ID: nht92-4.34

DATE: August 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Henry, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/92 (est) from Charles Henry, Jr. to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7297)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter that requested information about how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. Since your device is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," it would be subject to our jurisdiction as explained below.

In your letter, you stated that when installed in a motor vehicle, your device would automatically shut down the "lighting circuits of an automobile or vehicle" within a prescribed time period after the motor is turned off. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the lights controlled by the device are the headlights and tail lights.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system part, or component or as any accessory or addition to the motor vehicle...

As an "addition" to the motor vehicle that automatically shuts off the vehicle's lights, after the motor is shut down, we would consider your device as "motor vehicle equipment."

There are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for devices that automatically shut off lights on motor vehicles, after the motor is shut down. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a device would not have to certify that the device complies with any safety standards before offering it for sale to the public.

From your letter, it appears that your device is initially intended for installation after first sale of the motor vehicle to the public, but may later be sold for installation before such sale. The addition of this device to a vehicle before the vehicle's first sale could affect the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently attach a label to each of their new vehicles stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR S567.4. The certification regulation also sets forth requirements for persons who modify previously certified vehicles by adding, modifying, or substituting readily attachable components. Such persons are considered "alterers" of the previously certified vehicles. Alterers are required to

leave the original manufacturer's label in place and affix an additional label identifying the alterer and stating that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR S567.7. As you may be aware, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101; Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays, and Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles.

While your letter gave no details about how this device would be installed in a vehicle, it seems highly unlikely that a device would be regarded as "readily attachable" if it is designed to automatically shut off lights on a motor vehicle, when the motor is shut down. Thus, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 101 and 108, with this device installed.

After the first sale of the vehicle to the public, certain persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)). That section provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..."

To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, commercial after market installers of your device should examine any installation instructions that you may have for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your device, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that state laws may apply to the use of your device. For further information on state laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

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

Attachment

NHTSA Information Sheets: Information For New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment; and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations (Text omitted)

ID: nht81-3.46

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Newbuilt Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1981, regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of our response. You request permission to install a "Ballistic Cube 2000" in 500 motor vehicles over a two-year period for experimental purposes. The "Ballistic Cube 2000" is a protective cubicle made of Lexgard that is installed inside a vehicle. Lexgard, a bullet-resistant material, does not comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 205. You urge us to grant your request on the basis that the data generated from such an experiment would be relevant to a rulemaking proceeding initiated by General Electric. (General Electric has petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard No. 205 to permit the use of protective bullet-resistant shields in vehicles. The agency granted this petition on November 28, 1980.)

Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which applies to all glazing materials used in passenger cars, buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. All automotive glazing materials, including those used in the Ballistic Cube 2000, must conform to the standard's requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) provides in part that no person shall sell or manufacture for sale any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect on the date of the item's manufacture. Thus, if you were to manufacture for sale or sell a Ballistic Cube 2000 made of Lexgard or any other glazing material that does not comply with Standard No. 205, you would be in violation of section 108(a)(1)(A). (Section 108(b)(5) establishes that section 108(a)(1)(A) does not apply when the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is intended solely for export and is so labeled.) Section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $ 1,000 for each violation of Section 108.

We believe that installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in motor vehicles could possibly generate test data that could be valuable to the agency in the previously mentioned rulemaking proceeding. Unfortunately, however, NHTSA does not have the legal authority to grant you permission to make such an installation. NHTSA does not have statutory authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer from the requirements of Section 108(a)(1)(A) as it relates to motor vehicle equipment.

Section 123 of the Act authorizes the exemption of motor vehicles from the safety standards. However, it does not authorize the exemption of motor vehicle equipment from equipment standards. As noted above, Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard applicable to glazing. Consequently, no exemption can be granted under section 123 that would excuse manufacturing, offering for sale or selling noncomplying glazing as part of the vehicles you wish to modify and sell, since you would also be considered an equipment manufacturer.

While the agency cannot grant you an exemption, it is pursuing the request made by G.E. regarding Lexgard. The agency anticipates issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking before the end of this year. If a final rule permitting the use of Lexgard were issued, you could commence manufacturing and installation of the Ballistic Cubes upon the effective date of that rule.

Even if that rule is issued, there may be other standards which must be considered. As we understand your materials, the installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in motor vehicles may affect the compliance of those vehicles with FMVSS No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, and FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. If you were to install a Ballistic Cube in a new vehicle, i.e., one that had not yet been purchased for purposes other than resale, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) if the vehicle no longer complied with one of those standards. Of course, since Standard Nos. 103 and 201 are vehicle standards, you could apply for an exemption from those standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would prohibit you from installing the Ballistic Cube in a used vehicle if such installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Standards 103 and 201.

The agency cannot definitively state whether installation of your cube in a motor vehicle would affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standards Nos. 201 or 103. NHTSA does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination. The agency is willing to offer an opinion on whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. Such an opinion is not binding on the agency or on the manufacturer. However, the information you have provided in your letter does not give us a sufficient basis on which to form an opinion. It would probably be difficult for the agency to offer an opinion concerning your compliance with Standard 203 regardless of the information you supplied, since that standard involves a dynamic performance test.

Apart from the requirements imposed by section 108(a)(1)(A) regarding compliance with safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have general responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under sections 151 et seq., such manufacturers must notify purchases about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.

I am sorry we are unable to accommodate you in this matter. However, since it is beyond our legal authority to do so, we have no choice but to make the decision set forth in this letter. Please contact this office if you have any questions.

SINCERELY,

NEWBUILT ENTERPRISES

May 26, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Gentlemen:

Our firm has developed a new concept in the manufacture of bullet-resistant vehicles. This concept is known as the Ballistic Cube 2000 with U. S. Patent Pending, Serial No. 253,108.

Our "cube" concept utilizes a highly bullet-resistant material manufactured by General Electric Company, called Lexgard.

We are enclosing some literature which more fully explains our application of this Lexgard material and our Ballistic Cube 2000 concept. We also have met with Carl C. Clark, PhD, Office of Vehicle Structures Research, and his committee regarding our new concept.

We presented a video film and demonstration to the committee on May 21, 1981. If you have any questions regarding the technical nature of our application, we are quite sure Dr. Clark would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.

We hereby request your permission and an assurance of non-prosecution for any violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, for an experimental period of two years. We desire to fabricate and install our units for on-highway use to develop facts and test data to substantiate the advantages of our application.

As you are probably aware, General Electric Company has petitioned the Department for amendments in the current standards. This petition has been granted and is currently being reviewed. They have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amend MVSS No. 205 by adapting the following new glazing category:

"Item IIX: Materials conforming to the requirements of Test Numbers 2, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 32 of ANSZ26.1 may be used as a bullet-resisting shield at levels requisite for driver visibility. The phrase "bullet-resisting shield" for the purposes of this standard means a transparent barrier mounted completely inside the vehicle, behind and separated from glazing materials that independently comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 205. The bullet-resisting shield shall be conveniently removable for cleaning and replacement without disturbing the (exterior-glass) glazing material."

Our vehicle production during this two year experimental period is estimated as follows: Number of Units Description 100 Armored Transport Vehicles (Money Carriers) 50 Law Enforcement Transports (Buses, Vans) 150 Private Automobiles 150 Motor Coaches - Public Transportation 50 Rescue Units - Law Enforcement

The only area in which our concept does not comply with the current Standard No. 205 is that ANS Z26 does not permit the use of Lexgard BR in the windshield area. It does permit the use of bullet-resistant glass. Lexgard provides far better protection than BR glass. The windshield can also be removed quickly in case of an emergency.

Some of the advantages of our concept are as follows:

- Vehicle fuel economy is considerably improved by weight reductions in the glazing materials and in the required support and framing members. Lexgard is one-third the weight of BR glass.

- Lexgard BR qualifies as both an AS-10 and AS-11 glazing material under the requirements defined in the current standard, ANS Z26.1-1966.

- Unlike other bullet-resisting materials, Lexgard BR does not spall under impact.

- Lexgard BR provides a greater level of overall protection from ballistic impacts than other equivalently rated bullet-resisting products.

- The vehicles we are proposing to use are primarily operated by trained, skilled, professional drivers.

After reviewing the information, we respectfully request your favorable response to our request.

Should you have any further questions or require additional information, please contact us.

Rickey L. Newmayer President

Jerry A. Corbett Vice-President

Literature Omitted

ID: deetz.ztv

Mr. Jeff Deetz
Sales Manager
Santeca Electronics, Inc.
7215 East 21^st Street
Suite D
Indianapolis, IN 46219

Dear Mr. Deetz:

This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 2002, to John Womack of this office with respect to a High Intensity Discharge (HID) light source conversion kit that you wish to sell for replaceable bulb headlamps in the United States.On August 15, Taylor Vinson of this office e-mailed you to request a sample of the kit so that we might be better able to advise you.The kit arrived on September 12.

Your specific request was "for guidance in how to begin the process of obtaining D.O.T. approval" for your kit.We have no authority either to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.We do advise correspondents of the relationship of their products to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and other regulations that we administer.If a manufacturer determines that its product is covered by one or more of the FMVSS, and that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS, it must certify compliance of the product when the product is offered for sale. The symbol "DOT" on replacement lighting equipment is often mistaken for "DOT approval" of the equipment but, in fact, it is the manufacturers own certification of compliance.

Because your HID conversion kit is intended to replace certain original headlighting equipment, the kit is subject to paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, 49 CFR 571.108.Paragraph S5.8 requires that any motor vehicle replacement replaceable light source that is offered for sale in the United States comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108.The Federal specifications for replaceable light sources used in original equipment motor vehicle headlighting systems are located in 49 CFR Part 564, Replaceable Light Source Information.The purpose for storing the specifications in Part 564 is two fold:(1) to ensure the availability to replacement light source manufacturers of the specifications of original equipment light sources such that replacement light sources are interchangeable with original equipment light sources and provide equivalent performance, and (2) that redesigned or newly developed light sources are designated as distinct, different, and noninterchangeable with previously existing light sources.

Paragraph S7.7, Replaceable light sources, of FMVSS No. 108, requires in part that each replaceable light source be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to Part 564.Thus, in order to use a replaceable light source in a replaceable bulb headlamp, a manufacturer must first have submitted certain information with respect to it (and its ballast if required) in Part 564, or it may use a light source (and ballast if required) if its specifications are already filed in Part 564.

The kit that you furnished us appears to be designed to replace an H1 replaceable light source, and consists of two parts marketed under the name "Thunder Beam."The first part is labeled "HID Bulb Set" and contains two replaceable light sources, identified on the packaging as "WB-H1."The second part is labeled "HID Driver UnitTD-5000," and contains a ballast, an ignitor, a relay, and adapters to convert the motor vehicles wiring harness to be compatible with the HID conversion kit.

Based on a review of the H1 light source specification filed in the Part 564 docket (#3397), it is apparent that the Thunder Beam HID Conversion kit is a significant redesign of the H1 light source.At the most basic level, an H1 light source incorporates an incandescent filament in which light is produced by a metallic wire coil heated to incandescence by an electrical current, whereas the HID conversion kits light source incorporates a discharge arc to produce the light and requires a ballast for operation.Thus, in order to comply with paragraph S7.7 of FMVSS No. 108,the Thunder Beam light source must comply with, inter alia, the dimensional specifications for the metallic wire coil filament size and location, the electrical connector size and location, and the ballast would need to be a design currently on file for use with an H1 light source.Complying with the dimensional aspects of the H1 light source appears to be an impossibility considering that the wire coil filament and the electrical connector are not a part of your design. Furthermore, there are no ballast designs on file for use with an H1 light source.Thus, your companys HID conversion kit is not a design that conforms to the Standard and could not be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 108, nor imported into or sold in the United States.

This interpretation would apply to any HID replaceable light source whose base was modified or manufactured to be interchangeable with any regulated headlamp replaceable light source that incorporates an incandescent filament design.

If you have any questions regarding how a manufacturer may submit information to Part 564, you may contact Michael Cole of our Office of Rulemaking (202-366-5276).For legal questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/18/02

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: CNGLABEL.CRS

Mr. Stan Gornick
Manager, Engineering Quality
Western Star Trucks
2076 Enterprise Way
Kelowna, British Columbia
Canada V1Y 6H8

Dear Mr. Gornick:

This is in response to your letter of September 3, 1996, to Coleman Sachs of my staff, raising a question regarding the certification of compressed natural gas ("CNG") powered buses under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ("NHTSA's") vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. As described in your letter, Western Star Trucks has a sister company, Orion Bus Industries, Inc. ("Orion"), which manufactures transit buses. Orion currently has an order for fifteen CNG powered buses. While inspecting the CNG containers that have been supplied to it for this order, Orion noted that the containers were missing labels required under paragraph S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity, 49 CFR 571.304. After bringing this matter to the attention of the container supplier, Orion was informed that the containers were manufactured before March 27, 1995, the date on which the requirements of FMVSS 304, including the labeling requirement, went into effect. You have asked whether Orion can install these containers in the transit buses, and still certify that those vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on their date of manufacture.

Paragraph S6.1 of FMVSS 304 provides, in relevant part, that "[e]ach . . . bus that uses CNG as a motor fuel shall be equipped with a CNG fuel container that meets the requirements of S7 through S7.4." Paragraphs S7 through S7.3 prescribe three separate tests to establish that a CNG fuel container complies with the standard. As previously noted, paragraph S7.4 establishes a labeling requirement for CNG fuel containers. The information to be inserted on this label must include the month and year of the container's manufacture and the symbol DOT, which, as stated in paragraph S7.4(d), constitutes certification by the container's manufacturer that the container complies with all requirements of the standard. In light of these provisions, a bus that uses CNG as a motor fuel could not be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards if it is manufactured with a CNG container that lacks the label required under paragraph S7.4 of FMVSS 304.

Following his receipt of your letter, Mr. Sachs informed you by telephone that Orion could use the containers in question, regardless of their date of manufacture, if they were manufactured in conformity with the requirements that were ultimately adopted as FMVSS 304, are certified to comply with that standard, and are labeled as required in paragraph S7.4. Citing an interpretation letter dated March 2, 1995, that this Office sent to Mr. Steve Anthony, you questioned whether a manufacturer could label a CNG container as complying with the standard if the container were manufactured before March 27, 1995, the standard's effective date. The pertinent language in the letter to Mr. Anthony reflects his acknowledgment that "it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to include the symbol DOT on CNG containers manufactured prior to March 27, 1995."

This language should be read in the context of the letter in which it appeared. That letter was sent prior to the effective date of the standard and was focused on the issue of whether a CNG container could be certified as complying with FMVSS 304 before the standard went into effect. The letter concluded that this was prohibited, based on language in the preamble of the final rule establishing FMVSS 304, which characterized a certification as "a statement that a vehicle or item of equipment meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are then in effect." (See letter to

Mr. Anthony, quoting 59 FR 49010, 49020, September 26, 1994). Nevertheless, now that the standard has taken effect, this prohibition no longer applies.

The preamble of the final rule establishing FMVSS 304 describes that standard as being modeled after existing industry standards. (See preamble at pages 49012-49020). If the CNG containers in question were manufactured in compliance with the requirements that were ultimately adopted as FMVSS 304, the manufacturer of those containers may now certify them as complying with the standard. If the containers are labeled in accordance with paragraph S7.4 of the standard to reflect this certification, their installation would not preclude Orion from certifying the buses on which they are installed as complying with all applicable standards in effect on their date of manufacture.If you have any further questions concerning vehicle certification, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567

d:10/30/96

ID: nht92-9.4

DATE: February 17, 1992

FROM: Stephen E. Selander -- Attorney, GM Legal Staff

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: General Motors Corporation; FMVSS 101, 105; Request for Interpretations

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Stephen E. Selander (A39; Std. 101; Std. 105)

TEXT:

General Motors Corporation (GM) is currently preparing an electric vehicle (GMEV) which will be offered for sale in the near future. The GMEV contains basic design strategies that differ from traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. While these strategies are intended to comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), questions have arisen about how to correctly apply the requirements of FMVSS 101 - Controls and Displays and 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems. The purpose of this letter is to seek the agency's concurrence with, or guidance regarding the proposed interpretations of these requirements.

FMVSS 101 PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS

FUEL GAUGE REQUIREMENTS Proposed Interpretation: Permit electrically powered vehicles to use symbols that are appropriate for indicating electric power reserve.

FMVSS 101 S5.2.3 requires that information pertaining to fuel level be identified by the fuel level symbol found in Table 2 of FMVSS 101 or by the corresponding word: FUEL. This identification appears quite appropriate for traditional ICE vehicles that consume combustible fuels. However, the GMEV will not use combustible fuel; rather, it will rely on electrical energy stored in its battery packs. In this context the fuel symbol is inappropriate and potentially misleading.

As currently planned, the GMEV will be equipped with a gauge that will monitor battery charge as a percent of full charge. This gauge is to be identified by a symbol substantially similar to that found in FMVSS 101 Table 2 for Electrical Charge. We believe that this type of gauge is more appropriate for Electric Vehicles (EVs). It will allow the operator to readily monitor electric power remaining in the batteries and will serve as the functional equivalent of a fuel gauge found in traditional ICE vehicles.

It should be noted that the GMEV is being designed for domestic and international sale. In order to optimize cost effectiveness, it is imperative that we harmonize requirements whenever possible. To that end, we have reviewed our current design strategy for the "electric fuel" gauge with the appropriate European agencies. They have agreed that the ISO fuel symbol is inappropriate to indicate "electric fuel" and that a more appropriate symbol is the ISO battery symbol.

Therefore, we request the agency's concurrence that EVs are permitted to utilize symbols that are appropriate for identifying electric power reserve and not the FMVSS 101 fuel level symbol.

OIL PRESSURE REQUIREMENTS Proposed Interpretation: Allow the "Service Soon" telltale to indicate loss of powertrain oil pressure for the GMEV.

FMVSS 101 S5.2.3 requires information pertaining to oil pressure be indicated by the oil pressure symbol found in Table 2 of FMVSS 101 or by the corresponding word: OIL.

As currently planned, the GMEV will be equipped with a "Service Soon" telltale which will light in the event of a malfunction that could eventually cause damage to the vehicle powertrain, but does not require immediate attention. GM proposes to light this telltale in the event of a loss of oil pressure to the powertrain. We believe this to be a more appropriate telltale because the GMEV can continue to be driven without oil pressure.

The GMEV powertrain consists of an electric motor which drives a single speed transmission. Lubricating oil, contained in a reservoir below the powertrain, is splashed onto the gears and bearings of the powertrain by the motion of the vehicle and the turning of the transmission gears. Under normal conditions, the splashing oil sufficiently lubricates most of the powertrain pans except for the rear motor bearing. Oil is supplied to the rear bearing by an oil pump.

While a loss of oil pressure in traditional ICE vehicles causes significant damage in a very short period of time, a loss of oil pressure in the GMEV is not a catastrophic event. The normal motion of the GMEV supplies sufficient oil for it to continue to operate for some time. We estimate the GMEV would be able to operate approximately 500 miles without sustaining serious damage to the powertrain. This is a significant distance, especially for this commuter vehicle which has a maximum range between recharging of far less than 500 miles.

In the event of a loss of oil pressure, activating a traditional oil pressure telltale could send the wrong message to the operator of a GMEV. In its traditional context, an active oil pressure telltale means that severe engine damage is imminent. An explanation of low oil pressure found in a typical GM owner's manual of an ICE vehicle reads as follows:

CAUTION: An engine low on oil can catch fire. You could be seriously burned. If your oil warning light stays on, don't keep driving. Check your oil immediately and have the problem corrected.

The appropriate action by the operator is to stop the vehicle immediately, turn the engine off and correct the underlying condition.

In the event of a loss of oil pressure in the GMEV, the preceding action is not appropriate. It is not necessary for the driver to pull over immediately to prevent damage to the powertrain. Even if the operator did pull over, the oil could not be checked because the GMEV does not require traditional routine oil maintenance and therefore, is not equipped with an oil dip stick.

Therefore, in the event of a loss of oil pressure, we believe it is appropriate to light the "Service Soon" telltale which indicates that service is needed, but immediate action by the driver is not required.

FMVSS 105 PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS

GM has previously submitted a letter from Mr. R. A. Rogers to the agency (USG 2886, dated July 2, 1991) which describes the brake system planned for the GMEV. This brake system consists of front hydraulic disc service brakes, rear electric drum service and parking brakes, four wheel ABS, and regenerative braking. USG 2886 also describes the regulatory requirements within FMVSS 105 which must be addressed, either through interpretation or rulemaking, to facilitate introduction of the GMEV brake system. A copy of USG 2886, Part III with the cover letter and the information for which confidential treatment is requested removed, is attached to this document. (Note: The content of USG 2886 Part III is identical to that which was originally submitted as USG 2886, July 1991; however, the document has been revised to reduce the portions for which GM continues to request confidential treatment. There are a few very minor inaccuracies in this document with respect to current design intent for the GMEV brake system. These slight differences in the brake system do not affect the FMVSS 105 interpretations being requested. It is likely that additional minor changes in the brake system will occur as it is refined. GM will keep the agency advised of any changes which have new FMVSS implications.)

GM's request for interpretations, as described in USG 2886, Part III, have not changed, so we respectfully request that the agency refer to the attachment for a detailed discussion of the issues which we propose be addressed by interpretation. A summary follows:

PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS:

1. The GMEV parking brake is mechanically retained in accordance with the requirements of S5.2

2. The GMEV brake system is a "split service brake system" consisting of four subsystems, one at each wheel.

3. The four service brake subsystems may be certified to the requirements of S5.1.2 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.9.1 through S7.9.3 by disabling each subsystem in a way that does not affect the other three subsystems.

4. The GMEV brake system may be certified to the requirements of S5.1.3 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.10 by functionally disabling the Brake Control Unit (BCU). Such a procedure will completely disable the brake power assist, and since the electric motors within the hydraulic unit and the rear brake drums are separately disabled during S5.1.2 testing, there is no need to separately consider these electric motors when certifying to the requirements of S5.1.3.

5. The GMEV brake system may be certified to the requirements of S5.5 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.9.4 by functionally disabling the BCU. Since such a procedure will completely disable ABS and the variable proportioning function, no other testing is required in connection with S5.5.

6. Assuming the conditions established in proposed S6.2, regenerative braking is permitted to function normally when conducting the test procedures of S7. In particular, the phrase "service brakes shall be capable of stopping" (found in S5.1.4 and S5.1.5, for example) is not to be construed as prohibiting the normal operation for regenerative braking.

There is one additional FMVSS 105 interpretation that we would now request which was not discussed in USG 2886:

BRAKE TELLTALE ILLUMINATION

Proposed Interpretation: In addition to the explicit conditions for activation of the brake telltale set forth in S5.3 of the standard, permit illumination of the service brake telltale when an impending or latent brake system malfunction is detected during electrical diagnosis.

S5.3.1 of FMVSS 105 prescribes the conditions during which the brake telltale shall be illuminated. This section requires that the telltale illuminate when there is a gross loss of hydraulic pressure (or, alternatively, a drop in fluid level), a total functional electrical failure in the ABS or variable proportioning brake system, or when the parking brake is applied. On the GMEV, the brake telltale will illuminate whenever these prescribed conditions exist. However, a diagnostic capability will also exist to detect faults in the brake system which do not cause any of the conditions explicitly listed in S5.3.1. That is, a fault may be detected in a redundant component that does not affect brake system performance. However, such a fault would leave the brake system vulnerable to a single additional failure that could substantially diminish braking capability.

A specific example of this with respect to the GMEV's brake system could be a stuck solenoid within the hydraulic unit. Such a failure would not necessarily have an effect on brake system performance, nor would any of the explicit conditions listed in S5.3.1 be exhibited. Yet such a fault would decrease the overall reliability of the brake system and make the system more vulnerable to a significant degradation in performance should a second failure occur.

We believe that the opportunity should be afforded to alert the driver to brake system faults of the nature described above. Accordingly, we request the agency's concurrence that the language of S5.3.1 allows for illumination of the brake telltale when a fault is detected which INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD of a substantial degradation in brake system performance, even if the fault in question does not strictly fall into any of the categories listed in that section of FMVSS 105.

SUMMARY

GM would be pleased to discuss with the agency any of the issues that we propose be handled through interpretation. Our overriding interest is to provide the agency with the information it needs to quickly resolve any and all compliance questions involving the applicability of FMVSS 101 and 105 to the GMEV so that design work can continue and plans to offer the GMEV to the public can be carried out promptly.

We appreciate the NHTSA's consideration of these proposed interpretations. If the agency has any questions or requires additional information please contact me at (313) 974-1704.

Attachment

USG 2938 - Attachment 1 -- USG 2886 Part III. (Text omitted here.)

ID: 6953

Mr. Robert Salton
Performance Friction Corp.
83 Carbon Metallic Highway
P.O. Box 819
Clover, S.C. 29710-0819

Dear Mr. Salton:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You stated that you are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade and recovery test baseline check stops, and that an interpretation would make it clear exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. You also asked what values of pedal effort would be "considered non-compliance," i.e., whether peak, average or sustained control force must be within the specified limits under section S5.1.4.1. You indicated in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff that you are primarily interested in the requirements for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 or equipment comply with applicable standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests, each of which consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops or snubs, (2) fade stops or snubs (the heating cycle), and (3) recovery stops or snubs. The pedal force requirements for the baseline check stops or snubs are set forth in S5.1.4.1, which reads as follows: The control force used for the baseline check stops or snubs shall be not less than 10 pounds, nor more than 60 pounds, except that the control force for a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more may be between 10 pounds and 90 pounds.

S5.1.4.1 must be read in conjunction with S7.11.1, which sets forth the procedure for the baseline check stops or snubs. S7.11.1.1 provides the following procedure for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less:

Make three stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop. Control readings may be terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. Average the maximum brake control force required for the three stops.

The baseline check stops or snubs are thus made at a constant deceleration (10 fpsps), with the control force varying as necessary to maintain that constant deceleration. Under S5.1.4.1, the control force is required to stay within a prescribed range (10 pounds to 60 pounds for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds) throughout the entire stop or snub (from the time in which application is started until the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph, other than the initial momentary period it takes to go from 0 to 10 pounds). Thus, compliance with S5.l.4.1 is not determined based on peak, average or sustained control force. Instead, for a vehicle to comply with this test, the control force must never fall below 10 pounds or be above 60 pounds during any part of the test (for the period described above).

Your other question concerned how calculation of pedal effort during the baseline check stops or snubs is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. As indicated above, S7.11.1.1 specifies that an average is taken of the maximum control force for the three stops. The term "maximum" refers to the peak control force for each of the stops. I note that this average is not related to whether the vehicle complies with S5.1.4.1. Instead, as discussed below, this average establishes a baseline control force, which is used to derive certain of the control force limits for the recovery stops.

The requirements for the recovery stops are set forth in S5.1.4.3, which reads as follows:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable or making five recovery stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop, with a control force application that falls within the following maximum and minimum limits: (1) A maximum for the first four recovery stops of 150 pounds, and for the fifth stop, of 20 pounds more than the average control force for the baseline check; and

(2) A minimum of--

(A) The average control force for the baseline check minus 10 pounds, or

(B) The average control force for the baseline check times 0.60, whichever is lower (but in no case lower than 5 pounds). . . .

Thus, the minimum and (for one stop) the maximum control force limits for the recovery stops are calculated using the average control force for the baseline check stops or snubs. This average control force is the one calculated under S7.11.1.1 using the maximum control force of each of the baseline check stops or snubs.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref:105 d:4/14/92

ID: nht92-7.40

DATE: April 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Salton -- Performance Friction Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/5/92 from Robert Salton to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 6953)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You stated that you are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade and recovery test baseline check stops, and that an interpretation would make it clear exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. You also asked what values of pedal effort would be "considered non-compliance," i.e., whether peak, average or sustained control force must be within the specified limits under section S5.1.4.1. You indicated in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff that you are primarily interested in the requirements for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 or equipment comply with applicable standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests, each of which consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops or snubs, (2) fade stops or snubs (the heating cycle), and (3) recovery stops or snubs. The pedal force requirements for the baseline check stops or snubs are set forth in S5.1.4.1, which reads as follows:

The control force used for the baseline check stops or snubs shall be not less than 10 pounds, nor more than 60 pounds, except that the control force for a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more may be between lo pounds and 90 pounds.

S5.1.4.1 must be read in conjunction with S7.11.1, which sets forth the procedure for the baseline check stops or snubs. S7.11.1.1 provides the following procedure for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less:

Make three stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop. Control readings may be terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. Average the maximum brake control force required for the three stops.

The baseline check stops or snubs are thus made at a constant deceleration (10 fpsps), with the control force varying as necessary to maintain that constant deceleration. Under S5.1.4.1, the control force is required to stay within a prescribed range (10 pounds to 60 pounds for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds) throughout the entire stop or snub (from the time in which application is started until the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph, other than the initial momentary period it takes to go from 0 to 10 pounds). Thus, compliance with S5.1.4.1 is not determined based on peak, average or sustained control force. Instead, for a vehicle to comply with this test, the control force must never fall below 10 pounds or be above 60 pounds during any part of the test (for the period described above).

Your other question concerned how calculation of pedal effort during the baseline check stops or snubs is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. As indicated above, S7.11.1.1 specifies that an average is taken of the maximum control force for the three stops. The term "maximum" refers to the peak control force for each of the stops. I note that this average is not related to whether the vehicle complies with S5.1.4.1. Instead, as discussed below, this average establishes a baseline control force, which is used to derive certain of the control force limits for the recovery stops.

The requirements for the recovery stops are set forth in S5.1.4.3, which reads as follows:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable or making five recovery stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop, with a control force application that falls within the following maximum and minimum limits:

(1) A maximum for the first four recovery stops of 150 pounds, and for the fifth stop, of 20 pounds more than the average control force for the baseline check; and

(2) A minimum of--

(A) The average control force for the baseline check minus 10 pounds, or

(B) The average control force for the baseline check times 0.60, whichever is lower (but in no case lower than 5 pounds). . . .

Thus, the minimum and (for one stop) the maximum control force limits for the recovery stops are calculated using the average control force for the baseline check stops or snubs. This average control force is the one calculated under S7.11.1.1 using the maximum control force of each of the baseline check stops or snubs.

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

ID: 86-5.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DON PANZER -- SPRAY RIDER INC

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/28/86 FROM DON PANZER TO NHTSA, OCC 1115

TEXT: Dear Mr. Panzer:

This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1986, describing a supplemental hazard warning system you have developed which is designed to be incorporated as part of the external rear-view mirror assembly. You have asked about its relationship to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 111.

The information you enclosed depicts the lamp mounted above the outside rear-view mirror in the same housing. According to your description it may face in the same direction as the mirror, or "exposed to the front, back, and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions." It will flash synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps, and "can also perform as a directional signal."

Standard No. 108 deals only indirectly with lighting systems other than those which it requires. Supplemental lighting equipment and other motor vehicle equipment are permissible under Paragraph S4.1.3 as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We believe that a possibility of impairment of the turn signal system might exist if your lamp-mirror were to operate in this fashion, and only one such device were installed on a vehicle. This suggests that lamps providing a turn-signal function be packaged and sold in pairs and conversely that lamps sold singly not provide a turn-signal function. On the basis of the facts as you have presented them to us, we cannot say that impairment otherwise would exist, or that the device would not be acceptable as original equipment. However, because of the dual nature of the American legal system the fact that an accessory is not prohibited by Federal law does not mean that it is permissible under the laws of the individual States. We are not able to advise you as to these laws but you may wish to check with the Motor Vehicle Administrators of the States where you intend to sell your device.

2

As you surmised, there is also a relationship of Standard No. 111 to your device as an item of original equipment. Further, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act itself bears upon its permissibility as an aftermarket item. Standard No. 111 requires each passenger car to be equipped with an outside rear-view mirror on the driver's side; under paragraph S5.2.2 ". . . neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1." You have not provided us with the dimensions of this device and while the photograph you enclosed showing it mounted on a Vauxhall car is inconclusive, it at least suggests that you examine this design with S5.2.2 in mind. This prohibition does not extend to an exterior-mounted mirror on the passenger side. You should also be aware that the same restriction applies to driver-side mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses other than schoolbuses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less that are equipped with mirrors that comply with the requirements of paragraph S5, an option permitted by paragraph S6.1(a) of the standard.

Although the safety standards do not apply once a vehicle is sold, the Traffic Safety Act prohibits persons other than a vehicle owner from "rendering inoperative in whole or in part" safety equipment installed on a vehicle to achieve compliance with the safety standards. The agency is concerned that a light incorporated with a rear view mirror could create glare to the driver, thus rendering the mirror partially "inoperative" within the meaning of the standard, even if the replacement mirror otherwise complies with Standard No. 111.

You should also be aware of the other performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars in Standard No. 111. The outside rearview mirror on the driver's side must be of unit magnification and must comply with field of view requirements, as well as the mounting requirements referred to above. Regarding the passenger's side, an outside rearview mirror is required only if the inside rearview mirror fails to meet the field of view requirements. This outside rearview mirror may be either plane or convex and must comply with the mounting and adjustability requirements in paragraph S5.3. If this outside rearview mirror is convex, it must meet the requirements for convex mirrors in paragraph S5.4.

I hope that this clarifies the relationship of the Federal standards to your device, and if there are any further questions I would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely

ID: toyo.ajd

Mr. Harold van der Meijden
Toyo Tire (USA) Corporation
6261 Katella Avenue
Suite 2B
Cypress, CA 90630

Dear Mr. van der Meijden:

This is in reply to your telefaxed note of August 29, 2003, to Taylor Vinson of the Office of Chief Counsel and your e-mail of September 2, 2003, to Jonathan White of the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) asking for a clarification of certain provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation, 49 CFR Part 579 Subpart C, and certain provisions of ODIs EWR Compendium that track the EWR regulation.

In your fax to Mr. Vinson, you advised that Toyo Tire Corporation (Toyo), in its warranty provisions, handles claims for "early ride" complaints and warrants projected mileages on certain tire lines. You assert that tires subject to such claims do not have a failure condition other than they did not meet the subjective expectancy for comfort or warranted mileage projections. You would like to know whether these types of claims have to be reported under component code 98 (other) for ride disturbances or 71 (tread) for mileage, respectively?

Also in your fax, you cited the preamble to the final rule, 67 FR 45822 at 45853 (July 10, 2000), where we stated that we did not think warranty claims that merely concern "cosmetic, ride or wear concerns or did not concern a failure would be useful to early detection of safety-related tire defects." You stated that it was your understanding that "claims with no failure condition fall into the category of tires that would not be useful in the early detection of safety-related tire defects."

We concur with your understanding that you do not have to report warranty adjustments that do not involve the component categories specified in 49 CFR 579.26(c). As we explained in our response to the Rubber Manufacturers Associations (RMA) August 26, 2002 Petition for Reconsideration, "we adhere to our view that we do not want to receive data on warranty adjustments that do not relate to one or more of the four identified component categories." 68 FR 35132 at 35137 (June 11, 2003).

I now address your questions raised in your e-mail to Mr. White regarding the EWR Compendium. At the outset, we note that the EWR Compendium is not an interpretation of Part 579 or the terms used therein, but merely is intended to assist manufacturers in submitting information to NHTSA pursuant to the requirements of the EWR regulation. In addition, the Compendium was updated on September 18, 2003, after your e-mail to Mr. White. In the future, any interpretive questions that you may have concerning substantive reporting regulations should be sent to the Office of Chief Counsel.

Your first question concerns Section IV A of the Compendium. You stated that:

Section IV A. Note reads: &"For tires that are produced or imported in quantities less than 15,000 annually..., the manufacturer need only report information on incidents involving deaths." Toyo interprets the term &"tires&" to mean all those products within a complete tire line with various SKU's whose production or importation is less that 15,000 units annually.

Your understanding is incorrect. We refer you to the introductory paragraph of Section 579.26 for clarification. See 49 CFR 579.26, as amended at 68 FR 35132. That section states:

For each group of tires with the same SKU, plant where manufactured, and year for which the volume produced or imported is less than 15,000, or are deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or less, or are not passenger car tires, light truck tires, or motorcycle tires, the manufacturer need only report information on incidents involving a death or injury, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

We note that the regulation refers in part to groups of tires with the same SKU. Therefore, if a tire line has SKUs, if fewer than 15,000 tires with a given SKU are produced (or expected to be produced) in a given year, only incidents involving a death or injury have to be reported.

Second, in connection with Compendium Section IV B.1 Reporting Production Data, you state:

"g.) Manufacturing Plant - code as appearing within the TIN per 574.5 and 574.6, and&" Referencing the Federal Register/ Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations - page 35144/Section 579.26 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of tires states: &"For purposes of this section, the two-character DOT alphanumeric code for production plants located in the United States assigned by NHTSA in accordance with 574.5(a) and 574.6(b) of this chapter may be used to identify plant where manufactured. If the plant is located outside the United States, the full plant name must be provided&". Toyo's interpretation is since many of our tires are produced in foreign plants for distribution and sale in the United States, we must report the full plant name in our data. What is the requirement criteria for the &"plant name&" that will be noted in the Plant Code field of the template?

Pursuant to 49 CFR 571.109 and 571.119, every tire manufactured for use on the roads and offered for sale in the United States must have a Tire Information Number (TIN) in accordance with 49 CFR Part 574. However, if the tire is manufactured outside of the United States, the TIN need not include the plant name. If a tire that is the subject of an EWR report has a TIN that does not include the plant name of a foreign plant, the manufacturer is required to type in the name of the plant where it is manufactured, up to 25 characters. In typing the name of the plant, the manufacturer may either abbreviate or truncate the name of the plant to fit within the 25 character limitation so long as it uses the same abbreviation or truncation in all EWR reports, including future ones. This approach will satisfy 49 CFR 579.26. When a manufacturer provides the plant name in this manner, it indicates to NHTSA that the tire is manufactured in a foreign plant. We also note that manufacturers are allowed to provide the country of origin (and date of importation), rather than plant and date of manufacture, when the TIN is unknown. See Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, RMA, of October 10, 2003, at 3.

Third, in connection with Compendium Section IV B. 3, you stated:

Reporting Numbers of Warranty Adjustments (including Extended Warranty and Good Will) reads: &"A warranty adjustment need not be reported when: c.) The claim/adjustment is denied&". Toyo's interpretation is that any claim that fails to meet the adjustabilility requirements that are explicitly stated in the applicable warranty, and is therefore denied to the dealer or consumer, need not be reported.

We concur in your understanding that you would not have to report a warranty claim/adjustment that is denied in its entirety. In applying the EWR definition of warranty adjustment, a tire manufacturer would only report warranty adjustments when it paid or provided other reimbursement to a consumer pursuant to a warranty program offered by a manufacturer or goodwill. See 49 CFR 579.4, as amended at 68 FR 35132 at 35142. Therefore, under the circumstances suggested in your e-mail, Toyo would not have to report any claim that was denied because it failed to meet the "adjustability" requirements that are explicitly stated in the applicable warranty.

Fourth, in connection with Compendium Section IV B. 4, you stated:

Reporting Claims and Notices of Death and Injury reads: &"A manufacturer need not file a report for a claim or notice of death and injury when: b.) The claim alleges one or more deaths in a foreign country involving a tire that is identical or substantially similar to one offered for sale in the United States&". This seems to contradict the statement on page 16 (paragraph 2): &"Similar reporting is also required when a claim alleging or proving that one or more deaths in a foreign country was caused by a defect in a tire that was identical or substantially similar to one offered for sale in the United States&". Toyo's interpretation is that we will need to report on any identical or substantially similar tire involved with a foreign death if it meets minimal specificity requirements.

In connection with the Section IV B. 4, the Compendium (Version 1.0) inadvertently left out the word "not" in the sentence you reference. The Compendium should have read:

A manufacturer need not file a report for a claim or notice of death and injury when:

b.) The claim alleges one or more deaths in a foreign country involving a tire that is not identical or substantially similar to one offered for sale in the United States.

This omission has been corrected in "Version 2.0" of the Compendium.

Lastly, in connection with one-time historical reporting section in the Compendium you wrote:

Section V One-Time Historical Reporting Requirements B. What To Report: reads: &"Historical data concerning production totals, number of warranty adjustments for the preceding 12 quarters (July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2003) covering production year 1998 and later tires (see 579.28(c))&". Referencing the Federal Register/ Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations - page 35148/Section 579.28 Due date of reports and other miscellaneous provisions. (c) (iii) reads: &"Each manufacturer of tires covered by 579.26 of this part shall file separate reports covering the number of warranty adjustments recorded in the manufacturer's warranty adjustment system for tires that it received in each calendar quarter from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003, for tires manufactured from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003&". Toyo interprets this to mean that the production data for the one-time historical report should only include production numbers for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 1998 to June 30, 2003 and not the entire calendar production for 1998.

We do not agree with your understanding.The historical reports are expected to provide a baseline so that we will be able to compare current rates to historical rates. In order for NHTSA to evaluate the EWR information, we need annual production for the five previous years. Our intent is for tire manufacturers to provide annual production for all of 1998 until 2003 is complete and we have first quarter 2004 production. See 49 CFR 579.28, as amended at 68 FR 35132 at 35148. Therefore, when reporting for each quarter from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003, for tires manufactured from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2003, a manufacturer should include the total annual production of tires produced from the beginning of each calendar year included in the report until the close of the quarter that is the subject of the report.

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.11/19/03