ID: nht88-2.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 22, 1988 EST

FROM: A. L. BRAGG -- LABORATORY MANAGER, TRUCK-LITE CO., INC.

TO: Z. TAYLOR VINSON -- SENIOR STAFF ATTY., NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF S4.1.16 AND S4.1.17 IN STANDARD NUMBER 108

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOV. 3, 1988 (EST) TO A. L. BRAGG, LABORATORY MGR., TRUCK-LITE CO., INC., FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: Our company currently manufactures several variations of stop, turn, and tail lamps that have a twelve square inch lens. Some particular models of this lamp also incorporate a ring of reflex reflector optics around the outside of the lens. It is our un derstanding that for the purposes of measuring the effective projected illuminated area of the lenses illuminated by an internal bulb, the reflex area (if present) must be subtracted from the total lens area, even though it may appear to transmit light. In the case of our particular lamps, we have a total of twelve square inches, from which we would subtract a four square inch area of reflex reflector which leaves eight square inches of effective projected illuminated lens area.

We note that the current FMVSS-108 document refers to SAE J586c, August 1970 for stop lamps and SAE J588e, September 1970 for turn signal lamps. A close reading of these standards indicates (to us at least) that for vehicles of eighty inches or more in width, an effective projected illuminated area of at least twelve square inches is required when two or more lamps are mounted closer together than twenty-two inches. We would further surmise that if a single stop/turn lamp were used or if two or mor e stop/turn lamps were used but that they were kept at least twenty-two inches or more apart, the twelve square inch rule would not be enforced and that eight square inches of effective projected illuminated area would be sufficient.

This matter is further complicated by the fact that in addition to the SAE standards just mentioned, there is a reference in S4.1.1.7 which seems to indicate that twelve square inches is required for vehicles ove eithty inches in overall width.

Our basic question is in reference to our combination lamp which has four square inches of reflector area and eight square inches of stop, tail and turn area. For vehicles over eighty inches wide can we advise our customers that these lamps may be us ed:

A) Singularly (that is one on each side of the vehicle in the rear) as a stop, turn, tail and reflex reflector?

B) In combination of two's or three's (on each side of the rear of the vehicle), provided that the lamps are separated by at least twenty-two inches?

We would be most grateful for your views and interpretation regarding the above. If we may offer any clarification, please feel free to contact us by letter or telephone.

ID: 19071.wkm

Mr. Jeff Glasman
Post Office Box 1449
Russell, Manitoba, Canada
ROJ 1WO

Dear Mr. Glasman:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you stated that you would like to sell the small ATV trailers in the United States that you produce in Canada and asked whether they would require a "Department of Transportation (DOT) number" in order to be shipped into the United States. The answer is no.

You described your trailer and enclosed pictures of it in your letter. The trailer averages about 6 feet in length and has a wheelbase of 46 inches, measured from the outsides of the tires. You stated that the trailers are manufactured for off-road use, primarily for hunters to transport their gear into the bush and haul out their game, although the trailers can also be used around a farm for feeding livestock, yard cleanup, and the like. Hunters typically transport an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and the ATV trailer on a skidoo trailer to the hunting area. There they unload the ATV and the trailer, pack their gear in the trailer, then proceed with their hunting trip. The trailers have no lights and do not have a wide enough wheelbase to be towed behind a car or truck. They are equipped with off-road ATV tires, which are slow-speed knobby tires. The trailers have no suspension and if towed behind a car, would bounce off the road. You stated that you advertise them as ATV trailers at places that sell ATVs, and that you do not advertise or sell them at car dealers or for any other on-road use.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (U.S.C), hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Based on the information you provided, including the pictures enclosed with your letter, it is our opinion that the ATV trailers that you produce are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. As such, they are not subject to any of the Federal motor vehicles safety standards, including the requirement for a "DOT number." The trailers are manufactured primarily for use off-road for hunting, farming, and related purposes. They are small, light, and with their ATV tires and narrow wheelbase are not only not suitable for towing on the highway but, because of their tendency to bounce around, could cause a potentially serious safety hazard on the highway. This contrasts with a grain truck or trailer that could be used to transport grain to market over the public highways as well as being used off-road in the fields. In such case, the on-road use of the vehicle would be sufficient to classify it as a motor vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (2020) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.4/21/99

ID: 22131.drn

Mr. Timothy Tassick
Innovtech LLC
5 West Byler Road
Mercer, PA 16137






Dear Mr. Tassick:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your product, a warning device called the "Collapse-a-Cone" must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you will market the product for use with motor vehicles with less than 10,000 pounds (lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). As explained below, because your warning device is designed to be carried in motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 does not apply to this product. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company, Innovtech, as the manufacturer, is subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) laws.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. l25 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) If sold for use with buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb, your company's warning devices must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the warning device is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 would not apply.

Please note, however, that even if not covered by Standard No. 125, your warning device, as an item of "motor vehicle equipment," is subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, "Motor Vehicle Safety." Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA should determine that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your devices are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

Finally, some states may regulate warning devices that vehicles with a 10,000 lb GVWR or less may or must use when the vehicle is stopped. Each state in which you sell your product can provide information on whether there are any requirements in that state for warning devices to be used with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,00 lb or less.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:125#VSA102(4)
d.10/17/00

ID: 20093.drn

Mr. Dean Liebegott
519 East Hudson Avenue
Altoona, PA 16602

Dear Mr. Liebegott:

This responds to your letter regarding use of city mass transit buses as school buses in Altoona. I apologize for the delay in responding. You are concerned about how school children could escape from a mass transit bus in the event of a crash, and note that transit buses do not have safety features such as the seats, bright yellow color, and lighting systems of school buses. As explained below, although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends that school buses (meeting our school bus safety standards) be used when school children are transported to or from school or for school activities, State law determines how the children are to be transported.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons (49 CFR 571.3). Our school bus definition excludes new buses designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. This means that a dealer selling a new bus to a transit authority is not required to sell a school bus if the bus is a transit bus used on regular common-carrier routes.

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not have the authority to prohibit transportation providers from using transit buses to transport school children. Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. We believe, however, that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and we strongly recommend the use of these vehicles to transport school children.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of school buses. I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." This guideline establishes NHTSA's recommendations for how pre-school age children should be transported in school buses.

If you have any further questions about our school bus program, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures

cc: Ms. Nuria Fernandez
Acting Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
400 Seventh St., SW Rm. 9328
Washington, DC 20590
cc: Mr. Bradley L. Mallory
Secretary
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Forum Place
555 Walnut Place
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1900

ref:VSA#571.3
d.11/18/99

ID: reversibleseat

Mr. Michael S. Hemenway
8389 Pleasantview Drive
Mounds View, MN 55112




Dear Mr. Hemenway:

This responds to your letter concerning the concept of "reversible front automobile seating".You stated that the concept involves an automobile seat that can be manipulated to face either the normal, forward-facing direction or a rear-facing direction, allowing the occupant to face the second row of seating. You specifically asked whether such a reversible automobile seat would be "allowed in the marketplace without . . . crash testing," if it was clearly stipulated that the reversible seat can only be used (1) when the vehicle is not in a drive gear ("Park" or "Neutral" w/parking brake), and (2) when the reversed seat is unoccupied by a person during travel.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable requirements.

We have issued a number of safety standards related to seats and occupant protection, including, but not limited to, Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, Standard No. 207, Seating systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.

In asking whether a reversible automobile seat would be allowed in the marketplace without crash testing in certain situations, I assume you are asking whether the vehicle would be subject to our crash test requirements with the seat in the rear-facing position. I note that the general issue of how a vehicle with reversible seats would be tested is relevant not only to crash test requirements, but also to various other requirements such as ones on seat strength, seat belts, and so forth.

In order to provide a complete answer to your question, it would first be necessary to identify and analyze each potentially relevant requirement, including any specified test procedures, to determine how the requirement would generally apply to a reversible seat in the rear-facing position. It would then be necessary to analyze whether the requirement would apply differently in special situations. While we are able to respond to specific requests for interpretation, we do not have the resources to provide this type of detailed analysis.

I would observe that, assuming a vehicle is subject to a particular test requirement with a reversible seat in the rear-facing position, the vehicle would not be excluded from that requirement merely because a warning was provided that the seat was not to be occupied in that position when the vehicle was in motion. A vehicle might be excluded if the reversible seat could only be used in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion. However, we would need to know more about the specific vehicle design before providing an interpretation, and would only provide it in the context of a specific test requirement.

Enclosed is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.7/11/05

ID: codemk-3

Mr. Jerel M. Sachs
General Manager, Automotive Glass
Import Products Glass (IPG)
385 West Street
West Bridgewater, MA 02379

Dear Mr. Sachs:

This responds to your June 26, 1995, letter requesting a manufacturer's code mark for automotive glazing to comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated in your letter that you "intend to engage in the manufacture and/or contract manufacture of automotive safety glass in the United States and overseas." Your letter also stated that you were negotiating for the tooling, machinery, and the code mark of Lin's Glass Company in Taiwan.

In a June 29, 1995, phone conversation between Paul Atelsek and a member of your staff, we learned that IPG only imports and distributes, but does not actually make, glazing. He was also told that Lin's has gone out of business, and that you had switched to another supplier in Taiwan. In a July 13, 1995, phone conversation with Mr. Atelsek, you confirmed that IPG makes no glazing and that your new supplier has a code mark assigned by NHTSA, but said that you preferred to use a "fresh" number assigned to your company. You said that other companies that do not make glazing have code marks assigned to them, and named another company that you said imports "cheap" Chinese glass and applies its own manufacturer's code mark in order to disguise the origin of the glass from its buyers. In a July 13, 1995, letter in support of your request, you stated that IPG would be doing contract manufacturing with a supplier who is also supplying other customers, and that having your own number would help you monitor quality control and track your product in the marketplace. You believe that having your own number would also benefit NHTSA because the agency would have an easier time implementing a recall through IPG than through the Taiwanese supplier.

As Mr. Atelsek explained on the telephone, we cannot issue a number to your company because you are not a "prime glazing manufacturer." Standard 205, at S6.1, defines "prime glazing material manufacturer" as "one who fabricates, laminates, or

tempers the glazing material." As your company does none of these things, we cannot issue a code mark to IPG. To show you that this is a matter of longstanding legal interpretation, I have enclosed some interpretation letters we have written to others asking this question and related questions.

The glass should be marked with the number we have assigned to your supplier, the prime glazing manufacturer in Taiwan. The practice you mentioned of using code marks to disguise the identity of the manufacturer is directly contrary to our policy. This code mark is supposed to help NHTSA identify the prime manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Therefore, the code mark on a particular piece of glazing needs to refer to the company that actually made the glazing, and code marks should never be applied to glazing made by anyone else.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:205 d:8/4/95

ID: 10151rop

Ms. Irene M. Thomas
1627 S. Ironton St.
Aurora, CO 80012

Dear Ms. Thomas:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you call a "CarMobile." The CarMobile is a type of strap to which three rings are sewn. The CarMobile attaches by "velcro" straps to the handrails located at the top of the interior rear car doors. You state that "Toys would be hung from the rings, so that babies and toddlers can play with them as they dangle in front of their carseats."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. However, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the CarMobile would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. '30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. NHTSA's safety standard for built-in child restraint systems (Standard 213) specifies requirements that ensure that the area surrounding a child in a built-in restraint is free from objects that could injure a child's head in a crash. If the CarMobile's cord and rings cause the vehicle with the built-in restraint to no longer comply with Standard 213, any of the aforementioned parties installing the CarMobile may have violated '30122.

The prohibition of '30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles, and would discourage them from hanging toys or other objects in front of a seated child that could injure the child in a crash. We also wish to point out that any kind of ribbon or line that can wrap around the neck of a child in a crash poses a potential risk of strangulation in a crash. You should consider these and any other relevant safety concerns when designing the CarMobile and when instructing consumers how to use the device.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:8/26/94 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: 18912.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
President
Monte Carlo Minis Limited, Inc.
2011 Pleasant Hill Church Road
Shelby, NC 28152

Dear Mr. Cox:

After you received our letter of September 29, 1998, you faxed Taylor Vinson of this Office several additional questions on October 6, 7, and 9.

You previously informed us that you were building Minis for export to Japan. On October 6 you asked "Do you want copies of the export shipping documents for proof that the new Minis are not being sold in the USA?" We appreciate your offer, but the export shipping documents would prove only that those particular Minis were not being sold in the United States. The documents would not cover any Minis that were not being exported.

You also asked "We assume that for compliance in the USA the rebuilt Minis have to be a rolling chassis, is this correct." In a second fax on the 6^th you explained that "A rolling chassis is one that rolls by itself and stops with brakes. It also has steering rack, brakes, engine and transmission and can be driven." We are not sure what your question is. As I explained on September 29:

"the agency's opinions over the years have been premised upon the fact situation of a vehicle in use being modified to incorporate a new body on its original chassis and one which retained its original title. We have said that the resulting vehicle would not be considered a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS."

You seem to be asking "We assume that, to excuse compliance in the USA, the rebuilt Minis have to use an original chassis with steering rack, brakes, engine and transmission." That is essentially correct. The vehicle must also retain its original title, i.e., must continue to be registered with its original model year designation.

You also asked "Why can the tires not be replaced [if they have] DOT markings?" We think you mean to ask whether a rolling chassis whose tires have DOT markings needs to have new tires when a new body is placed on the chassis. If the vehicle that results when a new body is placed on a rolling chassis is not considered a new vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new vehicles, then it need not have new tires but may retain its old ones.

Your October 7 fax is the first indication we have had that you intend to rebuild Minis for the American market. You ask:

"If we retain the rear brakes, drums, can we upgrade to 8.4 discs in the front, which will greatly help stopping distance, but this would require upgrade to 12 inch wheels and tires for the 8.4 inch discs will not fit over the 10 inch rims."

If your "rebuilt" Mini is a "new" vehicle, it must conform with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, "Hydraulic Brake Systems," no matter how it is designed, as well as with all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Finally, on October 9 you faxed us asking whether a statement had changed that was made to you in a letter of March 24, 1997, from this Office. That statement was "Because vehicles more than 25 years old are exempt from compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you are free to make modifications without violating our regulations." This remark was made with reference to pre-1973 Minis that you import. This remains true: a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old at the time of importation, and which was not originally manufactured for the U.S. market, is not required to be brought into conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.12/29/98

ID: 12600.drn

Mr. Vladimir Rabkin
Express Marketing Systems
1414 30th Avenue #5
San Francisco, CA 94122

Dear Mr. Rabkin:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your product, a warning device without a self-contained energy source, may be sold for use with motor vehicles that have a GVWR under 10,000 pounds. As explained below, although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot "approve" your product, the answer is yes.

In your FAX transmission, you asked for NHTSA's "review and approval" to market your product the "EMERSIGN" to the public and to car manufacturers. You stated, the "EMERSIGN is designed for vehicles that have GVWR under 10,000 pounds." A drawing enclosed with your transmission depicts a triangular object placed on one triangular point on a car roof. The words "Call 911" with a cross underneath the words are depicted on the triangle. Your product is described as having five basic signals for requesting "ambulance, police, fire engine, tow truck, and 'STOP'."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the triangles are flat and made of reflective material. A magnet is placed at one triangular point to facilitate placing the triangle on the vehicle. You stated that telescoping posts (which you described as "antennae") are also provided so that the triangle may be placed on the vehicle side, roof, trunk top or other places.

By way of background information, our agency NHTSA, is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

As you know, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 125 Warning devices. The application section (S3.) of Standard No. 125 states that: "the standard applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds."

Your FAX stated that the EMERSIGN is designed for vehicles that have a GVWR under 10,000 pounds. Thus, if the EMERSIGN is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds, Standard No. 125 would not apply, the EMERSIGN would not have to meet Standard No. 125's specifications, and you, the manufacturer, would not certify that the EMERSIGN meets Standard No. 125.

Even when sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds and no safety standard applies, other NHTSA laws may apply to the EMERSIGN. As an accessory to a motor vehicle, the EMERSIGN is an item of motor vehicle equipment. If either you or this agency should determine that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the EMERSIGN, you, the manufacturer, will be required to notify consumers and dealers, and remedy the safety related defect at no cost to the consumers and dealers.

The EMERSIGN may also be subject to the laws of the individual States. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but you can get information by contacting the Department of Motor Vehicles of each State in which you wish to market your product.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a NHTSA publication that provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:125
d:10/30/96

ID: 22311new

Mr. Takashi Yoshie
General Manager
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036





Dear Mr. Yoshie:

This is in response to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Specifically, you state that you believe that S7.11, Brake Power Unit or Brake Power Assist Unit Inoperative (System Depleted), of Standard No. 135 does not require a human test driver to apply the brake during the test, and that a brake testing unit may be used by vehicle manufacturers for in-house testing and by NHTSA for compliance testing. The issues you raise are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. 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.

We expect manufacturers to have some basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Under current law, certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, or computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written; i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for service and parking brake systems in order to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency driving conditions. It applies to passenger cars manufactured for sale in the United States on or after September 1, 2000, and to multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less manufactured on or after September 1, 2002. The test procedures for vehicles equipped with one or more brake power units or brake power assist units

are set forth in S7.11 of the standard. These procedures specify that the load applied to the brakes is less than or equal to 500 N (112.4 pounds).

You state that Toyota has observed large testing variability between test drivers with respect to the load that is applied during the S7.11 test. To reduce this variability, Toyota has developed a brake testing unit (BTU) that applies a pre-determined load onto the brake pedal to allow for consistent and repeatable brake applications. You state that for purposes of the test specified in S7.11, the BTU can be programmed to apply a load of, for example, 490 N to ensure that the 500 N limit is not exceeded. You believe that the use of a BTU complies with the test procedures set forth in S7.11 of Standard No. 135.

You are correct that Standard No. 135 does not specify that a human test driver be used to apply the brake during the S7.11 test. I note, however, that NHTSA does not currently have any plans to use a BTU in conducting compliance tests.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:135
d.3/8/01