle was given Entry Number 551-1346915-3 by U.S. Customs.

I am faxing you another letter from Kenworth of Canada which states that until January 1, 1983 and the implementation of CMVSS 115, a seventeen digit vehicle Identification Number was not required in Canada. As this truck was manufactured prior to this date, it was given the seven digit Vehicle Identification Number M911042.

At my request, Joyce Chapman at the NHTSA office in Seattle faxed me a copy of the FMVSS 115. In paragraph S2, it states that "Vehicles imported into the United States under Article 591 are exempt from requirements of S4.2" which states "each Vehicle Identification Number shall consist of seventeen characters".

Does paragraph S2 of the FMVSS 115 exempt this vehicle from the seventeen digit number requirement and make it legal in the United States with a seven digit number?

United States Customs didn't question the number at time of entry. I subsequently titled the truck in California and the California Department of Motor Vehicles had no problem with the 1981 year model and the seven digit identification number. I have since sold the truck to someone in another state and he is having a problem registering it because the identification number consists of only seven digits.

On June 18, I discussed this situation with Mr. Taylor and his opinion was that the truck was exempt and could be legally imported into the United States with the seven digit number. When I asked for a written statement to that effect, he told me the procedure was to submit a written request for clarification and address it to your attention.

I also discussed with Mr. Taylor whether this truck should have been imported through a "registered importer". He told me that as U.S. Customs had accepted the vehicle's compliance to U.S. Safety Standards and had not required a bond, a registered importer was not required. Could you please also address this matter in your written reply?

I would appreciate anything you could do to process this request for clarification as quickly as possible. Please call me at (619) 477-2515 if you have any questions.

P.S. Please fax your written response to this letter to (619) 477-6249 and mail me the original at this address:

Tim Flagstad 220 West 14th Street National City, CA 91950

Attachments

Letter from Tracy Muncaster, Kenworth Company regarding Canadian Kenworth S/N 911042.

Letter dated 3/6/91 from Jean-Guy Urbain, Kenworth, to Jacques Beauchemin.

Letter dated 3/26/92 from Marvin Monroe, Caterpillar Inc.

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: 2966yy

Mr. Richard F. Land
Bureau of Manpower and Facilities
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment
287 Plus Park Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37247-0701

Dear Mr. Land:

This responds to your February 12, 1991 letter to Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning the ambulance fleet you recently inspected. Each ambulance had a wooden block mounted under the accelerator pedal to limit the driver's ability to accelerate the vehicle. You state that Tennessee law does not prohibit installation of these "makeshift speed governors." However, you would like to know whether NHTSA's requirements would prohibit installation of the blocks.

The answer to your question is no. In a March 26 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you said that the blocks were installed by the ambulance owner. Our standards do not regulate in any manner how a vehicle owner can modify his or her vehicle.

If the blocks were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, certain requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any person in the aforementioned categories from knowingly "render[ing] inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with an FMVSS. However, there would be no rendering inoperative of compliance with the FMVSS for accelerator control systems (FMVSS 124) in the situation you described, because that FMVSS does not establish requirements for accelerator pedal actuation. Of course, the installation of the block must not have rendered inoperative compliant equipment or designs on the vehicle that were installed pursuant to other safety standards. For example, the block must not interfere with the vehicle's braking ability.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#124 d:4/l2/9l

ID: 24183

Mr. James F. Flint
Grove, Jaskiewicz & Cobert
Suite 400
1730 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036-4517





Dear Mr. Flint:

This responds to your letter of March 8, 2002, in which you ask whether the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) manufactured by your client, Col-Ven SA of Argentina, for large commercial motor vehicles will be subject to the pending rulemaking on TPMSs. As discussed below, the agency did not propose to require TPMSs on medium and heavy vehicles in its proposed rule. However, we cannot give you a definitive answer at this time as to what the final rule will require.

In your letter, you state that Col-Ven SA manufacturers a TPMS intended for commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating over 26,000 pounds, including large trucks, truck tractors, tractor/trailer combinations, passenger buses, and large recreational vehicles.

In your letter you also refer to an April 29, 1998, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpretation letter (see enclosure) regarding another TPMS manufactured for heavy vehicles. In that letter, NHTSA stated that there was no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to TPMSs. However, the agency cautioned that the installation of any such system, either as original equipment or as after-market equipment, is prohibited if it makes "inoperative any device or element of design that was originally installed on or in the vehicle pursuant to any FMVSS." The agency indicated that such a system might impact air brake systems (covered by FMVSS No. 121) or brake hoses (FMVSS No. 106).

You ask whether this interpretation letter has been superseded or altered by the passage of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act, ⁽¹⁾ and whether TPMSs manufactured for large commercial motor vehicles will be subject to the rulemaking on TPMSs required by Section 13 of the TREAD Act.

Section 13 of the TREAD Act mandates the completion of "a rulemaking for a regulation to require a warning system in new motor vehicles to indicate to the operator when a tire is significantly under inflated." On July 26, 2001, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a new FMVSS (No. 138) with requirements for TPMSs. ⁽²⁾ The agency proposed to require TPMSs on light vehicles, i.e., passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. The agency did not propose to require TPMSs on medium (10,001 - 26,000 pounds GVWR) and heavy (greater than 26,001 pounds GVWR) vehicles.

NHTSA also noted in the NPRM that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is addressing tire maintenance issues for heavy vehicles. FMCSA plans to conduct a comprehensive study, including possible fleet evaluations of different TPMSs, of all the issues related to improvement of heavy vehicle tire maintenance. The agency plans on working with FMCSA in examining the desirability of proposing a TPMS standard for heavy vehicles.

The agency received one comment requesting that we initiate a separate rulemaking to consider TPMS requirements for medium and heavy vehicles. We will address that comment in the final rule. In the meantime, we can tell you that the April 28, 1998 interpretation letter discussed above is valid with respect to medium and heavy vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on TPMSs, please feel free to contact Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.4/22/02

---

¹ P.L. 106-414, November 1, 2000.

² 66 FR 38982.

ID: nht74-4.26

DATE: DATE:05/07/74

FROM: FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: TO: Perkasie Vulcanizing Co., Inc.

TITLE: TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1974, asking whether, consitently with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, maximum permissible load may be labeled in two lines, viz.:

MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE LOAD XXXXXXXX LBS.

You ask further whether there is a maximum height requirement for the lettering used in the label.

Standard No. 117 does not specify labeling format, and the two-line format you submit conforms to the standard. Paragraphs S6.3.1 and S6.3.2 of Standard No. 117 require all safety labeling, both permanent and affixed, to be at least 0.078 inches in height. No other requirements regarding labeling size are specified.

PERKASIE VULCANIZING CO., INC.

[Illegible Words]

SUBJECT: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards FMVSS-117 - Auto Tire Retreads

In our letter to you dated January 4, 1974 on the subject we gave you information regarding the requirement that on February 1, 1974 certain information must be permanently molded into or onto the sidewall of an auto tire retread.

As you may have noticed in news releases, the U.S. Court of Appeals on January 8, 1974 modified the requirements as to what information must appear on the sidewall.

The result is -- on Auto Tire Retreads all that is required as of February 1, 1974 is --

"Maximum permissible load"

This information must be permanently molded into or onto the sidewall of Auto Tire Retreads.

All the other information such as tire size, inflation pressure, ply rating, tubeless or tube type, bias ply, bias/belted or radial must be on the tire, or may be labeled onto the tire, either permanently or by the addition of a label that is not easily removable, during the retreading process as we mentioned in a previous letter to you dated May 9, 1973, may still be used.

We will keep you advised of future rulings or changes.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION DATE:05/07/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawr

JAS. H. MATTHEWS & CO.

February 18, 1974

Perkesie Vulcanizing Company

ATTENTION: Ralph Perkesie

SUBJECT: Retread Law FMVSS-117

In response to our phone conversation recently in which you had requested us to investigate the retread law FMVSS-117 concerning the character size and length as specified in this law for the labeling of the maximum permissible load designation.

It is our position that we can not presume to interpret or have access to this particular law. This specification should be interpreted by the department of transportation with Perkesie Vulcanizing Company. Any questions concerning this particular law or its' requirements stated in this law should be passed upon the department of transportation. We hope that you can understand that the Jas. H. Matthews & Company is simply the supplier of the tags as specified by a customer. If these tags must meet a specific regulation or a variance of this regulation, this must be interpreted by the customer.

We have our facilities at your disposal in supplying and fulfilling your particular requirements for tags once these specifications have been determined.

We hope this information is of value to you and if we can be of any further service to you in any way please do not hesitate to contact us.

C. R. Parfitt Industry Specialist