ID: nht88-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Phoenix Transit System

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Robert W. Hocken General Manager Phoenix Transit System P.O. Box 4275 Phoenix, AZ 85030

Dear Mr. Hocken:

This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1987 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have received a "Service Information Safety Related letter" from Flxible Corporation stating that deceleration warning lights installed on your buses do not comply with Standard No. 108. You have also asked how you may file for "Special Exception" if your buses are not in compliance.

This will confirm that Flxible Corporation, pursuant to applicable Federal regulations, has determined that certain buses produced by it, including the 67 units furnished Phoenix, do not comply with Standard No. 108, and has initiated a notification and remedy campaign (Campaign 87V-089). The basis of this determination was the manufacturer's conclusion that flashing amber deceleration warning lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stop lamps. The company has advised you of the corrective action to be taken, that is, to remove the deceleration flasher. Although the agency encourages owners of campaigned vehicles to remedy noncompliances, the decision whether to do so rests with the vehicle owner. There is no Federal requirement that an owner correct a noncompliance that exists in his vehicle, and no penalty for his failure to do so. Thus, no "Special Exception" is either needed or available for an owner who wishes to continue operating a vehicle in a non compliant state.

We are interested in your comment that you experienced a 44 percent reduction in accidents in 1985, the first full year that the system was installed on all your buses, compared with 1984. This report compares favorably with the accident reduction experi enced in our test fleets of passenger cars equipped with center highmounted stop lamps, which has the basis for eventual adoption of that requirement. The agency is engaged in research pertaining to the conspicuity of large vehicles, and would find it he lpful to have a copy of the data upon which you based your comment. It should be sent to Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Research and Development, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, s.w., Washington, D.C. 20590. We appreciate your interest in sa fety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 16, 1987 Taylor Vinson, Legal Counsel Rm 5219 NATHA U S Department of Transportation 400 7th St SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

We request an official interpretation of rule FMVSS 108. We have received a Service Information Safety Related letter from the Flxible Corporation that states that our deceleration lights do not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 108, "lamps, reflecti ve devices and associated equipment."

In the spring of 1982, we began an experiment with 10 buses with DAS (Deceleration Alert System) to see if we could reduce our rear end accidents. The 18 months with the DAS was so successful that we had our entire fleet fitted with the lights. The year of 1985 was the first full year that lights were installed on all our buses. There was a 44 percent reduction in accidents over the previous year (1984).

You can see why we need an official interpretation. If we are not in compliance with FMVSS 108, we need to know how we can file for "Special Exception."

We will need the required forms; who we need to contact; and to whom the forms need to be sent to in order to achieve this Special Exception.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Hocken General Manager

pk

ID: 18571-b.wkm

Barjan Products
2751 Morton Drive
East Moline, IL 61244

Dear Sir/Madam:

It has come to our attention that your company manufactures a product called the Air Blow Gun (ABG), which is described as a length of 11.5-foot coiled 1/4 inch tubing with brass fittings on either end and a lever-type blow gun. The ABG attaches to the vehicle's compressed air system which supplies compressed air for its braking system. When attached to the air system, it can be used to clean various surfaces with air pressure. The ABG's container carries the notation "D.O.T. approved" in four places.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), by delegation from the Secretary of Transportation, has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). That statutory scheme establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Most of the FMVSSs that apply to motor vehicle equipment require such equipment to be certified by the manufacturer. Where required, that certification is often shown by marking the product itself with the symbol "DOT." NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing motor vehicles and equipment. The agency also investigates safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer finds that a vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the defect or noncompliance at no charge to the customer. In carrying out its functions, consistent with the self-certification aspects of the program, NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, endorse, test, or grant clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

Turning now to the ABG, we would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, which is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." The ABG would be classified as an accessory if it meets the following two tests:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation and/or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing the product and the information on its container, we conclude that the ABG is an accessory. It was obviously designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in or on motor vehicles. Further, it would appear that the ABG is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, specifically vehicles equipped with air brake systems, as opposed to professional vehicle repair personnel, since its stated purpose is "for fast and easy cleaning," using the vehicle's own compressed air supply. Motor vehicle repair businesses can be expected to have their own air supply.

While the ABG is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this particular product.⁽¹⁾ Thus, under the certification provisions, certifying or marking the ABG with the "DOT" symbol is not warranted. Nevertheless, you, as the manufacturer, are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 - 30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

As stated above, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicle equipment or accessories. The phrase "D.O.T. approved," where there are no applicable FMVSSs, is a false certification in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30115 and could be misleading to the public. Accordingly, the notation "DOT approved" must be removed from the product's container and any other promotional literature or information pertaining to this product.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121#VSA
d.3/23/99

1. FMVSS No. 121. Air brake systems, specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles that are equipped with air brake systems. The standard does not address the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for other purposes, such as use of the ABG for cleaning, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the air brake standard. Further, if the ABG is permanently integrated into the vehicle's compressed air supply system, as opposed to being attached and detached as needed, the ABG could be subject to FMVSS No. 106, Brake hoses. It could be subject to the brake hose standard if it transmits or contains the brake air pressure used to supply force to a vehicle's brakes, or stated another way, if a failure of the hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. In such a case, the ABG would be a brake hose and must comply with FMVSS No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, however, then the ABG would not contain or transmit the vehicle's brake air pressure and would not be required to comply with the brake hose standard.

ID: Warren.1

Ms. Ellen Warren
Vuenyx
17 Cote des Neiges Road
Nepean, Ontario K2G 2C3
Canada

Dear Ms. Warren:

This responds to your November 3, 2003 letter asking which Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), if any, would be applicable to a product your company is developing for installation in motor vehicles. The product is a video-based, forward-looking collision avoidance device consisting of a digital video camera mounted inside the front windshield, near the rearview mirror, that is connected to a processor mounted on or under the dashboard. The products goal is to "help prevent the most common types of collisions by providing warnings of undesired lane departures, high closure rates with objects in the path and failure to decelerate when approaching stop signals." I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations and to discuss how they may affect your product.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards (see 49 CFR Part 571) before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to your product. However, installation of your product may affect a vehicles compliance with several safety standards.

If the device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle, prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the

vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

In order to determine how installation of your video camera system could affect vehicle compliance with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard contained in 49 CFR Part 571. However, there are certain standards (discussed below) of which you should be particularly aware.

First, I would draw your attention to paragraph S5.3.5 of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, which places a limitation on sources of illumination within the passenger compartment, in order to prevent glare visible to the driver. Although your letter does not indicate the type of output associated with your crash avoidance system (e.g., light, sound, or some combination thereof), any related monitor or display would be required to control glare as required under S5.3.5.

You should assess also your products effect upon a vehicles compliance with FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which are designed to protect drivers and passengers, both by ensuring the crashworthiness of the vehicle and by reducing injuries resulting from contact with various interior components.

In discussions with Eric Stas of my staff, you mentioned the foreseeable potential for your products to be adapted to rearward application. Consequently, you may wish to be aware of NHTSAs ongoing rulemaking in which we are considering establishing a performance standard for rear object detection, as part of FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors.NHTSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on this topic on November 27, 2000, which included consideration of a rear video system as a compliance option under a future standard (see 65 FR 70681). We expect to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2004.

Beyond compliance with relevant federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over commercial vehicles and interstate motor carriers operating in the United States.You may wish to contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.1/21/04

ID: 1984-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Yea-tung Hung, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to this office, asking for information on the necessary steps for certifying that a rim complies with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You were particularly interested in how to obtain "authorization" to place the required markings on rims. Markings are only required by Standard No. 120 to appear on rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, to be certain that I answer your request fully, I will explain our requirements for both passenger car rims and rims for use on other motor vehicles.

The two applicable standards are No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims -- Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.110), and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120). I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. For passenger car rims, section S4.4 of Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional requirements shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire and Rim Association, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, or the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application. No markings are required on rims subject to Standard No. 110.

For rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not the rim manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will actually be mounted on the rim.

The second requirement, set forth in S5.2, is that the rim be marked with five specified items of information. These are:

(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions;

(2) The rim size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

(3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards;

(4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and

(5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

You specifically asked how to obtain "authorization from D.O.T." to engrave the symbol on the rim which indicates that it complies with the standards and regulations. As explained in Standard No. 120, this symbol is the letters "DOT". The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to the governmental entity, and that entity tests the rims to determine if it can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. Once the manufacturer determines that its rims do meet the requirements of Standard No. 120, it stamps the symbol "DOT" into those rims, without any authorization from this agency.

Should you have any further questions regarding the requirements applicable to rims, please feel free to contact me.

ENCLS.

OCC-1208

September 18, 1984

U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir,

This is to inquire that how to obtain the authorization from D.O.T. to engrave the symbol or words on the rim which shall indicate the quality of the rim is manufactured in accordance with the regulation set forth by the D.O.T.

On behalf of Shinn Fu Company of Taiwan, I have discussed this matter with Mr. Casanova and was told that there is not necessary to get special authorization for the rim except for the tire.

Please confirm this advice or advise us otherwise.

I am looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Yea-tung Hong

cc: SHINN FU CO.

ID: nht90-2.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Richard L. Martinez -- Santa Fe Insurance Agency , Inc.

TITLE: Europa International, Inc

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated March 9, 1990 To Talyor Vinson and From Richard L. Martinez (OCC 4529)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of March 9, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to "the $2,000 liability policy, that you discussed with him. You have asked four questions with respect to this subject on behalf of a client who intends to apply for recognition as a registered importer by this agency, and as an independent commercial importer (ICI) under EPA regulations. Initially, let me provide you with some background information. under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically Title 15, United States Code, Section 1397(c)(3)(d) (ii), the Department of Transportation is required to prescribe by regulation "provisions for ensuring that the [registered] importer (or any successor in interest) will be able technically and financially to carry out the importer's responsibilities under part B of this title (relating to discovery, notification, and remedy of defects)." These responsibilities primarily are to notify vehicle owners in the event that either a safety related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the owner's vehicle, and to remedy the situation.

In developing a regulation to implement the statutory requirement, the agency examined the regulations of the EPA pertaining to ICIs. In a final rule published on September 25, 1987 (52 FR 36136), EPA required ICIs to provide to vehicle or engine owners warranties, and to ensure that the warranties "are insured by a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance company", and "are transferable to each successive owner . . . ." (40 CFR 85.1510(b)(2)). In commenting on EPA'S proposed regulation, the State of California had noted that CARB's own new regulation addressing non-conforming vehicles required modifiers to post a prepaid surety bond in the amount of $1,000 per vehicle to cover its obligation to perform recalls, or alternatively, to purchase insurance which will cover the modifier's recall obligation. The Department of Transportation, wishing to conform as closely as possible to procedures already in practice for grey market importers who were ICIs, proposed and adopted 49 CFR 592.6(h), requiring registered importers to "maintain in effect a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance complany as a guarantor of its performance under paragraph (f) of this section." (which relates to notification and remedy).

With this background in mind, I shall reply to your four questions: "1. Is it required that the term of the policy be for eight years from the date of purchase/sale?" In essence, yes. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are required to provide remedy without charge for a period of 8 years following the first purchase of a vehicle (however, there is no limit on the time for notification). The general requirement for registered importers, established by Section 592.6(f)(2)(i), is that the obligation to provide remedy without charge shall not apply if the noncompliance or safety related defect exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after importation occurred more than 8 calendar years before notification respecting the failure to comply is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. However, during the 8-year period following sale after importation, the registered importer is not obligated to provide repair without charge if two factors are present. The first is that tbe condition is a safety related defect that is attributable solely to the original manufacturer of the vehicle, and not to the registered importer. The second is that the date of the original first purchase of the vehicle, if known, or, if not known, the date of manufacture, as determined by the Department of Transportation, is more than 8 years from the date on which notification is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. "2. The limit is $2,000. Would that apply annually or would it be for the entire eight-year period? The reason for this question is that the companies are wondering whether or not this is a cumulative limit, e.g., $2,000 x eight years = $16,000."

The purpose of the policy is to ensure that any noncompliance or safety related defect that is determined to exist in a vehicle may be remedied without charge to the vehicle owner. If the registered importer is financially unable to effect remedy, then the policy is intended to cover the cost of remedy. The most usual form of remedy is repair. Pursuant to comments received during the course of rulemaking that $2,000 appeared to be the uppermost sum necessary to repair a single noncompliance or safety related defect, the agency adopted section 592.5(a)(8) stating that the policy is in an amount that equals $2,000 for each motor vehicle . . . ." The answer to your question can be expressed in the following example. If a registered importer becomes insolvent in the second year following sale of the vehicle, for the next 6 years the policy should be available to any owner of the vehicle to cover the costs of repairing any safety related defect or noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle, with a limit of $2,000 on the cost of correcting any such defect or noncompliance covered by a single campaign. 3 Records of past remedial campaigns are available if insurance companies wish to study the types of noncompliances and safety related defects that have occurred over the years, as well as the model and model years involved. In our judgment, the cost of each repair has been far less than $2,000. If repair is impossible, alternative forms of remedy established by statute are replacement with a vehicle of equivalent value, or repurchase of a vehicle. Obviously this form of remedy cannot occur if the registered importer has gone out of business. "3. You mentioned that the policy was to cover non-compliance or safety defect situations. What are areas to be covered: emissions controls, latent defects, brake problems, warranty situations such as drive train, etc.?" Each system, part, or component of a motor vehicle is covered by the remedial authority. If a component is part of a system necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle does not comply with that standard because of the design or manufacture of that component, replacement of the component with a satisfactory one would be the object of a remedial campaign. For example, if a vehicle could not meet the stopping distance requirement of Standard No. 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, and that failure was due to the inadequacy of the brake lining the object of the campaign would be to recall all affected vehicles and replace the brake lining with one by which the vehicle would comply. The statute defines a defect as one that is inclusive of any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor veicles or motor vehicle equipment. But only defects that are determined to be safety related require correction. The question of whether a defect is safety related depends upon the facts of the individual case. Generally, defects in emission controls are not safety related, nor are "warranty situations such as drive trains". Determinations of the existence of noncompliances or safety related defects are made by the registered importer, the Department of Transportation, or the original manufacturer of the vehicle. "4. Europa is looking into whether or not MBNA would provide a warranty policy (for tbe G-wagon multipurpose passenger vehicle not sold in the United states) as they currently do for their private passenger vehicles. The present warranty covers for a 12/12 plan. If they were to extend this, is it possible that that could be acceptable as an alternative to the $2,000 limit? We doubt that MBNA would be willing to extend any type of warranty to a vehicle that is not originally manufactured by its parent company to comply with Federal safety standards, that it does not import, and that is not sold through its dealers. Further, such a vehicle could not be imported into the United States unless the Department of Transportation had determined that it was capable conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 4 However, assuming that the G-wagon is deemed eligible for entry and that MBNA is willing to extend a warranty to it, there is no legal reason why MBNA could not assume responsibility for remedial work without charge in the event the registered importer were unable to provide it, whether in the form of an express warranty, or other document. I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: 8436

Mr. Bob Brinton
Friction Advisory Service
2001 Broadway Street
Vancouver, WA 98663-3326

Dear Mr. Brinton:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the legality of an auxiliary parking system in addition to the spring parking brake system. According to your letter, you are familiar with certain refuse type vehicles with right hand side drive that are equipped with an I.C.C. flip switch valve or a push pull valve. These valves permit a driver to temporarily park the vehicle while the driver leaves the vehicle and picks up trash. You explained that while the auxiliary brake system is applied, the spring brakes are not applied to help the spring avoid extreme wear cycles.

You asked whether the auxiliary brake system is legal under Standard No. 121. In your letter, you indicate your view that these auxiliary systems do not comply with the parking brake requirements in S5.6.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Based on our understanding of the brake system you describe, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Standard No. 121, which 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. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions.

A vehicle equipped with air brakes is required to comply with the requirements set forth in Standard No. 121. Among other things, S5.6 of the Standard requires air-braked vehicles to be equipped with a parking brake system that meets specified performance requirements. The requirements in Standard No. 121, however, do not preclude the installation of a braking system in addition to the systems installed to comply with the Standard's requirements. Accordingly, the agency would not consider the requirements of S5.6 to prohibit an auxiliary parking brake system in addition to the brake systems required to comply with Standard No. 121.

Nevertheless, as an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety, an auxiliary parking brake system should be built in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of injury that might occur as a result of its design, construction, or performance.

Please note that this interpretation is consistent with the agency's long-standing view about the use of auxiliary parking brake systems. I am enclosing a December 9, 1976 interpretation letter to Mr. Leon Steenbock which addressed this issue.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:121 d:5/6/93

ID: nht93-3.37

DATE: May 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Bob Brinton -- Friction Advisory Service

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-16-93 from Bob Brinton to NHTSA (OCC 8436); Also attached to letter dated 12-9-76 from Frank A. Berndt to Leon W. Steenbock (Std. 121)

TEXT: This responds to your letter inquiring about the legality of an auxiliary parking system in addition to the spring parking brake system. According to your letter, you are familiar with certain refuse type vehicles with right hand side drive that are equipped with an I.C.C. flip switch valve or a push pull valve. These valves permit a driver to temporarily park the vehicle while the driver leaves the vehicle and picks up trash. You explained that while the auxiliary brake system is applied, the spring brakes are not applied to help the spring avoid extreme wear cycles.

You asked whether the auxiliary brake system is legal under Standard No. 121. In your letter, you indicate your view that these auxiliary systems do not comply with the parking brake requirements in S5.6.3 of Standard No. 121, AIR BRAKE SYSTEM. Based on our understanding of the brake system you describe, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Standard No. 121, which 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. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions.

A vehicle equipped with air brakes is required to comply with the requirements set forth in Standard No. 121. Among other things, S5.6 of the Standard requires air-braked vehicles to be equipped with a parking brake system that meets specified performance requirements. The requirements in standard No. 121, however, do not preclude the installation of a braking system in addition to the systems installed to comply with the Standard's requirements. Accordingly, the agency would not consider the requirements of S5.6 to prohibit an auxiliary parking brake system in addition to the brake systems required to comply with Standard No. 121.

Nevertheless, as an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety, an auxiliary parking brake system should be built in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of injury that might occur as a result of its design, construction, or performance.

Please note that this interpretation is consistent with the agency's

long-standing view about the use of auxiliary parking brake systems. I am enclosing a December 9, 1976 interpretation letter to Mr. Leon Steenbock which addressed this issue.

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

ID: 2408y

Mr. Richard L. Martinez
Santa Fe Insurance Agency, Inc.
231 Washington Avenue
Santa Fe, NM 87501-1926

Re: Europa International, Inc.

Dear Mr. Martinez:

This is in reply to your letter of March 9, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to "the $2,000 liability policy" that you discussed with him. You have asked four questions with respect to this subject on behalf of a client who intends to apply for recognition as a registered importer by this agency, and as an independent commercial importer (ICI) under EPA regulations.

Initially, let me provide you with some background information. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically Title l5, United States Code, Section 1397(c)(3)(D)(ii), the Department of Transportation is required to prescribe by regulation "provisions for ensuring that the [registered] importer (or any successor in interest) will be able technically and financially to carry out the importer's responsibilities under part B of this title (relating to discovery, notification, and remedy of defects)." These responsibilities primarily are to notify vehicle owners in the event that either a safety related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the owner's vehicle, and to remedy the situation.

In developing a regulation to implement the statutory requirement, the agency examined the regulations of the EPA pertaining to ICIs. In a final rule published on September 25, l987 (52 FR 36136), EPA required ICIs to provide to vehicle or engine owners warranties, and to ensure that the warranties "are insured by a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance company", and "are transferable to each successive owner . . . ." (40 CFR 85.1510(b)(2)). In commenting on EPA's proposed regulation, the State of California had noted that CARB's own new regulation addressing non-conforming vehicles required modifiers to post a prepaid surety bond in the amount of $1,000 per vehicle to cover its obligation to perform recalls, or alternatively, to purchase insurance which will cover the modifier's recall obligation. The Department of Transportation, wishing to conform as closely as possible to procedures already in practice for grey market importers who were ICIs, proposed and adopted 49 CFR 592.6(h), requiring registered importers to "maintain in effect a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance complany as a guarantor of its performance under paragraph (f) of this section." (which relates to notification and remedy).

With this background in mind, I shall reply to your four questions:

"1. Is it required that the term of the policy be for eight years from the date of purchase/sale?"

In essence, yes. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are required to provide remedy without charge for a period of 8 years following the first purchase of a vehicle (however, there is no limit on the time for notification). The general requirement for registered importers, established by Section 592.6(f)(2)(i), is that the obligation to provide remedy without charge shall not apply if the noncompliance or safety related defect exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after importation occurred more than 8 calendar years before notification respecting the failure to comply is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners.

However, during the 8-year period following sale after importation, the registered importer is not obligated to provide repair without charge if two factors are present. The first is that the condition is a safety related defect that is attributable solely to the original manufacturer of the vehicle, and not to the registered importer. The second is that the date of the original first purchase of the vehicle, if known, or, if not known, the date of manufacture, as determined by the Department of Transportation, is more than 8 years from the date on which notification is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners.

"2. The limit is $2,000. Would that apply annually or would it be for the entire eight-year period? The reason for this question is that the companies are wondering whether or not this is a cumulative limit, e.g., $2,000 x eight years = $16,000."

The purpose of the policy is to ensure that any noncompliance or safety related defect that is determined to exist in a vehicle may be remedied without charge to the vehicle owner. If the registered importer is financially unable to effect remedy, then the policy is intended to cover the cost of remedy. The most usual form of remedy is repair. Pursuant to comments received during the course of rulemaking that $2,000 appeared to be the uppermost sum necessary to repair a single noncompliance or safety related defect, the agency adopted section 592.5(a)(8) stating that the policy is "in an amount that equals $2,000 for each motor vehicle . . . ." The answer to your question can be expressed in the following example. If a registered importer becomes insolvent in the second year following sale of the vehicle, for the next 6 years the policy should be available to any owner of the vehicle to cover the costs of repairing any safety related defect or noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle, with a limit of $2,000 on the cost of correcting any such defect or noncompliance covered by a single campaign. Records of past remedial campaigns are available if insurance companies wish to study the types of noncompliances and safety related defects that have occurred over the years, as well as the model and model years involved. In our judgment, the cost of each repair has been far less than $2,000. If repair is impossible, alternative forms of remedy established by statute are replacement with a vehicle of equivalent value, or repurchase of a vehicle. Obviously this form of remedy cannot occur if the registered importer has gone out of business.

"3. You mentioned that the policy was to cover non-compliance or safety defect situations. What are areas to be covered: emissions controls, latent defects, brake problems, warranty situations such as drive train, etc.?"

Each system, part, or component of a motor vehicle is covered by the remedial authority. If a component is part of a system necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle does not comply with that standard because of the design or manufacture of that component, replacement of the component with a satisfactory one would be the object of a remedial campaign. For example, if a vehicle could not meet the stopping distance requirement of Standard No. l05 Hydraulic Brake Systems, and that failure was due to the inadequacy of the brake lining, the object of the campaign would be to recall all affected vehicles and replace the brake lining with one by which the vehicle would comply.

The statute defines a defect as one that is inclusive of any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. But only defects that are determined to be safety related require correction. The question of whether a defect is safety related depends upon the facts of the individual case. Generally, defects in emission controls are not safety related, nor are "warranty situations such as drive trains". Determinations of the existence of noncompliances or safety related defects are made by the registered importer, the Department of Transportation, or the original manufacturer of the vehicle.

"4. Europa is looking into whether or not MBNA would provide a warranty policy [for the G-wagon multipurpose passenger vehicle not sold in the United States] as they currently do for their private passenger vehicles. The present warranty covers for a 12/12 plan. If they were to extend this, is it possible that that could be acceptable as an alternative to the $2,000 limit?"

We doubt that MBNA would be willing to extend any type of warranty to a vehicle that is not originally manufactured by its parent company to comply with Federal safety standards, that it does not import, and that is not sold through its dealers. Further, such a vehicle could not be imported into the United States unless the Department of Transportation had determined that it was capable conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, assuming that the G-wagon is deemed eligible for entry and that MBNA is willing to extend a warranty to it, there is no legal reason why MBNA could not assume responsibility for remedial work without charge in the event the registered importer were unable to provide it, whether in the form of an express warranty, or other document.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:592 d:4/25/90

ID: 1982-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Research and Certification Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 2, 1982

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy President, Automotive Research and Certification Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. McEnvoy:

This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1981, appealing our denial of your request to import five different German specification 1982 BMW passenger cars under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). This provision allows vehicles not meeting the Federal safety and bumper standards to be imported for test purposes for a limited time without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You have asked us to reconsider our original decision or alternatively to allow the importation of two of the five vehicles. You have also agreed to perform all safety compliance work within 30 days of receipt of the five test vehicles, allowing you to carry out your test programs for developing complying emissions and bumper systems.

Upon review of your petition, the agency is agreeable to allowing you to import a total of five vehicles under the provision of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), without insisting upon immediate compliance with the bumper requirements, provided that you will agree in writing that the vehicles will be brought into compliance with then existing bumper requirements if they are sold to third parties. This will allow you a maximum of 120 days to bring the vehicles into compliance with safety requirements.

The bumper standard is primarily a property damage standard, rather than a safety standard, and the Administrator has the authority to waive it completely for vehicles imported into the United States. Although this authority has not been exercised or implemented in regulations, the temporary waiver which may be provided you is consistent with the intent of Congress, and allows both you and the agency to accomplish their goals. As a practical matter, the bumper standard may be amended in the near future to prescribe a more cost-effective level of performance and in that event your task of conforming the vehicles might be less difficult; we would not insist on conformance with the bumper standard in effect when the BMW's were manufactured.

I hope that this proposed solution is satisfactory to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 18, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1981, denying our request for permission to import five different German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

Your conclusion that "the purpose of your testing is to encourage the eventual importation of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to meet Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements" is in error. The purpose of our research, development, and testing is to insure that the motor vehicles which are imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x) are brought into full compliance with Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements and will remain in compliance with these requirements. It is felt that this purpose is indeed consistent with the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as well as that of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It is unlikely that our research, development and testing program will have any effect on the number of motor vehicles imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x). Since our proposed emission control system will be somewhat more expensive than those systems currently being used to enable non-certified imported automobiles to pass Federal emissions tests, will not become any easier or less expensive to import a non-certified motor vehicle. Similarly, if It was deemed feasible to modify the European bumper systems to comply with Federal bumper requirements (49 CFR Part 581), these modifications would most likely be more expensive than simply exchanging the European bumpers for U.S. style bumpers.

Your suggestion that we complete the necessary safety modifications before conducting our test program would, in effect, prevent us from carrying out that part of the program having to do with the bumper modifications. This is due to the fact that we must test different types of bumper support structures and shock absorbing units with the European bumpers in place. With the U.S. style bumpers installed, this would be impossible. We would, however, be agreeable to performing all of the safety related modifications, except for the addition of the U.S. style safety bumpers, upon receipt of the test vehicles. We expect that this work could be completed within 30 days of receipt of the test vehicles. This would allow us to carry out our test program while at the same time complying with all Federal safety requirements except the bumper standard.

We would also be agreeable to importing only two of the German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii), at this time. This would allow us to get our testing program underway and to demonstrate to the NHTSA that we truly are engaged in a research, development, and testing program. Once this had been done, we would then apply for permission to import the three remaining test vehicles.

Although our testing program will require some operation of the test vehicles on public highways, this operation will be minimal. We anticipate that each test vehicle will be driven not more than 3,000 miles for the duration of the test. These vehicles will be operated for testing purposes only, and will not be used for general transportation. Such limited operation certainly will not represent a safety or health hazard.

As you can see, we are agreeable to almost any conditions which will allow us to get this testing program underway. We therefore request that you reconsider our original request of October 19, 1981, for permission to import five motor vehicles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). As an alternative, we request that permission be granted for the importation of at least two of the five test vehicles listed in our letter of October 19, 1981, under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). The test vehicles which we would want to import first are the BMW 323i and the BMW 635i.

Attached is a copy of the testing exemption granted by the EPA. Your prompt attention to our request would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Robert P. McEvoy President

RPM:smm

cc: Mr. Taylor Vinson

Enclosures

November 25, 1981

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy, President Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, Massachusetts 01923

Dear Mr. McEvoy:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1981, in which you requested a testing exemption to cover five (5) light-duty vehicles. The purpose of the test program is to develop a closed-loop emission system for use on BMW vehicles.

A testing exemption is hereby granted, subject to the terms and conditions of the enclosed Memorandum of Exemption. If Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. elects to accept the exemption, please notify this office by returning a signed copy of the Memorandum to this office within thirty days.

Very truly yours,

Timothy Fields, Jr., Chief Manufacturers Programs Branch Manufacturers Operations Division (EN-340)

Enclosure

ID: 20288.ztv

Mr. Evan W. Johnson
Administrator
Division of Consumer Affairs
Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Montgomery County
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This is in reply to your letter of July 9, 1999, with respect to the "Safe-T-Stop" lighting device. We appreciate your enclosing some materials to help us in answering your question whether the device is permitted under Federal law and regulations.

According to a document by SafeLite of America, Inc., that you enclosed, its product Safe-T-Stop "will pulse [the center high mounted brake light] for approximately 6 seconds and reactivate if the brakes are reapplied." You read S5.5.10(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as requiring "that the third brake light must be wired to be steady-burning," and that you believe that Safe-T-Stop "contravenes this requirement of the standard by varying the brightness of the light."

We confirm your interpretation. S5.5.10(a), (b), and (c) list the motor vehicle lamps that may flash when they are operated. No stop lamp is among the lamps listed. S5.5.10(d) requires all other lamps to be wired to be steady burning, thus including all stop lamps. Standard No. 108 does not allow a stop lamp that pulses, and a vehicle with a stop lamp that pulses does not meet Federal requirements.

The installation of the circuitry that transforms a steady burning stop lamp into one that pulses may violate Federal law. You wrote that Safe-t-Stop is being marketed to consumers by new car dealers in their new car sales. For example, Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30112(a))prohibits a dealer from selling a new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus a dealer who sells a new car with Safe-T-Stop installed has sold a vehicle that does not comply with Standard No. 108. Our statute provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,100 upon a dealer for each violation of Sec. 30112(a). A dealer who allows a test drive without sale is also in violation of Sec. 30112(a) which prohibits any person from offering for sale a nonconforming motor vehicle.

The letter of May 11, 1999, from Steven D. Kohn to Maryland's Motor Vehicle Administrator, Anne S. Ferro, which you enclosed, is incorrect in stating that Safe-T-Stop is permitted by S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 as an "enhancement for existing vehicular brake lights." This provision of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. However, when installation of equipment creates a noncompliance per se, as Safe-T-Stop does with S5.5.10(d), S5.1.3 is not applicable.

You state that Mr. Kohn has clarified that, instead of S5.1.3, he is relying on our interpretation of July 24, 1989, to Robert Knauff, and that you do not view this interpretation as supporting his claim that Safe-T-Stop is consistent with Standard No. 108. The 1989 interpretation dealt with a single pulse of light approximately 40 millionths of a second in length which acted through the center high mounted stop lamp as an advance warning of braking before the brakes were applied. We read Standard No. 108's prohibition against combining the center lamp with any other lamp as applying to the collision avoidance pulse, and stated that it could not be furnished as part of a center lamp system. We did say that if the device met the test of S5.1.3, it would be an acceptable addition to any motor vehicle not originally required by Standard No. 108 to be equipped with one (i.e., in 1989, passenger cars manufactured before

September 1, 1985, and all other motor vehicles). Since our 1989 interpretation, vans and light trucks have been required as of September 1, 1993, to be manufactured with the steady burning center stop lamp. Therefore, dealer installation of Safe-T-Stop on new vehicles of these types is subject to the same prohibition as on passenger cars, and to the same civil penalties of up to $1,100 for each violation.

We note Administrator Ferro's reply of June 8, 1999, to Mr. Kohn in which she states that Safe-T-Stop can be accepted in Maryland if "the device is installed as a supplement to, not a replacement of, any center high-mounted stop lamp already installed, consistent with" Standard No. 108 and our 1989 letter.

This letter to you makes clear that Safe-T-Stop cannot be installed in an existing center lamp. To the extent that Ms. Ferro's letter can be read as an approval of a second center lamp incorporating the pulse, this is inconsistent with S5.1.3, as we believe a flashing stop lamp could create confusion and thereby impair the effectiveness of the steady burning stop lamps. Under the U.S. Constitution and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Federal law would govern.

Please note that Federal law also prohibits a dealer from installation of Safe-T-Stop on a vehicle after it is sold. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business is forbidden from making inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Because installation of the Safe-T-Stop would create a noncompliance with S5.1.3 by creating confusion and impairing the effectiveness of the steady burning stop lamps, we regard this as a "making inoperative" within the meaning of the statute.

We are furnishing copies of this letter to Administrator Ferro, SafeLite of America (the manufacturer of Safe-T-Stop), Mr. Kohn, and Paul Jackson Rice whom Mr. Kohn represents is his counsel. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Administrator Anne S. Ferro Safelite of America, Inc.
Steven Kohn
Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. Ref:108
d.8/27/99