ID: nht92-2.49

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: LEO WENSTRUP -- MANAGER - TECHNICAL SERVICES, EATON CORPORATION AXLE & BRAKE DIVISION

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: J. DOAN; B. PICKORNIK; B. WALTER

TITLE: BRAKE DYNAMOMETER CERTIFICATION TESTING

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-29-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO LEO WENSTRUP (A40; STD, 121)

TEXT: To Whom It may Concern,

Our company has been requested by a customer who uses our brake products in a City refuse fleet to pursue alternative lining materials. The reason for their request is the current lining formulation is very aggressive and prone to noise. This lining was chosen based on standard dynamometer certification testing as required by Section S5.4 and S6.2 of FMVSS-121 to a GAWR and rolling radius in excess of this fleets vehicle specifications.

It was decided to conduct certification testing to the exact vehicle specifications to optimize the brake performance for this customer. In reviewing the vehicles specifications, it was noted the maximum vehicle speed is governed to 45 MPH. This is below the initial speed of the fade portion of the FMVSS-121 dynamometer certification protocol in section S5.4.2.

At what speed should the fade portion of this certification be conducted in light of the fact the vehicle is incapable of meeting the test conditions?

I thank you in advance for your office's review of this enquiry and a timely response.

ID: 18981.wkm

Mr. Clive Glanville - PM
Italamec
Direzione Tecnica
Via R. Geymet, 25
10060 Campiglione Fenile (Torino)
Italy

Dear Mr. Glanville:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter telefaxed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked us to analyze the configuration of your back door latch system and provide you a "conformance certificate." You enclosed drawings of your latch system. Following a telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on February 12, 1999, you sent him another telefax in which you stated that you need "confirmation that when two tailgate latches are fitted to a tailgate, as to whether they both must have two safety positions and must meet the strength requirements." You further stated in this telefax that both latches are identical, therefore they do not constitute a "primary and secondary latch system." You attached a drawing to the February 12 letter depicting the back door of a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The drawing shows the latches located on either side of and near the bottom of the door. We have reviewed your latch system as you requested, but are not able to provide you a "conformance certificate," as discussed below.

This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The basic statute, commonly referred to as the Safety Act, establishes a self-certification system in which the manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment themselves certify that their product complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA checks compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them. The agency also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Because of that self-certification system, NHTSA cannot issue certificates of conformance.

Paragraph S4.4.1, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (copy enclosed), requires that "[E]ach back door system shall be equipped with at least one primary latch and striker assembly" (emphasis added). Also with respect to a back door or a back door system, a "primary door latch," as defined in S3, means "the latch or latches equipped with both the fully latched position and the secondary latched position"(emphasis added). The "fully latched position" is described in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991, as "[T]he attitude that exists between the latch and striker when the door is securely positioned in the fully closed position." The "secondary latched position" is described in SAE J839 as "[T]he attitude that exists between the latch and striker when the latch holds the door in a position less than fully closed." The secondary latched position serves as a backup to the fully latched position in the event the latter is not properly engaged, and adds an additional level of protection in the event the latch fails while in the fully latched position.

Back doors may, but are not required, to have one or more auxiliary latches, which is a latch other than the primary latch or latches in a multi-latch door system. ⁽¹⁾

Auxiliary latches are typically used in double cargo door systems where the primary latch or latches directly connect the left and right segments of the door system to each other while the auxiliary latch or latches secure one segment of the door system to the roof and/or the floor of the vehicle.

Since a back door latch system is only required to have one primary latch, your dual latch system may consist of a primary latch and one or more auxiliary latches. However, if you have two primary latches, that is, ones with both the fully and secondary latched positions, then both must meet the strength requirements in both the fully latched and secondary latched positions as specified in S4.4.1.1 through S4.4.1.4.

I am enclosing for your additional information copies of fact sheets prepared by this agency entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by telefax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief counsel
Enclosure
ref:206
d.7/15/99

1. Standard No. 206 does not refer to multiple latch systems as "primary" and "secondary" but, as discussed above, to "primary" and "auxiliary." We assume, therefore, that you mean that your latch systems do not fall into the categories of "primary" and "auxiliary."

ID: 8796

Mr. Alan Niedzwiecki
Director of Business Development
EDO Corporation
14-04 111th Street
College Point, NY 11356-1434

Dear Mr. Niedzwiecki:

This responds to your letter requesting information about this agency's activities related to cylinders for "compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle on-board motor fuel storage." According to your letter, EDO is developing an all-composite cylinder that has a safety factor of 3.5. You further explained that your company is planning to begin a conversion program using these cylinders.

Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff discussed your letter with your associate, Mr. John Vincenzo. Mr. Vincenzo said that EDO knows that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is conducting a rulemaking related to CNG cylinders. Mr. Vincenzo seeks confirmation that, until a rule results from that rulemaking, there is no Department of Transportation regulation with which your company is required to comply before you start your conversion program.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such cylinders. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, you are correct that you are not required to comply with any NHTSA safety standard related to CNG fuel systems.

However, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles 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 NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done. I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR 567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's "render inoperative" provision (108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed ... in compliance" with any FMVSS. Please contact us if you have further questions relating to the enclosed discussion.

I also note that the enclosed discussion is based on the FMVSS's that are currently in effect. As you know, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the "render inoperative" issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

With regard to present requirements for vehicle conversions, you should also note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

You were particularly interested in NHTSA's proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. In response to that proposal, the agency received over 55 comments (including one from your corporation), which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. In addition, please be aware that the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:303 d:8/l3/93

ID: nht93-6.10

DATE: August 13, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alan Niedzwiecki -- Director of Business Development, EDO Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/93 from Alan Niedzwiecki to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about this agency's activities related to cylinders for "compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle on-board motor fuel storage." According to your letter, EDO is developing an all-composite cylinder that has a safety factor of 3.5. You further explained that your company is planning to begin a conversion program using these cylinders.

Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff discussed your letter with your associate, Mr. John Vincenzo. Mr. Vincenzo said that EDO knows that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is conducting a rulemaking related to CNG cylinders. Mr. Vincenzo seeks confirmation that, until a rule results from that rulemaking, there is no Department of Transportation regulation with which your company is required to comply before you start your conversion program.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such cylinders. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, you are correct that you are not required to comply with any NHTSA safety standard related to CNG fuel systems.

However, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles 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 NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done. I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR S567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's "render inoperative" provision (S 108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to

work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed ... in compliance" with any FMVSS. Please contact us if you have further questions relating to the enclosed discussion.

I also note that the enclosed discussion is based on the FMVSS's that are currently in effect. As you know, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the "render inoperative" issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

With regard to present requirements for vehicle conversions, you should also note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

You were particularly interested in NHTSA's proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. In response to that proposal, the agency received over 55 comments (including one from your corporation), which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. In addition, please be aware that the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10496

Mr. R.C. Rost
Minnesota Body & Equipment
7380 Highway 101
Shakopee, MN 55379-3097

Dear Mr. Rost:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law requires buses used for Head Start to be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. You stated that the state of Minnesota recently adopted a law that prohibits such buses from being equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. I apologize for the delay in our response.

In an August 26, 1988 letter to you, NHTSA explained that "Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils such as those in Head Start programs." Federal law continues to require such buses to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, the Head Start buses referenced in your letter must be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. We have written to Major Glen Gramse of the Minnesota State Patrol to explain that the Minnesota law is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:4/10/95

ID: nht95-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: R. C. Rost -- Minnesota Body & Equipment

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/8/94 LETTER FROM R. C. ROST TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 10496)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law requires buses used for Head Start to be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. You stated that the state of Minnesota recently adopted a law that prohibits such buses from being equip ped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. I apologize for the delay in our response.

In an August 26, 1988 letter to you, NHTSA explained that "Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils suc h as those in Head Start programs." Federal law continues to require such buses to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, the Head Start buses referenced in your letter must be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. We have writte n to Major Glen Gramse of the Minnesota State Patrol to explain that the Minnesota law is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1995

FROM: Donnell W. Morrison

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

TITLE: RE. -49CFR571.108-S4, Table 1; 49CFR571.108-S4, Table 11

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DONNELL W. MORRISON (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

This responds to your April 10, 1995 reply to my February 14 and March 14, 1995 letters regarding the cited sections of the CFR.

If I understand your response the above cited sections of the CFR have not been amended since I left the DOT in March 1980. I therefore must conclude that the rear identification lamps required by 49CFR571.108 must be mounted as close to the top of the vehicle as is practicable.

My inquiry of March 14, 1995 mentioned the fact that I have seen many semitrailers on the highway with all the rear lights at bed level. By all lights I mean clearance, identification, stop, tail and turn signal lamps.

If the FMVSS108 has not been amended to allow all the rear lighting devices to be mounted at bed level has the NHTSA issued an interpretation to allow such mounting. If such an interpretation has been issued would it be possible for you to furnish me a copy.

I need to know where the rear lights have to be located to be able to finish my project and would appreciate a prompt response.

ID: 10036

George W. Sudenga, Esq.
Johnson, Sudenga, Latham & Peglow
118 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1180
Marshalltown, IA 50158-1180

Dear Mr. Sudenga:

This responds to your letter following up on my May 18, 1994, letter to your client, Mr. Neil Rowe, about Mr. Rowe's product, the "Glad Grip." In my letter, I provided information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and explained that NHTSA has not issued a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to a product such as the Glad Grip. In your followup letter, you indicated we did not answer your request for "approval of NHTSA in advance of major marketing efforts," concerning your client's product.

I regret that my earlier letter was unclear on the issue of NHTSA "approval" of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As I stated in the earlier letter, the agency has not issued any safety standards for the Glad Grip. Even if there were an applicable FMVSS, NHTSA would not "approve" the Glad Grip; rather, Mr. Rowe would self- certify his product.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:106 d:7/1/94

ID: 11414WKM

Mr. Alex Tartakovsky
Sales, Marketing Department
Unidex Group, Inc.
2400 Devon Avenue, Suite 205
Des Plaines, IL 60018

Dear Mr. Tartakovsky:

This responds to your letter of December 6, 1995, requesting information on any laws, standards, and/or regulations "covering snow chain use for roads and/or for motor vehicles." The short answer to your inquiry is that there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) or regulations regarding the use of snow chains.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. In this case, snow chains for use on motor vehicles would be considered motor vehicle equipment, defined at 49 U.S. Code '30102(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component." Thus, although NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of snow chains, the agency has not done so.

Some states regulate the use of snow chains, but this agency does not maintain such data. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information from:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Tel.: (202) 898-0145; FAX (202) 898-0745

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:VSA d:1/25/96

ID: nht94-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George W. Sudenga -- Esq., Johnson, Sudenga, Latham & Peglow

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/25/94 from George W. Sudenga to Marvin Shaw and letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Neil Rowe.

TEXT: This responds to your letter following up on my May 18, 1994, letter to your client, Mr. Neil Rowe, about Mr. Rowe's product, the "Glad Grip." In my letter, I provided information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requi rements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and explained that NHTSA has not issued a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to a product such as the Glad Grip. In your followup letter, you indicated we did not answer your re quest for "approval of NHTSA in advance of major marketing efforts," concerning your client's product.

I regret that my earlier letter was unclear on the issue of NHTSA "approval" of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. I nstead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As I stated in the earlier letter, t he agency has not issued any safety standards for the Glad Grip. Even if there were an applicable FMVSS, NHTSA would not "approve" the Glad Grip; rather, Mr. Rowe would self-certify his product.

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