ID: GF002470

Ted Gaston, Director of Maintenance
Muncie Indiana Transit System
1300 E Seymour Street
Muncie, IN 47302




Dear Mr. Gaston:

This responds to your recent e-mail asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, permits a hazard warning flasher system that actuates automatically each time a transit bus stops to pick up and discharge passengers. Our answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

In your e-mail, you describe a hazard warning flasher system which would automatically actuate each time the following criteria are met: (1) the bus is in gear, (2) brakes are applied, (3) the bus speed is below 3 mph, and (4) the front door is opened.

Table I of FMVSS No. 108 requires motor vehicles, including transit buses, to be equipped with hazard warning signal systems, as specified in SAE Recommended Practice J910, February 1966. Paragraph 1 of SAE J910 defines such system, in part, as "a driver controlled device which causes all turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously". We have previously interpreted "driver controlled" to mean that the hazard warning signal system must be activated and deactivated by the driver and not by automatic means (please see attached letters to Paul Michelotti, Eric Reed, and Mark Steele). Accordingly, the system being contemplated by Muncie Indiana Transit System would be prohibited by FMVSS No. 108.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/25/05

ID: nht94-4.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Sally O'Cordan -- Ashley, Hannula & Halom (Superior, WI)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/5/94 from Sally O'Cordan to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your question about whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applies to glass used in a travel trailer. You stated that your law office was investigating an accident in which an individual was injured by glass of such a vehicle.

Please be aware that no FMVSS applies to the glazing (the term the agency uses for glass) in trailers. The agency has issued one standard, FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR S571.205), which applies to glazing in some motor vehicles. However, th is standard does not apply to glazing in trailers, which our regulations define as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle" (49 CFR S571.3).

You may wish to contact the State of Wisconsin about the regulation of glass in trailers. The State has the authority to regulate the operation and modification of vehicles by their owners. Wisconsin may have used this authority to issue regulations ab out glazing in travel trailers.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-4.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 21, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A.D. Fisher

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/11/95 LETTER FROM A.D. Fisher to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fisher:

This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1995, asking for our comments on the relationship of your lighting invention, "The Enlightener," to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108.

The Enlightener is intended to replace the center highmounted stop lamp. The lens has two colors, divided between amber at the top and red at the bottom. The amber portion is lit in a steady burning mode when both the accelerator and brake are not depre ssed, and in a flashing mode when the transmission lever is in Referse. The red portion is lit when the brake pedal is depressed and amber is extinguished.

This devise would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. The center highmounted stop lamp must stand alone; the lamp cannot serve another function, and paragraph S5.4(a) prohibits combining it with any other lamp.

In addition, the backup function on motor vehicles is furnished by a steady burning white lamp, required by FMVSS No. 108. The presence of a flashing amber lamp operating simultaneously would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp by sending a conf licting signal.

I am sorry that we cannot provide you a more positive response. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office by calling (202) 366- 5263.

Sincerely,

ID: nht72-2.4

DATE: 04/03/72

FROM: JAMES E. FORRESTER FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Walters Company U.S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1972, requesting the latest information regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, clarification of "leakage" and comments regarding U.S. Patent No. 3, 610, 263.

As amendment to FMVSS No. 301 will be issued in the near future in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making published earlier, 35 F.R. (Illegible Word). The substance of this action involves extending the scope of the rule as indicated in the Notice, but the details of the final amendment will not be disclosed before issue. A copy of the Notice is enclosed.

Paragraph S4.4 does not mention leakage but refers to fuel spillage which is defined in S3. There is no assurance that this proposal will remain intact in the final rule since the comments from industry, continued research and development work, and many other inputs will influence the course of this rule making.

We are not in a position to comment on the features of any particular device, since our concern is primarily with performance requirements in order to permit originality and choice of different means for design of improved performance. We appreciate the information about your patented fuel tank safety valve assembly, and shall place a copy of this patent in our Docket No. 70-20. This docket is a public file to receive information and comments on matters pertaining to the rule making action on fuel system integrity.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht95-7.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 21, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A.D. Fisher

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/11/95 LETTER FROM A.D. Fisher to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fisher:

This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1995, asking for our comments on the relationship of your lighting invention, "The Enlightener," to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108.

The Enlightener is intended to replace the center highmounted stop lamp. The lens has two colors, divided between amber at the top and red at the bottom. The amber portion is lit in a steady burning mode when both the accelerator and brake are not depressed, and in a flashing mode when the transmission lever is in Referse. The red portion is lit when the brake pedal is depressed and amber is extinguished.

This devise would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. The center highmounted stop lamp must stand alone; the lamp cannot serve another function, and paragraph S5.4(a) prohibits combining it with any other lamp.

In addition, the backup function on motor vehicles is furnished by a steady burning white lamp, required by FMVSS No. 108. The presence of a flashing amber lamp operating simultaneously would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp by sending a conflicting signal.

I am sorry that we cannot provide you a more positive response. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office by calling (202) 366- 5263.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gilbert Gallahar -- Kings Environmental Hydrogen Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/18/94 From Gilbert Gallahar To John Womack (OCC-9731)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gallahar:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to an on-board hydrogen generator used on an internal combustion engine to control exhaust emissions. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulati ons to you.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle e quipment, including an on-board hydrogen generator.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151 -159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be respons ible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please note that no FMVSS would preclude the installation of your product as an item of original equipment. Nevertheless, if your device were installed on a new vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or an alterer before the first consumer purchase, then the y would have to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

A commercial business that installs the on-board hydrogen generator would also be subject to provisions of the Safety

2

Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicl e safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs. For instance, compliance with FMVSS No. 301 might be degraded if the hydrogen generator affected the integrity of a motor vehicle fuel system. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install an on-board hydrogen generat or in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You may wish to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for any questions concerning emissions and air quality. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. You may also wish to contact the state of Arizona for information on its emi ssions testing regulations.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: E. W. Dahl -- Vice President, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/1/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Gary M. Ceazan (Std. 109; Std. 119) 2/16/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Mike Kaizaki 4/18/88 letter from Gary M. Ceazan to U.S. Dot (occ 1951)

TEXT:

Mr. E. W. Dahl Vice President Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

This responds to your letter concerning the tire marking requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether the standard would prohibit the following size designations from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 REPLACES 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5

As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. 119.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1."

As noted by your letter, NHTSA recently provided an interpretation letter to Michelin, dated July 9, 1987, concerning one of the exact sizes included in your request. The agency stated the following:

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical infor mation necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109: 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire si ze.

The tire size marking at issue in the Michelin interpretation differs from your proposed marking in that it did not include the word "replaces." You stated the following:

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

As indicated in our letter to Michelin, the only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. Any practice of us ing dual-size markings has the potential for confusing consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle, since consumers may erroneously believe that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of more than one tire size design ation. For example, a consumer seeing a tire marking that size A replaces size B might erroneously believe that it is appropriate to replace size A with size B.

You cited a 1974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. 109 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR 10162.

I would note several things about the background and subsequent history of that NPRM. The NPRM indicated that despite the clear language in Standard No. 109 that each tire must be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used," NHTSA had previously taken the position in interpretation letters that replacement markings constituted an exception to this requirement. (Emphasis added.) The interpretation letters had not offered any basis for concludi ng that this exception existed. (See June 8, 1971 letter to Mercedes-Benz; January 19, 1972 letter to Kelly-Springfield; March 2, 1973 letter to Samperit.)

The NPRM sought to "clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109, to allow, subject to certain conditions, the labeling of replacement tire size designations." However, the NPRM was not adopted as a final rule. We also note that while the 1971-7 2 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, 1980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. 109 prohibited replacement markings.

NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. 119 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, 1987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. 119 prohibits a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if the word "replaces" is used.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure August 12, 1987 Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter concerns the tire marking requirements of FMVSS 119, section S6.5(c), the tire size designation. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company wishes to mark three sizes of wide base super single tires whose size designations are being changed from conv entional inch-based markings to metric-based markings. We propose to use, for a transitional period, the format: "METRIC SIZE replaces inch size", for each of the following three sizes--

385/65R22.5 REPLACES 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5 (We propose to mark the word "replaces" and the replaced size designation adjacent to the primary size designation, in characters no larger than one-half the height of the primary size designation.

Since the time FMVSS109 and FMVSS119 became effective, the question of size marking tires has come up frequently, the last time being your recent opinion letter to Mr. J B White of Michelin, Greenville, South Carolina. Since the subject of that letter in volves one of the exact sizes in this letter, we feel it necessary to further discuss the intent of this request.

August 11, 1987 -2- Erika Z. Jones

The NHTSA has reiterated in opinion letters and rulemaking that the purpose of the tire labeling requirements is to provide

with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. The NHTSA has previously stated that:

"Replacement size markings, however, represent that a particular size is replacing or superseding an existing size designation. The NHTSA believes this type of information to be advantageous to consumers, providing on the tire itself information that a s pecified size designation is intended to be used in place of another." (39 FR 10162, 18MAR74).

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

We will appreciate your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

E W Dahl

ID: nht76-1.9

DATE: 08/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Clayton Dewardre Company Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Clayton Dewandre Company's May 20, 1976, request for confirmation that its "Dual Brake Booster" system is designed to conform to the definition of "split service brake system" and the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3 specified in Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems. In unimpaired braking, the Dual Brake Booster system supplies two separate brake circuits, the primary circuit which is initially powered by the driver's application of pedal force and subsequently supplemented by pressurized fluid from the pump accumulator system, and the secondary circuit which is powered by pressurized fluid from the pump accumulator system. In the event of a primary circuit failure, a mechanical connection unimpaired by a loss of reservior fluid continues to modulate the secondary circuit. In the event of the a secondary circuit failure, the driver's pedal application continues to actuate the primary circuit by muscular effort alone. A single master cylinder reservoir is provided to supply the primary circuit. A single pump reservoir supplies the pump, accumulator, and secondary circuit.

As you are no doubt aware, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not authorize a "type approval" of vehicle design as the basis for certification (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)). Our comments on the description of your system do not relieve the vehicle manufacturer of its responsibility to design a system for each of its products that actually complies with the standard's requirements.

From your description of the system, it would appear to qualify as a "split service brake system" as that term is defined in S4 of the standard. You state that, in the event either subsystem is failed, the other subsystem is capable of indefinite operation. This conforms to the

2

NHTSA's September 14, 1973, letter to Citroen on the meaning of "unimpaired operation" of a subsystem.

With regard to partial failure performance, you state that the vehicle can meet the requirements of S5.1.2 (inadvertently designated as S5.1.1 in your letter) using either of the two subsystems.

With regard to the requirements of S5.1.3 (for inoperative brake power assist unit or brake power unit), you indicate that the vehicle is capable of stopping within the specified distances of column IV of Table II "purely by muscular effort of the driver". By this we assume you mean that the vehicle conforms to the condition required for testing under S5.1.3.1, i.e., with one power unit inoperative and deleted of all reserve capability. Please note that the NHTSA regards the "pump and accumulator" energy source to constitute a "brake power unit" and not a "brake power assist unit", because the described unit "provides the energy required to actuate the brakes, either directly or indirectly through the auxiliary device, with the operator action consisting only of modulating the energy application level." (S4 definition of "brake power unit").

We are assuming that Clayton Dewandre does not object to making public the designs described in your May 20 letter. The NHTSA will place the materials in the public docket three weeks after the date of this letter unless we hear otherwise from you.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Clayton Dewandre Company Limited

May 20, 1976

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir,

Request for advice on the conformities of New Design equipment to the revised Hydraulic Brake System Standard FMVSS 105-75

Clayton Dewandre would like to take this opportunity to introduce to you our newly developed Hydraulic Brake Booster and associated system, (Illegible Word) on behalf of our potential customers, we seek clarification from you regarding its compliance with the revised Hydraulic Brake Standard FMVSS 105-75.

We would refer to section S4 and the definition of a "Split Service Brake System" which includes a statement that a failed sub-system, quote "shall not impair the operation of any other sub-system".

Our interpretation of the expression "impair" is "reduce (Illegible Word) prescribed effective level", and that same implied level is quantified under requirements S.5.1.1. Partial Failure and S.5.1.3. In-operative Brake Power Assist Unit. Both the latter clauses call for the same level of performance i.e. stopping distances from a vehicle speed of 60 m.p.h. without exceeding a pedal force of 150 lbs. Vehicle Cars Trucks<10000 lbs. trucks>10000 lbs. Stopping 456' 517' 613' distance (.263g) (.233g) (.195g)

We would like to show, with reference to the attached description of the Dual Brake Booster, that with a power failed situation or rear brakes failed, we have the same residual secondary braking i.e. the front brakes, being activated purely by muscular effort of the driver, with chamber (a) acting as a conventional master cylinder. The designed performance for this condition in the case of a 2000 Kg (4,400 lbs) gross weight vehicle would be .3g for a pedal force 71 lbs (316N). This meets the prescribed performance tabled above.

Should a failure occur in the other sub-system (Illegible Words) mechanically by further movement of the pedal (approximately 12 mm.) for full output to "knee point". Fluid under pressure is delivered by the valve in proportion to pedal effort. Again in this case, the system is tuned to provide an acceptable performance. The attached figures show a retardation of .3g for 52 lbs (231N) pedal force, which is well within the prescribed limits.

2

(Illegible Text)

Yours faithfully,

W. M. PAGE -- Senior Engineer - Systems Engineering

[Attachments Omitted.]

ID: 8417

Mr. Philip Trupiano
Auto Enterprises, Inc.
1850 Rochester Road
Clawson, MI 48017

FAX 313-589-3218

Dear Mr. Trupiano:

This responds to your FAX of March 18, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You seek an interpretation of provisions of 49 CFR Parts 591 and 592. You have supplemented your letter by FAXing us on March 23, 1993, a letter from Ford Motor Company dated September 17, 1992, and a copy of a work order from the Louisville Truck Centre in Canada dated September 30, 1992.

Auto Enterprises is a Registered Importer (RI) under Part 592. It has contracted to represent a person who wishes to import a 1984 Ford 9000 heavy duty truck of Canadian manufacture. The truck would be imported across the border shared by North Dakota and Manitoba. The truck appears to have been manufactured as a chassis cab in the United States, and subsequently completed as a truck in Canada. Ford's letter states that the completed vehicle will comply with 18 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that it "was designed to meet FMVSS 108 as fully as possible for the vehicle configuration as delivered at the assembly plant", and that to comply "with FMVSS 121 it may be necessary to do the following: Add a quick release valve. Eliminate the control line to the limiting valve. Use 6 or 8 hose from foot control to quick release valve." The work order from Louisville Truck Centre states that "[t]he necessary changes have been made to comply with safety standard FMVSS 121" in accordance with Ford's letter." We assume, of course, that Ford's letter identifies the truck in question as your letter did not convey the VIN of the vehicle.

You wish to proceed as follows and ask for our concurrence under Parts 591 and 592. Because of the distance involved in driving the truck to Michigan and back (approximately 4,000 miles), you wish to facilitate entry by mailing Auto Enterprise's RI certification label to its customs broker at the contemplated port of entry to be affixed there. Appropriate photographs of the certification would be taken and submitted to NHTSA as part of the RI conformance package required for bond release. During the period before release of the bond, the truck would be in the custody of the importer. However, because the truck cannot be registered in North Dakota without a copy of the bond release letter, the importer would be effectively prohibited from licensing it for use.

The truck involved was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It may not have been completed to meet the lighting standard. In addition, modifications were recently made with the intent of conforming it to the U.S. standard on air brakes for trucks. While Ford's letter is informative, it falls short of a manufacturer's certification of compliance. Although the vehicle could in fact now conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that fact must be verified by Auto Enterprises as the applicable RI, and its certification of that fact provided to NHTSA. This agency's initial interpretation of The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988 was that it forbade conformance work to be performed outside the United States, but that conformance work could be performed in the United States either by the RI or its agent. However, Part 592 as adopted reflects a modified view. It allows conformance work outside the U.S. subject to verification by the RI. AS NHTSA stated in the preamble to the final rule (54 FR at 40084) a principal obligation of the RI is "(1) to bring those vehicles into compliance, or to demonstrate that they have been brought into compliance before importation." Further, as NHTSA noted at 40086, after consideration of comments it did not adopt "those aspects of the proposal that countenanced delegation of conformance responsibilities to an agent." In light of the above, we do not believe that Auto Enterprises can, in good faith, affix its certification of compliance to the Canadian truck without verifying its compliance, and we do not believe that it can delegate that task to the Customs Broker who would thereby become its agent for this purpose.

With respect to whether the importer may have custody of its vehicle, The Safety Compliance Act appears to require that it is the RI who has custody, for it clearly states that RIs shall not release custody of any motor vehicle for which they have responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)(3)(E)(i)) until after they certify approval and have been notified by NHTSA that the conformance bond is released.

Given the possibility that the truck in question may be in de facto compliance with the safety standards, and in recognition of the practical problems involved, we suggest that Auto Enterprises send an employee to inspect the vehicle on the day that it is entered under bond. If your employee concludes that the truck apparently now conforms to Standards Nos. 108 and 121, as well as remaining in compliance with the l8 other applicable standards, (s)he may then affix the certification of compliance. When this is done, your employee may complete and FAX the compliance documentation to NHTSA. We will endeavor to accord this submission priority treatment so that, if it is in order, we can release the bond without delay, probably within one workday. In the interim, the truck would be in the custody of your employee. We believe that this course of action would meet both the law and your practical concerns.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref.592 d:3/31/93

ID: nht74-2.2

DATE: 03/08/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Certain-Teed Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 25, 1974, question whether failure of a "common" clampband assembly on the "Camtite" emergency and parking spring brake, which would cause complete loss of air to the service brake system and failure of the emergency/parking brake portion of one unit, would be in violation of paragraph S5.7.2.2 of Standard 121.

The answer is no. S5.7.2.2 requires that failure of components common to the service and emergency braking systems shall not result in a loss of air that causes the parking brake to be inoperable. We interpret "parking brake" to mean the entire parking brake system. The failure you describe would not render the entire system inoperable, because all parking brakes other than the affected unit would remain operable.

This letter will be placed in the public file for the information of other interested persons.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CERTAIN-TEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION

January 25, 1974

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 - Air Brake Systems

Dear Sir:

We have been questioned by a customer for an interpretation as to the conformance of our CAMTITE emergency and parking spring brake design, as described in the attached brochure, to Paragraph S5.7.2.2., EMERGENCY BRAKING SYSTEM FAILURE, of FMVSS 121. This paragraph states:

"In the event of a failure of a valve, manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake chamber housing that is common to the service brake and emergency braking systems, loss of air shall not cause the parking brake system to be inoperable."

The service brake portion of our Camtite is "sectioned" in white and the emergency or parking spring brake portion in black on the Dimensional Drawing page of the enclosed brochure (SB-102). The clampband (Item #12 on the Parts List page) is common to both the service and emergency/parking brake portion of the unit.

We would appreciate a reply to the question: "Would failure of the "common" clampband assembly during a service brake application which could cause both loss of air and the complete "disengagement" of the service brake pressure side, as well as the total emergency/parking spring brake portion of the unit, be in violation of the intent of paragraph S5.7.2.2. of FMVSS 121?".

Very truly yours,

C. W. Mohr -- Vice President-Marketing

[Graphics omitted]

[Graphics omitted] REPLACEMENT PARTS NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. TYPE 24 TYPE 30 TYPE 36 1 Cylinder Assembly 1 47-31737-9 -- 47-40108-9 2 Piston Assembly 1 47-31797-9 -- 47-40093-9 3 Felt Wiper Ring 1 47-31805-9 -- -- 4 Piston Seal Ring 1 47-31799-9 -- -- 5 Seal Ring 1 36-524615 -- -- 6 Nylon Bushing 1 47-31745-9 -- -- 7 Bulkhead Seal Ring 1 47-31800-9 -- -- 8 Retaining Ring 1 47-31804-9 -- -- 9 Bulkhead 1 47-31747-9 47-31738-9 47-40095-9 10 Machine Screw 1 47-36161-9 -- -- 11 Follower 1 47-31785-9 -- -- 12 Clamp Band Assembly 1 40-31061-9 40-31062-9 40-31063-9 13 Self Tapping Screw 2 47-40012-9 -- -- 14 Diaphragm 1 40-31251-9 40-31165-9 40-31252-9 15 Return Spring 1 47-31258-9 -- -- 16 Non Pressure Plate 1 47-31364-9 47-31267-9 47-40098-9 17 Filter 1 47-31971-9 -- -- 18 Stop Washer 1 47-31974-9 -- -- 19 Snap Plug 1 47-31975-9 -- -- 20 Release Bolt 1 47-31970-9 - 47-40105-9 21 Capscrew 8 46-31656-9 -- -- 22 Spring (Light) 1 41-31920-9 -- -- Spring (Medium) 1 41-31921-9 -- -- Spring (Heavy) 1 41-31922-9 -- -- Spring (Booster) 1 47-40112-9 -- -40101 Push Rod (8.00 Proj.) 1 47-36034-9 47-31986-9 47-40102-9 Spring Locator 1 47-40191-9 -- --

NOTE: The symbol -*- indicates part is identical to part number listed in first column. Parts that differ are listed under appropriate type number. Parts shown are for complete units.

DIMENSIONAL DRAWING REFERENCES

A. AIR INLET ORIENTATION STANDARD 22 1/2 degrees +/- 3 degrees

B. CLAMP BAND ORIENTATION STANDARD 45 degrees +/- 3 degrees C. PUSH ROD PROJECTION (See back page)

D. YOKE CENTER PROJECTION (See back page)

CAMTITE

NOMINAL SPRING FORCES (OUTPUT OF COMPLETE UNIT)

[Graphics omitted]

CAMTITE

SPRING RELEASE PRESSURE NOMINAL RELEASE SPRING TYPE PRESSURE +/- 10% BOOSTER 30 LIGHT (40) 40 MEDIUM (50) 51 HEAVY (60) 62 MEDIUM PLUS 81 BOOSTER HEAVY PLUS 91 BOOSTER

NOTE: FOR EASE OF INSTALLATION ALL UNITS ARE SHIPPED IN MECHANICALLY RELEASED POSITION.

[Graphics omitted]

PUSH ROD AND YOKE SIZES

PUSH ROD PROJECTION:

Push Rod Projection is the Distance the Push Rod Extends Out from the Mounting Face of the CAMTITE Chamber. When Replacing Service Brakes with CAMTITE Chambers, the Push Rod Projection Length will Remain the Same. CAMTITE Standard Projection Length is 1-3/4" TYPE OF PROJECTIONS PART CHAMBER AVAILABLE NUMBER 24 1-3/4" (Std.) 47-31512-9 24 8" 47-36034-9 30 1-3/4" (Std.) 47-31511-9 30 8" 47-31986-9 36 1-3/4" (Std.) 47-40101-9 36 8" 47-40102-9

Other projections available upon special request.

(Illegible Word) ASSEMBLIES:

CAMTITE Yoke Assemblies are Available and may be Ordered as Complete Assemblies Containing Yoke, Yoke Pin, and Cotter Pin, or the Assembly Components May be Ordered Separately.

For Special Applications Requiring the Yoke to be Applied at Factory the Dimension from the Mounting Surface of the CAMTITE Chamber to Center Line of the Yoke Pin Should Be Specified.

[Graphics omitted] ASSEMBLY DIMENSIONS PART NUMBER 1 2 3 4 D 1-3/ 40360479 1-27/32" 1/2" 9/16" 8" 3" 1-3/ 40360489 1-3/4" 5/8" 9/16" 8" 3" 13/ 1-3/ 40360499 1-7/8" 3/4" 16" 8" 3"

**Figures for "O" Represent Standard Dimension Using Push Rods with 1-5/4" Projection.