ID: nht94-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1994

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

TO: Je, C. H. -- Doosan Corporation, Pusan Branch, Chungku, Pusan, Korea

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 6/28/94 Letter From C. H. Je To Vehicle Safety Standards

TEXT: This responds to your letter identifying your company as a "trading company" and asking for permission from the U.S. Department of Transportation to sell air bags in the United States. As I explain below, no such permission is necessary, but there are s ome requirements you should be aware of before you begin importing air bags.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for n ew motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 3 01 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(5)(B) as "a person . . . manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment [or] importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has exercised its authority under Chapter 301 to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Also, a phase-in of a utomatic crash protection requirements for light trucks is in progress. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requi rements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash pro tection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" t he performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dim ensions, actuation time, and the like.

It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as origi nal equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag is add ed to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply wit h all of the safety standards affected by the installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of St andard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the "make inoperative" prohibition in U.S. Code Section 30122(b), which provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard . . .

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to m otor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protec tion benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you c arefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. Please note the re gulations concerning manufacturer identification and designation of agent.

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

ID: nht94-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 1, 1994 EST

FROM: Williams, Harry L. Jr. -- President And Owner, Willy Lights Inc.

TO: NHTSA-Office Of The Chief Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/21/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Harry L. Williams, Jr. (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: I'm Harry L. Williams Jr. Inventor of WILLY LIGHTS following up on a letter I received from MR. GREG NOVAK Traffic and Safety Engr. FHWA Nevada Division. A copy of that letter is attached.

I'm writing in regards to my invention. I'm now in the process of marketing the product called WILLY LIGHTS. I feel that my product will help prevent accidents that is caused by a vehicle pulling out in front of another vehicle.

My product does not interfere with any standard safety equipment on a vehicle.

I would like to know if there still are no regulations prohibiting the use of lighted wheel rims. If not which color of lights may I use since it is on the side of the vehicle and you can not see the product from the front or rear of the vehicle.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at the above number.

Thank you for your time.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM THE DOT IN MINUTE - MEMO FORM:

SUBJECT REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

TO R J Bellard

I received a telephone call from Mr. Harry Williams (795-2334) requesting my assistance in the development of his invention to install lights on the wheel rims of vehicles. He was interested in learning about Federal regulations on such a device. I did not get further details but referred him to NHTSA in San Francisco. He called again after speaking to NHTSA there and on the Auto Safety Hot-line (1-800-424-9393) in Washington, D.C., saying that they said it was an FHWA matter. I agreed to follow up to minimize the [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] runaround he was getting, even though FHWA jurisdiction is very limited on vehicle equipment matters. I got some leads from Powell Harrison with NHTSA in San Francisco, and talked to the Crash Avoidance staff in D.C.

It appears that there are no regulations prohibiting the use of lighted wheel rims. Confirmation can be given if a written request is sent to:

NHTSA - Office of the Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

The lighted wheel rims could not, however, interfere with any standard safety equipment on a vehicle. That is handled by a self-certification statement from the manufacturer to NHTSA, so it would appear prudent for the inventor to have a copy of the vehicle standards for review beforehand. Although NHTSA will not test such a device initially because of policy, funding and manpower limitations, it may eventually purchase one once it is readily available in the marketplace. Such testing is done on a routine basis to be sure no regulations are violated and the product is free of defects. If defects are found, a recall notice could be issued. The manufacturer might have to pay damages to the purchasers in extreme cases. This quick summary in my in terpretation of NHTSA procedures after speaking with Mr. Larry Cook of the NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards - Crash Avoidance Division (NRM-II). I also spoke to Bill Leasure of the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Research - Heavy Vehicle Researc h Division (NRD-53) and he did not have any problems with the use of lighted wheel rims. He also did not have any funding to test the device.

I was referred, however, to the Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Mass. The Small Business Innovative Research Program is centered there, run by Mr. George Kouetch. I spoke to one of his assistants and found out that new devices are consid ered on an annual basis, with the next solicitation planned for February 1989. A committee reviews proposals that address identified problems, but it sounded like lighted wheel rims were outside the current list of problem areas. Funding for testing on ly those new devices recommended by the committee is available. A proposal could be sent in response to the next solicitation, or an unsolicited proposal could also be considered at the discretion of the committee. Any correspondence should be directed to:

Mr. George Kovatch

Transportation Systems Center (DTS-23)

Small Business Innovative Research Program

Cambridge, Mass 02412

Telephone (617) 494-2051

My general impression is that a considerable amount of preparatory work is required to get an invention to the general public. The cost of lighted wheel rims may make the idea hard to sell when there may not be that much of a problem with vehicle vis ibility (reflectors and sidelights are standard equipment on most vehicles). A cheaper alternative might be to provide retroreflective sheeting on the wheel rims or body side molding. A similar proposal is being considered for truck trailers but receiv ing resistance due to the added initial and maintenance cost involved. Lighted wheel rims may have application as an after-market device for enthusiasts to install as an option. As mentioned previously, it does not appear that there is a NHTSA regulati on prohibiting it.

I would recommend Mr. Harry Williams write to NHTSA to get written confirmation of that and obtain a copy of the associated vehicle safety regulations at the same time. He could review them and certify his device to be acceptable if it does not inter fere with any existing safety requirements. I will send him a copy of this minute memo to document my effort on his behalf.

cc: Powell Harrison, NHTSA Region 9

Larry Cook, NHTSA Washington D.C.

ID: nht67-1.13

DATE: 05/08/67

FROM: WILLIAM HADDON, JR., -- NHTSA

TO: EARL W. KINTNER -- ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/13/87, TO WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30(2), STANDARD 211; LETTER DATED 05/10/67, TO HAROLD T. HALFPANNY FROM LOWELL K. BRIDWELL; LETTER DATED 04/10/87 TO WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER FROM EDWARD J. BABBITT; LETTER DATED 03/30/87 TO ED BABBITT, FROM WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER; LETTER DATED 11/06/86, TO LARRY THUNDERBIRD AND MUSTANG FROM JOHN H HEINRICH AND J. MICHAEL ZEHNER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kintner:

This is in response to your letter of April 7, 1967, in behalf of the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) regarding the application of the Initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to original equipment and replacement parts.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer the questions which have been raised by the MEMA members and outlined in your letter. Before doing so, however, I would like to briefly discuss and clarify the effect of the actions taken March 29, 1967, by the National Traffic Safety Bureau, regarding Standard Nos. 111 and 206.

In your letter you have quoted certain language from the preamble to the amendments of Standards Nos. 111 and 206, and interpreted such language to mean that original equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, and replacement parts for vehicles manufactured on or after that date, fall within the regulations of these two Standards. I must advise that this interpretation is not correct. These standards as now amended no longer apply to equipment, but only to the vehicles specified in the standard when such vehicles are completed by the vehicle manufacturer on or after January 1, 1968.

It should be noted that where, as in the case of amended Standard Nos. 111 and 206, the paragraph designated "S.2" and entitled, "Application," refers only to vehicles and not to vehicle equipment, the person responsible for compliance is the vehicle manufacturer. This is true notwithstanding the fact that identifiable equipment may be referred to and made the subject of control in some other paragraph of the standard. For example, Standard No. 107, in paragraph S4, refers to the "horn ring and hub of sterring wheel assembly," and prohibits a specular gloss of the surface of such equipment from exceeding a specified brightness. The vehicle manufacturer is solely responsible for compliance with this requirement.

2

There are now sixteen of the twenty initial standards which require compliance only by the vehicle manufacturer. However, Standard Nos. 106, 205, 209 and 211 each refer to equipment for use in specified motor vehicles in the application paragraph. Compliance and certification is required by both equipment manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers with regard to these four standards.

I will now direct myself to your specific questions which I will quote and follow with a brief answer:

(1) Do all of the Initial Standards require compliance and certification by parts manufacturers as to replacement parts for vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968?

Answer: No, only Standard Nos. 106, 205, 209 and 211.

(2) Which of the Initial Standards, if any, apply to replacement parts produced on or after January 1, 1968, for vehicles manufactured prior to that date?

Answer: Standard Nos. 106, 205, 209 and 211.

(3) With respect to question 2, is a certification required of the affected equipment manufacturers in such cases?

Answer: Yes.

(4) With respect to questions 1-3, are the compliance and certification requirements any different where the replacement part involved are identical to the original equipment for vehicles produced on or after January 1, 1968?

Answer: No.

(5) Do the Initial Standards require manufacturers of original equipment produced on or after January 1, 1968, to certify their products?

Answer: The requirement for certification of motor vehicle equipment found in section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, provides in the pertinent part that:

3

"Every manufacturer or distributor of . . . motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such . . . equipment . . . the certification that each such . . . item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards . . ."(emphasis supplied).

It should be noted that neither the Act in section 114, nor the standards which are applicable to vehicle equipment, make any distinction between "original equipment" and "replacement equipment." Where applicable equipment is delivered to a "distributor" or "dealer," as those terms are defined in the Act, then certification is required. However, where such equipment is delivered to a vehicle manufacturer, as the term "manufacturer" is defined in the Act, then no certification is required. Therefore, if the term "original equipment" as used in your question is intended to mean equipment delivered to vehicle manufacturers for incorporation into new vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968, then the answer to your question is that no certification is required.

I trust that the foregoing response adequately answers the questions you have raised. However, if I can be of assistance to you with further clarification, please do not hesitate to let me know.

I very much appreciate your assurance of cooperation and support, in behalf of MEMA. Notwithstanding the fact that there will be numerous items of motor vehicle equipment, particularly replacement parts, which will not be directly regulated by the initial Federal Safety Standards, it is my earnest hope that MEMA manufacturers and all other motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, will make every effort to voluntarily comply with all of the standards in the interest of motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht90-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: RALPH H. SHEPPARD, -- ADDUCI, MASTRIANI, MEEKS & SCHILL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/11/90 FROM RALPH H. SHEPPARD; IMPORTATION OF A NON-CONFORMING VOLVO CAB CHASSIS INTENDED FOR RE-EXPORT TO SWEDEN; OCC 4872

TEXT: This is in reply to your facsimile letter of June 11, 1990, with regard to the imminent importation of a "Volvo truck cab chassis manufactured in Belgium pursuant to Swedish environmental and safety standards." Given the time restrictions of your client, we have given this matter priority attention.

The unit would be imported by your client, BAF Communications Corporation of Massachusetts, for completion as a mobile television transmission facility, and, upon completion, would be exported to Sweden. You believe that the unit may be eligible for tem porary importation into the United States under at least one of four compliance exceptions that you have listed, and you have asked for confirmation of your belief.

This is a case of first impression under the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-562) and its implementing regulation, 49 CFR Part 591, which became effective January 31, 1990. None of the four exceptions you cited are exactly on po int with the facts in this case, but we believe the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) may be broad enough to accommodate your client.

Your first suggestion is that temporary importation be allowed pursuant to section 591.5(c); the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards but is "intended solely for export. . . and the vehicle bears a label or t ag to that effect." However, your client does not intend to import the chassis cab "solely" for export, but, in fact, to complete its manufacture before its export.

Under your second suggestion, temporary importation would be allowed pursuant to section 591.5(d), where the importer certifies that (s)he is a nonresident of the United States, importing the vehicle for personal use for a period not to exceed one year, and will export the vehicle not later than one year after entry. You report that the president of the Swedish company, "the ultimate purchaser of the completed vehicle, and a non-resident of the United States, is prepared to certify that the vehicle wou ld be imported solely" for its completion, and that it would be exported thereafter. However, this is not appropriate as the importer of record, your client BAF, is in fact a resident of the United States.

You have also suggested that importation might be accomplished pursuant to section 591.5(a)(1), that the vehicle was not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. In your view, this exception may apply as the vehicle will not be manufactured p rimarily for use on the public roads of the United States. We cannot concur with this interpretation. This exception is intended to apply to vehicles manufactured primarily for off-road use, such as golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, and farm tractors. The completed chassis cab would be intended for on-road use and could, at some future time, be reimported into the United States for use here.

Finally, you believe that the unit could be imported under section 591.5(e) as a vehicle requiring further manufacturing operations to perform its intended purpose. This is not fully appropriate because the importer must also declare that "upon completi on of such further manufacturing operations [the vehicle] will comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards."

In a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 14, you informed us that the owner of the chassis cab is Comvik Skyports, a Swedish corporation. From the standpoint of Part 591, the most appropriate solution would be for the Swedis h company to appear as the importer of record (rather than BAF), and we understand that you believe that this course of action could be followed. Although one of the requirements of the regulation is that the importer provide a passport number and count ry of issue, this assumes that the importer is an individual, not a corporation. It will be sufficient for our purposes for the declaration to note that Sweden is the residence of Comvik. This suggested course of action would fulfill the non-resident im portation requirements of section 591.5(d).

However, because this is a case of first impression and because the U.S. Customs Service, not the Department of Transportation, is the Federal agency directly involved in admitting vehicles into the United States, it is possible that Customs might be rel uctant to admit a vehicle intended for completion for commercial purposes as one imported for "personal use." If Customs is unwilling to admit the chassis cab under section 591.5(d), but is willing to admit it as imported "solely for export", we would al low importation under that provision. Alternatively, if Customs regards importation under the further manufacturing operations exception of section 591.5(e) as appropriate, we would not object to this as long as it is clearly marked on the HS-7 importati on form that the vehicle will not conform with the Federal safety standards upon its completion, but will be exported at that time.

Regardless of the category under which the chassis cab is admitted, BAF must fulfill a statutory requirement outside the importation requirements upon completion of its manufacturing operations if it is to avoid a potential liability for a civil penalty. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) prohibits any person from manufacturing a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal safety standards upon completion of manufacture. However, it excuses th ose vehicles intended solely for export and so labeled (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)). Therefore BAF should affix a label or tag to the chassis cab stating that the vehicle is intended for export.

ID: nht94-1.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA Inc. (Bedford, VA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Clifford Anglewicz (Sec 102); Also attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from John M. Tolliday to John Womack (OCC 9063)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars." The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine.

By way of background, I would like to discuss how military vehicles manufactured in the United States are treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The first qu estion to be answered is whether any particular vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Safety Act, that is to say, whether it is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. If we conclude that a vehicle is manufac tured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle. As for individual vehicle types, to state the obvious, a tracked motor vehicle such as a tank intended for cross-country off-road terrains is not a "motor vehicle." If a vehicle, suc h as a military bus, has been manufactured primarily for on- road use, it is a "motor vehicle." However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forc es of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)). Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful milita ry life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS (however, because of safety policy considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV vehicles).

The importation of used military vehicles manufactured abroad is governed differently. Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether a Ferret, at the time of importation, would be considered a "motor vehicle." In an interpretation concerning an "armored security vehicle" then being used by the U.S. armed for ces, we informed the manufacturer, Verne Corporation on August 7, 1989, that the vehicle would have to conform to the FMVSS if sold for civilian use. I enclose a copy of that interpretation. We believe that this interpretation applies to the Ferret as well, and, therefore, the vehicle is not exempt from the FMVSS. Because of the

overall configuration of the Ferret with its high approach and departure angles and its suitability for use on rough terrain, the FMVSS that would apply are those that must be met by a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Assuming you are still interested in importing the Ferret's for resale, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the Ferrets be imported by a "re gistered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet t he FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

ID: aiam1700

Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your November 13, 1974, question whether a combinatio vehicle which consists of an air- braked truck tractor and an electrically-braked trailer would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, effective January 1, 1975, for trailers and March 1, 1975, for trucks and buses. The electric brakes on the trailer would be actuated by a Warner Electric brake controller that is designed to be mounted in the truck's air control line to respond to air brake signals generated by the truck's service brake control.; Standard No. 121 applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped wit air brake systems. Therefore, the trailer which is electrically-braked is not required to comply with the standard.; It appears from the Warner literature that you enclosed that the truc tractor would be equipped with air brakes and would therefore have to comply with the standard. I would like to point out that air-braked truck tractors manufactured after March 1, 1975, must be certified to comply with the requirements of the air brake standard. If a person modifies the air brake lines on such a truck tractor before the first retail purchase by the addition of the Warner controller, that person must certify that the truck still meets the standard as modified.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1699

Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your November 13, 1974, question whether a combinatio vehicle which consists of an air braked truck tractor and an electrically-braked trailer would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, effective January 1, 1975, for trailers and March 1, 1975, for trucks and buses. The electric brakes on the trailer would be actuated by a Warner Electric brake controller that is designed to be mounted in the truck's air control line and to respond to air brake signals generated by the truck's service brake control.; Standard No. 121 applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped wit air brake systems. Therefore, the trailer which is electrically-braked is not required to comply with the standard.; It appears from the Warner literature that you enclosed that the truc tractor would be equipped with air brakes and would therefore have to comply with the standard. I would like to point out that air-braked truck tractors manufactured after March 1, 1975, must be certified to comply with the requirements of the air brake standard. If a person modifies the air brake lines on such a truck tractor before the first retail purchase by the addition of the Warner controller, that person must certify that the truck still meets the standard as modified.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-2.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/24/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: THOMAS A. COZ -- SENIOR ATTORNEY NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES LAW DEPARTMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/28/89 FROM THOMAS A. COZ -- NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES TO NHTSA, RE HIGH MOUNTED TRAILER STOP LAMPS/TURN SIGNALS; OCC 3469; LETTER DATED 01/13/88 FROM L.F. ROLLIN -- DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL TO THOMAS A. COZ -- NORT H AMERICAN VAN LINES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Coz:

This is in reply to your letter of April 28, 1989, with respect to the legality under Standard No. 108 of supplemental lighting devices that North American Van Lines has installed on some of its trailers. To assist us in answering your question, you hav e enclosed a photograph of a trailer retrofitted with the supplemental devices, and a videocassette. However, the "Final Specs" sheets referenced in your letter were not enclosed.

The lamps in question are stop lamps/turn signal lamps which are mounted above the maximum mounting heights specified in Standard No. 108. You believe that this is permissible because they are supplemental to the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps which are mounted within the limits specified in the standard. However, the Department of California Highway Patrol has informed you that this agency does not differentiate between original and supplemental equipment, and requires that both origin al and supplemental lighting equipment must conform to the mounting requirements.

We are not aware of the basis of the California opinion. The only requirement of Standard No. 108 for supplemental lighting equipment on vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale is the restraint of paragraph @5.1.3 that they not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard.

Retrofit by North American Van Lines itself of its own vehicles after the first purchase for purposes other than resale is permissible under Federal law. However, if the retrofit were performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle rep air business, the operation would be subject to the restraint of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) that it not render inoperative, in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in acco rdance with Standard No. 108. Subject to these constraints, a

mounting height that exceeds the maximum specified by Standard No. 108 is permissible for supplemental lighting equipment. We interpret "partially inoperative" as also meaning "partially ineffective". The location of your lamps as shown in the photogra ph you enclosed does not appear to "render inoperative" any other lighting device or affect its effectiveness.

We note that the retrofitted trailer in the videocassette does not appear to be equipped with the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108. Further, unless the clearance lamps are combined with the supplemental stop/turn signals in both the vi deocassette and the photograph you enclosed, they too appear to be missing. If the clearance lamps are combined with the supplementary lamps, care should be taken that the supplementary lamps do not "render inoperative" the clearance lamps. Although, a s noted above, the Act permits an owner to modify his vehicle in a nonconforming manner, the operation of your interstate highway trailer is subject to the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, which require t hat identification and clearance lamps be provided for these trailers.

We are returning your videocassette.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 20180.ztv

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4402

Dear Senator Hatch:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1999, requesting our advice on "existing law regarding motor vehicle lighting and how that law affects a recent invention," which is described as an "enhanced motor vehicle warning system" ("the System").

Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these standards prescribes performance requirements for both original and replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment, 49 CFR 571.108, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicles to be manufactured in accordance with its requirements and prohibitions.

The System works as follows. When a vehicle's horn is sounded, the System also flashes the vehicle's headlamp upper beams and its backup lamp or lamps. As you point out, paragraph S5.5.10(b) of Standard No. 108 allows the headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes. However, as you also point out, S5.5.10(d) states that all other lamps shall be steady burning, and you conclude that the System would appear to violate this clause. You have asked for "an official interpretation of the rule to determine if the rear lamps, when connected to this device, would violate (d)."

Your interpretation is correct; S5.5.10(d) does not allow the backup lamp or lamps to flash when in use, and the System is not permissible because it flashes the backup lamps.

S5.5.10(a) specifies that hazard warning system lamps be wired to flash. One of your staff members discussed with us whether the System would be allowable were it modified to operate through the hazard warning system, which flashes in normal operation when activated by the driver, rather than through the backup lamps, which do not flash in use. The acceptability of such a

Standard No. 108. This paragraph prohibits the installation of additional equipment on a vehicle if it would "impair the effectiveness" of lighting equipment required by the standard. In recent years, we have come to the conclusion that use of required lighting equipment for other than its original purpose may compromise and reduce its safety effectiveness. As we said in 1996,

It is important that the integrity of the required signal lamps be maintained, and that auxiliary signal lamps not detract attention from the messages that the required signal lamps are sending. A vehicle signaling system must be as simple and as unambiguous as possible to others who share the roadway if traffic is to proceed in a safe and orderly fashion. (61 FR 65516)

We believe that a hazard warning system should not be used for the auxiliary purpose of providing an optical warning when the horn is sounded, since such a warning bears no relationship to the original purpose of a hazard warning signal and thus could create confusion about the meaning of the hazard warning signal. For this reason, we conclude that S5.1.3 would prohibit the optical warning system you describe even if it were modified to operate through the hazard warning system lamps.

In the event that the System is precluded by Standard No. 108, you have asked about our procedure for petitioning for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108. These procedures are set forth in 49 CFR 552.4. The petition must contain the name and address of the petitioner and be addressed to the NHTSA Administrator. It must be in the English language, prefaced by the word "Petition," set forth facts in support of an amendment, and contain a brief description of the substance of the requested amendment. We are required to inform the petitioner within 120 days whether the petition is granted or denied. If the petition is granted, action on it may not be immediate as the petition must take its place among other rulemaking priorities.

Petitioners for changes in signaling lamp requirements should become familiar with the policy statement we issued in 1998 discussing how we evaluate rulemaking petitions to require or permit new or different signal lighting or signal lighting actuation (63 FR 59842). I enclose a copy for your information.

You also express your understanding that "NHTSA can issue a letter stating that Standard 108 does not preclude the use of this device in new vehicles, thereby allowing this invention to be installed on new cars." We do provide interpretive letters of this nature when a product does not conflict with the requirements and prohibitions of Standard No. 108. For the reasons indicated above, we cannot provide such a letter for this System.

Although a copy of the patent of the device and related application data did not accompany your letter, we did not need this information for purposes of this interpretation. If your staff has further questions, they may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263), the attorney who has previously spoken with your office on this subject.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.8/5/99

ID: nht76-3.46

DATE: 01/08/76

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

TO: B. F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 28, 1975, question whether use of compressed air from a trailer air brake system to supply non-brake equipment such as an air suspension would violate the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 121 does not contain a prohibition on the use of air pressure from the air brake system for powering auxiliary devices. The vehicle must of course conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of the device, if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. For example, the brake actuation timing would still be required to meet S5.3.3 of the standard.

Although not a requirement of the standard, the NHTSA does consider it appropriate that a pressure protective valve be placed in the line to the auxiliary device so that a rupture of an auxiliary line does not cause depletion of air pressure in the brake system.

With respect to your request for approval of four installations of auxiliary equipment, the NHTSA does not issue approvals of specific designs, and therefore cannot state that vehicles modified in the described fashion would or would not be capable of meeting all requirements of the standard.

YOURS TRULY,

B. F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company

August 28, 1975

R. L. Carter Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

The B.F. Goodrich Company has received numerous requests from our trailer customers asking for our approval to obtain air for auxiliary items, such as air suspension bags from the anti-skid air system.

Attached is one copy each of four drawings, Nos. 1998-42-43-44-45 which shows four different places in the anti-skid air system that air could be obtained for auxiliary items. Drawing -45 shows taking air from the Sealco Ratio Relay Valve. To assist you in evaluating this drawing, we are attaching a Sealco pamphlet describing the operation of the Ratio Relay Valve. We would appreciate your review and interpretation as to whether any or all of these methods would violate the requirements of MVSS-121. We would appreciate an early review of these proposed methods of obtaining air for auxiliary systems so that we will be in a position to properly advise our customers.

If you have any questions concerning information on the attached drawings please do not hesitate to contact me. I will look forward to a response from you and thank you for your consideration.

D. L. Haines Divisional Manager, Quality Assurance

B.F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company

December 1, 1975

R. L. Carter Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: Anti-Skid - Containment of Air for Auxiliary Items

Ref: My letter of August 28, 1975

Dear Mr. Carter:

Attached to referenced letter I sent one copy each of four drawings, Nos. 1998-42,43,44,45, showing four different areas in the anti-skid air system that air could be obtained for auxiliary items, such as air suspension bags.

As of this date, we have not received a response on your review and interpretation as to whether any or all of these proposed methods would violate the requirements of MVSS-121.

As I pointed out, B.F. Goodrich has received numerous requests from our trailer customers asking for our approval to obtain air for auxiliary items. Therefore, your prompt response to my August 28 letter will be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

D. L. Haines Divisional Manager, Quality Assurance