ID: aiam4975

"Dear Mr. Danis: This responds to your letter about testing related t Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, (49 CFR 571.121). You explained that your company has recently conducted a compliance test on an articulated bus manufactured by MCI Greyhound Canada. According to your letter, the buses were tested using 28 psi for the brake actuation test and 40 psi for the brake release test. While these air pressures differ from the pressures specified in S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 for brake actuation and release times, you stated that MCI was relying on a July 23, 1976 interpretation issued by the agency to Mr. J.W. Lawrence of the White Motor Corporation that permitted such brake actuation and release pressures. We note that to be consistent with that interpretation, the maximum brake chamber pressure must have been 40 psi when the service reservoir pressure was at 100 psi. Your letter was not clear on that point. You asked whether this interpretation is still valid. As explained below, the answer is yes. In its inquiry to NHTSA, White Motor Corporation asked whether S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121 require minimum brake chamber actuation and release time pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi, respectively, or whether these air pressures are included in the sections only as 'bench marks' on which to base specifications for minimum actuation and release timing. In response, the agency's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter stated in relevant part that: Your understanding that S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 only specify the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi as the basis for timing requirements is correct. Neither value is intended as a requirement that the vehicle be designed to provide a certain level of brake chamber air pressure. The values were based on an understanding of the typical configuration of existing air brake systems at the time the final rule was issued. In response to your specific question, NHTSA's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter continues to be valid. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5094

"Dear Mr. James: This responds to your letter of October 24, 1992, wit respect to the Tekonsha electronic brake control. You believe that this agency has 'approved' this brake control. Based on your experience towing a travel trailer, you expressed concern about the safety of these particular electronic brake controllers when in service on the public roads, because the stop lamps on the towed vehicle are not activated when the electronic brake control is used to apply the trailer's service brakes. You asked us to review our thinking and 'rewrite the specs on this matter.' Let me begin by emphasizing that this agency has no authority to 'approve,' endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any items of motor vehicle equipment. All that our letters of interpretation purport to do is to answer questions from manufacturers and other members of the public as to whether the manufacture, sale, and/or installation of equipment is permissible under applicable Federal laws and regulations. Our letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, Tekonsha's manufacturer, which you quote at one point, was a letter of interpretation, which concluded that 'it now appears that the sale of the Tekonsha Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.' This letter and conclusion can in no way be read as 'approving,' endorsing, or recommending the use of the Tekonsha system. At this time, we do not have, nor are we aware of, any data indicating that there is a real-world safety problem created by use of the Tekonsha brake control. Hence, we have no reason to change the conclusion announced in the April 3 letter to Echlin about the legality of the Tekonsha control. We would be willing to review this matter again if data become available indicating a potential problem. Thus, if you or any member of your organization learns of any specific safety problems that have arisen for vehicles equipped with the Tekonsha control, please let us know. I appreciate your interest in highway safety. It is only through the concern and support of citizens like yourself that this agency can achieve its goal of minimizing deaths and injuries on this nation's highways. Thank you for taking the time to let us know your thoughts on this matter. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking";

ID: aiam1014

Dear Mr. Debesson: This is in reply to your submission No. 65/109 of January 23, 1973 petitioning that temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 be provided for European tire manufacturers who manufacture high speed tires. Your petition points out that Standards No. 109 does not allow the manufacture of high speed tires designed to be inflated to relatively high inflation pressures, but which do not have commensurate load-carrying ability at those pressures. You indicate that such tires are commonly used in Europe for high speed passenger cars, and have hot produced safety problems.; The temporary exemption regulations (49 CFR 555, copy enclosed), i accordance with the statutory authority under which they were issued (P.L. 92-548), apply only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. They do not apply to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and the relief which they provide is accordingly not available to tire manufacturers.; The NHTSA is of the opinion that the requirements of Standard No. 109 emphasizing the load-carrying as well as the high speed capability of passenger car tires, should be suited to driving condition which predominate in the United States. Despite the facts, as you mention, that it is possible for motorists to exceed postal speed limits, and that areas do exist where speed limits are not posted, the NHTSA believes the high speed requirements of Standard No. 109 are sufficient to guard against tire failures under these conditions. At the same time, the NHTSA will consider petitions to amend Standard No. 109, submitted pursuant to NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR 553.31, .33), and E.T.R.T.O. is free to petition to amend the standard to include requirements for European-type high speed tires. Your petition should contain full supporting data for the amendments requested. We would expect you as well to include possible performance requirements for such tires.; You refer briefly in your letter to the performance of these tires whe tested pursuant to the planned Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation. The NHTSA plans to publish in the very near future a revised notice of proposed rulemaking regarding this regulation, and we will be pleased to receive your comments to that proposal when it is published.; Yours truly, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam2915

Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your November 7, 1978, question whether the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) October 13, 1978, interpretation of the Ninth Circuit air brake ruling has revoked the exclusion of school buses from the 'no lockup' requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. You also ask if a bus which is designed identically to a school bus qualifies for the exclusion from 'no lockup' requirements if it is purchased and used for a purpose other than as a school bus.; The answer to the first question is no. The exclusion of school buse from the stopping distance requirements of Standard No. 121 (S5.3.1) remains in effect and was not altered by the October 13, 1978, interpretation.; The answer to the second question is also no. The exclusion fro service brake stopping distance requirements (including the 'no lockup' requirement) is limited to school buses, which are defined at 49 CFR S 571.3 as follows:; >>>'School bus' means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstat commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.<<<; The buses you describe would not qualify as 'sold ... for purposes tha include carrying students to and from school or related events.' Therefore, they would not qualify for the school bus exclusion.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2557

Dear Mr. Marick: This responds to your March 2, 1977, letter asking whether the Nationa Highway traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) still emphasizes or frequently conducts tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating tests as authorized by Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires*.; As you know, the bead unseating test procedure was adopted from th society of Automotive Engineers Practice J918. It is our understanding that the SAE continues to use this procedure for tire performance tests. The NHTSA is of the opinion that the bead unseating test procedure is a viable laboratory evaluation of the compatibility of a tire and rim combination. This has become especially important since 1975, when the table of approved alternative rims of Appendix A of Standard No. 110, *Tire and Rim Selection*, was deleted, and the tables of standards organizations were adopted. The bead unseating test provides an additional verification of the tire and rim combinations listed in the yearbooks of these organizations.; Standard No. 109 requires several tire performance test: physica dimensions, resistance to bead unseating, strength, endurance, and high speed performance. The NHTSA compliance testing is conducted on a random selection basis. In the case of tires, not every test is conducted on each brand of tire selected for compliance testing, Therefore, the bead unseating test is not always conducted during compliance testing. However, the agency does conduct bead unseating test whenever appropriate and will continue to do so.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 571.226--Pre-breaking glazing--Parker--17-001042

ID: aiam3123

Dear Mr. Finn:#This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. Specifically, you asked whether a 'barely discernible' light on the headlamp control, which is activated when the ignition is turned to the 'on' position, complies with the requirements of the standard. Under S5.3.3, 'any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable ....' Since the light in question is not activated when the headlamps are activated, it need not meet the intensity requirements of S5.3.3.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3122

Dear Mr. Finn:#This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. Specifically, you asked whether a 'barely discernible' light on the headlamp control, which is activated when the ignition is turned to the 'on' position, complies with the requirements of the standard. Under S5.3.3, 'any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable ....' Since the light in question is not activated when the headlamps are activated, it need not meet the intensity requirements of S5.3.3.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: nht72-1.47

DATE: 12/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kettler of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: A review of correspondence we sent you on October 6, 1972, (in response to your letter of September 26, 1972, concerning child seating systems you plan to import), has revealed that one statement we made should be clarified.

In the second paragraph of our letter we stated that each "seat must be labeled or tagged with a certification that it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), which applies to child seating systems, does require each child seating system to be labeled with information regarding its safe use, and we refer you to the standard for these requirements. However, with respect to certification, manufacturers are not limited to the method specified in our October 6, 1972, letter (viz., attaching a label to the seat), but may certify in other ways as well. For example, Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), on which the certification requirement is based, states that the certification may also be placed on the outside of the container in which the item is delivered.

We regret that our former letter was incomplete in this regard.

ID: aiam5114

"Dear Mr. Jinwala: This responds to your inquiry about a product know as the 'Comfort Cushion' that your organization is testing for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (49 CFR 571.302). According to the product's packaging that accompanied your letter, the Comfort Cushion is intended to be placed over seats in motor vehicles as well as in homes and offices. You stated that a Comfort Cushion you tested did not conform to Standard No. 302. You further stated that the product's manufacturer believes that Standard No. 302 only applies to a car's original equipment and does not apply to an aftermarket auto accessory. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ... In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to the Comfort Cushion, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Comfort Cushion will be during motor vehicle operations. In addition, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles since it is intended to be placed over the vehicle's seats. While it appears that the Comfort Cushion is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards setting forth performance requirements for such a device. Standard No. 302 would not apply to the device because that standard applies to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of the Comfort Cushion. The manufacturer of the product is 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 responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. A commercial business that installs the Comfort Cushion would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install the product on a vehicle. 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 vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installs an aftermarket item of rapidly burning material could vitiate the compliance of the materials that were present in the vehicle at the time of the vehicle's sale to the first consumer. Such an installation could constitute a possible violation of the render inoperative prohibition. Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Comfort Cushion in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";