ID: 20592.ztv

Mr. John Harland
HarLand Rover Restorations
6-8 Mary St.
Stockton-on-Tees
Cleveland TS18 4AN
England

Fax 011-44-1642-649-688

Dear Mr. Harland:

We are responding to your request for an interpretation, addressed to Taylor Vinson of this Office, which we received on September 2, 1999.

We understand that the U.S. Customs Service will not allow entry into the United States of four Land Rover motor vehicles pursuant to the declaration that "the vehicle is 25 or more years old." You assert that these Land Rovers are restorations of vehicles that are more than 25 years old, and should be allowed entry under this declaration without the need to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We note that such an entry is permitted by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, specifically by sec. 30112(b)(9).

Although you describe your modifications as "restorations," the question that we must decide is whether you are, in fact, restoring a motor vehicle that is 25 or more years old, or whether your operations go beyond restoration and must be regarded as assembling or manufacturing a motor vehicle; if the latter, then the vehicles can be imported only if they comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to them on the date of their assembly or manufacture.

There is no definition of "restoration" in Chapter 301. This word is defined by the Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary (Special Second Edition, 1996) as "3. A return of something to a former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition." We believe that this is a generally accepted use of the word, especially as it pertains to the restoration of motor vehicles.

You have listed the items retained from the original vehicle, noting that "some were repaired, some were modified to accept accessories, all were stripped and refinished to as new condition." Original items retained are: "rear bodies, rear side panels with windows, all floors, side T-frames, bulkhead assembly, side rear doors (modified to accept modern door locks), front, top and side fenders, seat frames and cushions (retrimmed), seatbase with all bracketing, rear door (complete), all sill panels, transmission tunnel assembly" and "numerous smaller components; wiper motor assembly, fuel tanks and filler assemblies, heater assembly, steering rods, bumpers, headlight assemblies, hinges, brackets for body mount, crossmembers, various interior and exterior bracketry." You also retain "original VIN plates."

Other items of equipment are used, and come from Land Rovers whose ages are not specified as being over 25 years old. These are: "frames, axle casings, engine core units (on three vehicles), bonnets (on three), fender flares, radiator front panels (on three), steering boxes (to switch to safer LHD)."

Finally, there are the equipment items that are new and have not been used before: "signal light assemblies, stereo and speakers, batteries, electric window kits, air-conditioning kits (NAS kits approved for use in the US), mudflaps, side runners, winches (on two), bull bars (on two), skid plates, wheels and tires, springs and shock absorber kits, driving lights (on three), seatbelt shoulder harnesses, engine rebuilding parts, axle and steering rebuilding parts, wiring harness for interior, carpeting and soundproofing kits."

After reviewing these facts, we have concluded that your operations do not result in a return of these motor vehicles "to a former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition" within the meaning of the definition of "restoration." There are significant differences between the vehicles that come to you and those that leave you. The original vehicles were equipped with RHD (right hand drive) which you have converted to LHD (left hand drive). You appear to have added air-conditioning intended specifically for use in the United States, electric windows, and stereos and speakers, none of which were original equipment on the Land Rovers. For these reasons, we cannot accept your assertion that you are merely restoring Land Rovers that are 25 or more years old.

Instead, we have concluded that you are a "manufacturer" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. In pertinent part, a "manufacturer" is a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A)). The extent of disassembly of the original vehicle, the substitution of equipment not used in the original vehicle such as the engine and frame, and reassembly with certain items of new equipment is "manufacturing or assembling" within the meaning of the definition of "manufacturer." It follows from this that we regard the date of manufacture of your Land Rovers as the date that you complete the operations you have described in your letter. In short, though the original Land Rover may have been manufactured in 1974 or earlier, the vehicles refused entry into the United States are considered to have been manufactured in 1999.

This conclusion also means that these (and future) Land Rovers cannot be entered into the United States unless and until they conform and are certified as conforming to current Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles. You cite an agency interpretation stating that a vehicle that is produced from a chassis which has already been sold to the public is not considered a new vehicle and is not subject to Federal safety standards and certification requirements. This interpretation does not apply to your fact situation, and we do not need to decide whether the Land Rovers you manufacture in 1999 employing a used chassis are or are not "used" vehicles. Under Chapter 301, no motor vehicle less than 25 years old, whether new or used, can be imported into the United States unless it conforms, and is certified as conforming, to the Federal safety standards that were in effect at the time it was manufactured (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)).

As the United States is a market of interest to you, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be pleased to provide you with guidance on the requirements of Chapter 301 and other Federal regulations that apply. You may write its Director, Ms. Marilynne Jacobs, for assistance.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.9/29/99

ID: 20629.drn

Mr. Joseph P. Brennan
Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Sate-Lite Manufacturing Co.
6230 Gross Point Road
Niles, IL 60714

Dear Mr. Brennan:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your "new 12 oz. Automotive Emergency Warning Triangle" must meet Standard No. 125, Warning devices. You stated that the triangle is designed to be attached to a vehicle's window and can be deployed without leaving the automobile. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you will market the product for use with motor vehicles less than 10,000 pounds (lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). As explained below, because your warning triangle 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, Sate-Lite, 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 triangles must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the warning triangle 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 triangle, 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 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.)

You describe your product as meeting Standard No. 125's requirements for "retroreflectivity and fluorescence." In subsequent marketing efforts, please do not mention your product in conjunction with Standard No. 125. Although we understand that Sate-Lite is only citing the product's retroreflectivity and fluorescence features, we are concerned that some customers may interpret the statement to mean that the product meets all Standard No. 125 requirements. Customers who may believe your product meets Standard No. 125 may decide to use it in conjunction with vehicles 10,000 lb GVWR or greater, a use for which your product is not intended.

Finally, some states may regulate warning devices that vehicles 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 whether there are any requirements in that state for warning devices to be used with vehicles that are 10,000 lb GVWR 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#VSA
d.10/22/99

ID: 20662.ztv

Mr. Mark Steele
Steele Enterprises
225 Merrill Place
Goshen, IN 46528

Dear Mr. Steele:

We are replying to your letter of June 28, 1999, which did not reach this Office until mid-September. I apologize for the delay.

You are interested in the acceptability of possible ABS warning systems under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Noting that the standard requires stop lamps to be steady burning and hazard warning lamps to flash, you have asked:

"1. Can an OEM automatically initiate the hazard flashers upon the application of the vehicle's ABS? This would pertain to all motor vehicles, including: automobiles, trucks and motorcycles."

The answer is no, for the following reasons. The hazard warning system operates by simultaneous activation of all turn signal lamps. Standard No. 108 permits rear turn signal lamps to be either red or amber. It is the common practice of vehicle manufacturers who choose red to use the same filament within a bulb to indicate separately the stop and turn functions, e.g., when the turn signal is flashing there is no separate indication that the brakes are applied. In this configuration, use of the hazard system to indicate application of the ABS would result in, first, a steady burning signal indicating the brakes are applied, followed by a flashing signal indicating application of the ABS. This, in essence, would be perceived as a flashing stop lamp which, as you note, is not permitted by Standard No. 108. We would also regard this configuration as a noncompliance with S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, which prohibits the installation of additional lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. In this configuration, the stop signal would cease to function when the brakes are still applied.

We believe that impairment would also result within the meaning of S5.1.3 when the rear turn signal system is comprised of amber lamps. In this configuration, the stop lamps would be activated when the brakes are applied, followed by separate flashing amber lamps to indicate activation of the ABS. The sudden presence of flashing amber lamps dilutes the unmistakable message the stop lamp is sending, and can result in at least momentary confusion in the driver following a vehicle equipped with the ABS warning system.

Finally, as a matter of interest, motorcycles are not required to have hazard warning systems.

"2. Can an OEM automatically actuate a new set of lights on the rear of a vehicle to indicate that the vehicle's ABS has been activated?"

The answer again is no. Installation of supplemental lighting equipment is permitted by S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We believe that an additional and unfamiliar lamp that is activated immediately following activation of the stop lamps has the potential to cause confusion and momentary hesitation in a following driver, and, in that sense, impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps.

"3. Can a product be sold in the aftermarket that would initiate the flashing of new or existing signal lights upon application of a vehicle's ABS?"

As we have discussed, installation of such a product by an OEM would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Sale of the product per se is not an illegal act, but installation on a vehicle of a product that creates a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is expressly prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 when that device is installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Further, use of such a product is also subject to the laws of the various States in which a vehicle is registered or used.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/7/99

ID: 20663geninfokim.df

Mr. Hoon Young Kim
c/o Fullerton Restaurant
2400 W. Fullerton
Chicago, IL 60647

Dear Mr. Kim:

This responds to your recent letter to us generally describing a child restraint system that you wish to manufacture. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of new motor vehicle equipment, including child restraint systems.

We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. Under that authority, we issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), which sets forth requirements which must be met by all devices designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh not more that 50 pounds. Standard No. 213 requires, among other things, that the restraint protect a test dummy during a 30 miles-per-hour (mph) crash while the restraint is secured to a test seat assembly with just a lap belt, that the restraint meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 and that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on the proper use of the restraint. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of these standards.

The United States does not use a certification process similar to that of the European community in which a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is required to deliver the equipment to be certified to a governmental agency for testing and approval. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint complies with the requirements of Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend that a manufacturer producing child restraints for the first time conduct some testing of the restraint prior to certifying compliance with Standard No. 213, especially for the protection requirements in a 30 mph crash. Once the manufacturer determines that its child restraint meets the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by putting the appropriate language on the label permanently attached to the restraint.

For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts spot checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with Standard No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Our statute specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers and either:

1. repair the child restraint, so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or
2. replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Included among those responsibilities is a procedural requirement for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). Our regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which a standard applies (e.g., child restraint systems) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it begins manufacture.

Please note two recent amendments to Standard No. 213 made by a March 5, 1999 final rule (copy enclosed). The first requires forward-facing child restraints to meet a new 28-inch head excursion requirement in addition to an existing 32-inch head excursion requirement. Another amendment requires child restraint systems manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 to be equipped with connectors that attach to an independent child restraint anchorage system in vehicles. We are in the process of completing our response to petitions for reconsideration of the March 1999 final rule. (The first part of our response was published on August 31, 1999, 64 FR 47566, copy enclosed.) As part of your responsibility as a manufacturer, you must keep current on the requirements affecting your manufacture and sale of child restraint systems.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d.11/5/99

ID: 20674.ztv

Mr. Vann H. Wilber
Director, Vehicle Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW - Suite 1409
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Wilber:

We are replying to your letter of September 10, 1999, with reference to marking headlamps with the symbol "DOT."

Paragraph S7.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, requires the lens of each headlamp and beam contributor to be marked with the symbol "DOT" to certify its compliance with all applicable requirements. You state that "lens" can be interpreted on some contemporary headlamp designs to "include several elements on the reflector or other interior components that contribute to the photometric performance of the forward light." You ask that we interpret S7.2(a) to allow the DOT symbol to be located on internal optical elements "as long as it is visible from the front when installed on the vehicle without removal of any part."

You reference our interpretation of April 25, 1996, to Guy Dorleans "that could appear to conflict with the interpretation we are seeking here," and you seek to distinguish it "on the basis that the question addressed by the agency in that letter apparently presumed that the only 'lens' in the headlamp assembly at issue there was the 'clear lens' in the front of the headlamp housing, whereas the advanced designs we are asking you to consider here include optical elements ('lens') on the interior of the lamp." In the event we cannot distinguish it, you ask that we "reverse the conclusions in that interpretation to the extent they would preclude marking the 'DOT' symbol on interior optical elements."

I am sorry to say that we cannot distinguish your request from the Dorleans letter or reverse the conclusions to the extent that we can allow certification to be placed on interior optical elements. As you pointed out, the DOT marking requirement originated as a certification applied to the lenses of sealed beam headlamps. You are correct that Standard No. 108 does not define the word "lens." In the absence of a definition, we believe that the word "lens" has been clearly understood over the years to refer to the glass or plastic front of the headlamp housing through which light is emitted, and not to the other components of a headlamp, the reflector and the light source. Thus, whether a headlamp is sealed beam, replaceable bulb, integral beam, its lens has been clearly identifiable as such for purposes of affixing the DOT marking. We cannot interpret the word "lens" in a manner that departs from the common understanding of the word. However, we intend to address the concern of your members by rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to adopt a definition of "lens" broad enough to encompass interior optical elements where the certification symbol could be placed .

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.11/9/99

ID: 2067y

Mr. Douglas Shoner
S.E.M. Co.
12244 Truro Avenue
Hawthorne, CA 90250

Dear Mr. Shoner:

This responds to your letter asking about NHTSA's regulation of foam-filled tires. Specifically, you asked what criteria must be satisfied in order for a foam-filled tire to be approved by this Department, and whether any foam-filled tires have satisfied these criteria. As explained below, NHTSA does not "approve" any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the manufacturer itself must certify that the vehicle or item of equipment complies with any and all applicable safety standards.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standard.

A manufacturer is not required to get "approval" or "recognition" from this agency before selling its motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. In fact, NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards.

I note that, following a telephone conversation with you, Marvin Shaw of my staff sent you a copy of our September 2, 1986 letter to Mr. Andrew Kroll explaining how NHTSA's regulations apply to foam-filled tires. That letter remains an accurate expression of this agency's regulation of foam-filled tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l09 d:l0/5/89

ID: 20687.drn

Mr. Alan C. Reiffe, CPA
Business Administrator/Board Secretary
Allendale Public Schools
100 Brookside Avenue
Allendale, NJ 07401-1975

Dear Mr. Reiffe:

This responds to your letter concerning how Allendale Public School children must be transported when they go on field trips. You ask, "Inasmuch as New Jersey requires seat belts on public school buses, is there a similar requirement for coach buses when they are used to transport children on school field trips?"

Your question is determined by New Jersey law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates motor vehicle manufacturers and dealers that sell or lease new vehicles. We have no statutory authority to specify how children must be transported, or whether the vehicles they are transported in must have seat belts.

For information about New Jersey's requirements for transporting your students, please contact New Jersey's Director for Pupil Transportation:

Ms. Linda Wells
Director, Office of Pupil Transportation
New Jersey Department of Education
P.O. Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500
Telephone: (609) 984-5757

We would like to conclude by restating the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains our position that a school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of some coach buses, but it has safety features that coach buses lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. We urge schools and school districts to consider these features when determining the transportation needs of their school children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's programs please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.10/14/99

ID: 20690.ztv

Mr. Darrell R. Young
Sr. Partner
Learn Technology!
8967 Estebury Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80920

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your email of September 16, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to strobe lighting on motorcycles. You "propose to enable the owners of motorcycles to install strobelights on their motorcycle that can be lit by pressing a button on the handlebar." The operator would use the light as needed to alert drivers of other vehicles to his or her presence.

Your research indicates that we would consider the use of the lights to be legal if they were installed by the owner of the vehicle and "the application does not deter or impact the original intent and use any of the required lighting already in place on the vehicle, i.e., headlights, brake lights, turn signals as it relates to Standard #108." You have asked for assistance in the interpretation in your request.

I enclose a letter of this Office, dated March 25, 1996, to Cybernet Services Incorp. which is relevant to your concern. You will see that a strobe light is impermissible as original vehicle equipment because it is not one of the lamps that Standard No. 108 permits to flash. When a strobe light is sold in the aftermarket, its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 because the addition of a non-steady burning lamp creates a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. However, the statutory prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. Thus, while it is not quite correct to say that we would consider the use of the lights to be "legal" if they were installed by the owner of the vehicle, it is correct to say that installation of strobe lights by the vehicle owner does not violate Federal law. However, as the 1996 letter indicates, use of strobe lights is subject to local laws.

If you have any questions you may email Taylor Vinson again.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/26/99

ID: 20696.ogm

Mr. Tom Brunson
Trailer Component Innovations
111 Park Drive
Forsyth, GA 31029

Dear Mr. Brunson:

This is in response to your letter requesting information regarding the regulations applicable to the use of hydraulic brakes on trailers with axle capacities of 3500 to 8000 pounds per axle. I apologize for the delay in our response. Specifically, you wish to know if trailers of this type would be required to be equipped with an antilock braking system (ABS).

Your letter states that the trailers would be equipped with hydraulic axle brakes controlled by an electric brake controller. This electric brake controller, similar in design to the type usually used for electric trailer brakes, would draw electric power from the tow vehicle. In addition, electric power from the tow vehicle would be used to power an air compressor mounted on the trailer. You then ask if ABS would be required for a non-commercial trailer with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 26,000 pounds under the following two scenarios:

1. An electric brake controller is mounted on the tow vehicle with the force used to apply the trailer brakes being supplied by compressed air from an air tank and air compressor mounted on the trailer. Application of the hydraulic trailer brakes would be controlled by the electric brake controller. The controller would, when it sensed the tow vehicle decelerating or accelerating or when activated by an electric control available to the driver, electrically activate valves modulating the air pressure supplied to the mechanism used to apply or release the hydraulic trailer brakes.
2. An electric brake controller is mounted on the tow vehicle. A spring mechanism would be used to supply the force used to apply the trailer brakes. The amount of force applied to actuate the hydraulic brakes by the spring mechanism would be controlled by air pressure supplied by an air tank and air compressor mounted on the trailer. Application of the hydraulic trailer brakes would be controlled by the electric brake controller when it sensed deceleration or acceleration of the tow vehicle or when activated by an electric control available to the driver. The controller would, as required, electrically activate valves modulating the air pressure supplied to counteract the force applied to the hydraulic brakes by the spring mechanism.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

NHTSA has issued several standards applicable to brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems; Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems; and Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems for new passenger cars built after September 1, 2000 and for new multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less built after September 1, 2002. Of these three standards, Standard No. 121 is the only standard which applies to trailers.

Standard No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121) specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicles under normal and emergency conditions. S5.1.6 of Standard No. 121 requires that truck tractors equipped with air brake systems manufactured on and after March 1, 1997 and single-unit trucks, buses, trailers, and trailer converter dollies equipped with air brake systems manufactured on and after March 1, 1998 must be equipped with antilock brake systems (ABS) in order to operate in the United States (U.S.).

We note, however, that Standard No. 121 only applies to vehicles with air brake systems. An air brake system is defined in S4 of the Standard as follows:

Air brake system means a system that uses air as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake, including an air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem, but does not include a system that uses compressed air or vacuum only to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components.

The devices described in your letter appear to use compressed air as a means to actuate or control the hydraulic service brakes of a trailer. The application of this compressed air is controlled not by the driver, but by the electric brake controller. While the driver may, in some applications, have the ability to activate the electric brake controller through a dash mounted switch, air is not used as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake on the trailer. Accordingly, the system you describe is not, under Standard No. 121, an air brake system and is not subject to the ABS requirements of that Standard.

You should, however, also be aware of the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. That standard applies to new motor vehicle equipment as well as to new motor vehicles. You should check to see if any parts of your devices are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106. In addition, Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, sets forth the requirements for all fluid for use in motor vehicle hydraulic brake systems. Any fluid used in a hydraulic brake system must meet the requirements of Standard No. 116.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.5/4/00

ID: 2069y

Mr. Jim Bowen
Vice President of Quality, Service and Parts
Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.
P.O. Box l005
Nappanee, IN 46550

Dear Mr. Bowen:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of a television receiver in view of the driver of a vehicle. You asked whether the television is required to be off, when the ignition switch is turned on. I regret the delay in responding. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

I have enclosed a copy of a June 4, l987 letter, addressed to Panasonic, which discusses a number of issues relating to the installation of television receivers in motor vehicles. The letter notes that NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers. The letter also explains that is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

With respect to your specific question concerning whether a television receiver installed in view of the driver of a vehicle is required to be off when the ignition is turned on, I would like to draw your attention to one requirement of Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. Section S5.3.5 of that standard reads as follows:

Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (ll0.6 mm) rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

The purpose of this requirement is to prevent glare visible to the driver. If a television receiver installed in view of the driver is capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion, it would be subject to this requirement.

While NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers, the installation of a television receiver in view of the driver which is capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion would raise obvious safety concerns related to possible driver distraction. If you are considering such installation, we recommend that you carefully evaluate the safety implications of such action.

Finally, I note that state laws may cover the installation of television receivers in motor vehicles. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to provide information on that issue. Its address is: 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l0l d:9/2l/89