ID: nht92-9.28

DATE: February 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frank Sonzala -- Senior Vice President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/11/91 from Frank J. Sonzala to Steve Wood (OCC 6781)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a manufacturer of spring brakes may legally add the symbol "DOT" to its spring brake chamber housing. You explained that another manufacturer has adopted this practice which you believe has the potential to confuse consumers since the DOT symbol typically indicates that the item of equipment complies with agency requirements. You requested that the agency issue an interpretation stating that the DOT symbol should not be placed on any chamber and should not serve as a certification of approval by DOT or NHTSA. As discussed below, the DOT symbol should not be marked on brake chambers.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following letter represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter.

NHTSA promulgates safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121), which establishes requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The standard applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems; it does not apply to motor vehicle equipment. Spring brakes are a type of brake design that is often used to comply with Standard No. 121's parking brake requirements.

Nothing in Standard No. 121 addresses labeling air brakes or air brake components with the symbol DOT. Several of NHTSA' standards, however, do require items to be marked with the symbol DOT, which serves as a certification that the item complies with applicable standards. For example, Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), specifies labeling and performance requirements for motor vehicle brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. This standard requires the equipment manufacturer to label brake hoses with the symbol DOT, with this symbol constituting a certification by that manufacturer that the hose conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards (see S7.2).

Since placement of the symbol DOT on an equipment item signifies that the item is certified as complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, use of the symbol for items which are not subject to the standards can be misleading. Standard No. 121 does not directly apply to spring brakes but instead applies to air-braked vehicles. Compliance with the standard is

determined by a vehicle's overall braking performance. Thus, a spring brake cannot "comply" with that standard or any other standard. Any symbol that implies that a spring brake complies with Federal safety standards is thus misleading.

Section 108 (a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act provides, among other things, that no person shall issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. The placement of the DOT symbol on an item to which a Federal motor vehicle safety standard does not apply may be a violation of this section. We are referring your allegations to our Office of Enforcement for appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.19

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 2, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Collins -- Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, American Trucking Associations (Alexandria, VA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/18/94 from John Collins to John G. Womack (OCC 9876)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about a recent amendment to the supply line retention requirements in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You requested an interpretation of the test procedure set forth in S5.8.2 . That provision states, in relevant part that,

A trailer shall meet the above supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pressurized to 100 psi, and the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi.

Specifically, you believe that this provision means that (1) the test rig remains connected to the shop air, as shown in Figure 1, for the duration of the test, (2) the shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test, and (3) the pressure in the test rig's 1000 cubic inch reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test. I will address each of these suggested interpretations below.

The basic issue raised by your questions is whether the supply line retention test is conducted with air flowing from the test rig (simulating the flow of air from a tractor), or with the supply of air cut off. It is our opinion that this test is conduc ted with the air flowing from the test rig.

As you suggested in your letter, this result is implied by the language of S5.8.2. That section states that a trailer must meet the supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig, and with the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi. There would be no reason to set the regulator at 100 psi if air was not flowing from the test rig. We therefore agree with the first of your three suggested interpretations, that the test rig remains connected to the shop air f or the duration of the test.

We similarly agree with the second of your suggested interpretations, that the shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test. S5.8.2 does not specify that this valve be shut, and such shutting would be inconsistent with conduct ing the test with air flowing from the test rig.

Your third suggested interpretation is that the pressure in the test rig's 1000 cubic inch reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test. We note that no special efforts are made to maintain this pressure at 100 psi. As indicated above, S5.8.2 specifies that the reservoir of the test rig is INITIALLY set at 100 psi; the pressure could vary during the test. However, as indicated above, 100 psi air pressure would continue to flow through the regulator during the test in the direction of the reservoir.

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: 9876

Mr. John Collins
Senior Vice President, Government Affairs
American Trucking Associations
2200 Mill Road
Alexandria, VA 22314-4677

Dear Mr. Collins:

This responds to your letter about a recent amendment to the supply line retention requirements in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You requested an interpretation of the test procedure set forth in S5.8.2. That provision states, in relevant part that,

A trailer shall meet the above supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pressurized to 100 psi, and the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi.

Specifically, you believe that this provision means that (1) the test rig remains connected to the shop air, as shown in Figure 1, for the duration of the test, (2) the shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test, and (3) the pressure in the test rig's 1000 cubic inch reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test. I will address each of these suggested interpretations below.

The basic issue raised by your questions is whether the supply line retention test is conducted with air flowing from the test rig (simulating the flow of air from a tractor), or with the supply of air cut off. It is our opinion that this test is conducted with the air flowing from the test rig.

As you suggested in your letter, this result is implied by the language of S5.8.2. That section states that a trailer must meet the supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig, and with the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi. There would be no reason to set the regulator at 100 psi if air was not flowing from the test rig. We therefore agree with the first of your three suggested interpretations, that the test rig remains connected to the shop air for the duration of the test.

We similarly agree with the second of your suggested interpretations, that the shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test. S5.8.2 does not specify that this valve be shut, and such shutting would be inconsistent with conducting the test with air flowing from the test rig.

Your third suggested interpretation is that the pressure in the test rig's 1000 cubic inch reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test. We note that no special efforts are made to maintain this pressure at 100 psi. As indicated above, S5.8.2 specifies that the reservoir of the test rig is initially set at 100 psi; the pressure could vary during the test. However, as indicated above, 100 psi air pressure would continue to flow through the regulator during the test in the direction of the reservoir.

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

ref:121 d:9/2/94

ID: Lapinskas.1

Mr. Cesar Lapinskas
Mr. Christofer Lapinskas
Lapinskas and Associates, Inc.
d/b/a Road Aire North America
P.O. Box 26077
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33320-6077

Dear Messrs. Lapinskas:

This responds to your October 14, 2003, letter in which you ask whether it is necessary to obtain a permit or other approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) prior to marketing your companys tire inflation systems for sale in the United States. Your letter and attached materials state that the system, which is designed for installation on commercial trucks and buses weighing over 15,000 pounds, contains both a tire pressure monitoring component and an electropneumatic inflation component. Through a series of hoses and tubes tied to the vehicles air brake system, your product allows a driver to supply air to any tire(s) that become under-inflated. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations and to discuss how they may affect your product.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards 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.

The agency does not have any regulations covering tire inflation/tire pressure monitoring systems for heavy vehicles. [1] However, because your system would be tied into a vehicles braking system, it may affect compliance with other safety standards.

If your 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. Thus, these entities could not install your tire inflation system if it would take the vehicle out of compliance with any existing safety standard. 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 tire inflation system could affect a vehicles 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.

One standard that may have implications for your product is FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if your device is an integral part of the brake system. A related issue is whether certain parts of the device are considered brake hoses and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses.

We do not have sufficient information about your device to specifically address these issues. I can advise you, however, that your device would not be considered part of the braking system if it were separated from the vehicles main braking system by a pressure protection valve in such a way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device. Moreover, if your device is not considered to be part of the braking system, it would not be subject to Standard No. 106.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify NHTSA and 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 Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should 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 should 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 entitled 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 of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.1/21/04





---

[1]NHTSA is currently in the process of rulemaking to establish FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMSs), which will set forth requirements for TPMSs that are installed in new passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle. To the extent that your systems are installed only on vehicles with a higher GVWR, the standard would not apply. However, should your product be installed on a new light vehicle covered by FMVSS No. 138, vehicle manufacturers would need to certify that the vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

ID: nht88-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hutchison, Anders & Associates, P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard L. Hutchison Hutchison, Anders & Associates, P.C. 16860 S. Oak Park Av. Tinley Park, IL 60477

Dear Mr. Hutchison:

This responds to your October 14, 1987, letter asking about the applicability of Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to "replacement gas caps" that your client intends to market. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You said that several of your client's customers have requested this agency's approval of your client's product. You asked for confirmation of your understanding that the gas caps do not have to be approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety correct. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer o f a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to replacement gas caps. Safety Standard No. 301 applies only to completed new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel syst em as a whole following a barrier crash test. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to your client's replacement gas caps, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which your client should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes aftermarket gas caps, ar e subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities.

In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place your client's gas cap on a motor v ehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected.

Whether or not your client's replacement gas cap could be installed by a person in one of those categories on a vehicle without destroying the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 or any other Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by any commercial business in the aforementioned categories of 5108(a)(2)(A) making the installation. NHTSA does not pass advance approval on motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie a modification and we a re unable to offer any opinion on whether your client's gas cap would negatively affect a vehicle's fuel system performance.

The prohibition of 5108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect your client's manufacture of his gas caps. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Erika Z. Jones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Avenue, Southwest Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones: I am writing in regard to my client who is selling a replacement gas cap on the open market. My associate, Ed Petty, had a telephone conversation on October 9, 1987 with Ms. Diedra Hom. She suggested that you were the person to contact regarding a legal interpretation of N.H.T.S.A. Safety Regulation #301.

My client is the manufacturer of a universal replacement gas cap which cannot be lost because of its hinged flip-open access top. Several of my client's customers have requested D.O.T. or N.H.T.S.A. approval of my client's product. Mr. Petty spoke with M r. Williams in your Rule Making Division on October 8, 1987. He thought that compliance with Safety Regulation #301 would not be required for my client's gas cap, If this exempt from regulation. However, if he is required to comply with any D.O.T. or N.H .T.S.A. regulation, I need to know what those regulations are and what he will be required to do to comply with them.

We will sincerely appreciate your prompt reply to this request. If you need any further information, please contact the undersigned by phone (1-312-532-7100) or by mail, at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

HUTCHINSON, ANDERS & ASSOC., P.C.

Richard L. Hutchison

ID: 1982-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Don Vesco Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, asking about the legality of "covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover."

You reported that manufacturers of motorcycles and fairings are producing such covers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration views this practice as prohibited and will take appropriate steps to make it views known. The legal authority for this is based upon a requirement of the SAE incorporated by reference in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or, alternatively, paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard.

SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions), Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A paragraph in each version states that, "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens." SAE J580a applies to all sealed beam headlamps, while the scope of J580b is considerably narrower, including only those not covered by SAE J579c.

The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584a Motorcycle Headlamps. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of additional equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicitly permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.

For the reasons stated above, the agency has concluded that no headlamp may have a glass or plastic shield in front of it when in use, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is used.

As for the turn signals, no part of the vehicle may impair their visibility through horizontal angles 45 degrees to the right and left of the vehicle (for right and left turn signals respectively) measured at the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. An unobstructed illuminated area of outer lens surface of at least 2 square inches excluding reflex is necessary to meet this requirement. You will have to judge for yourself whether the turn signal requirements are met with your planned cover in place.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

SINCERELY,

DON VESCO PRODUCTS, INC.,

September 15, 1982

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

To whom it may concern;

We are a small manufacturing firm and we produce various motorcycle products. Our main product at this time is a motorcycle fairing as shown in the photo on this letterhead. I am in the redesign stage of this fairing and would like to produce a product with flush fitting turn signals and possibly a covered headlight. I cannot find any D.O.T. specifications on the covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover. Many motorcycle accessory companies are producing fairings with this feature and, at least two motorcycle manufacturing companies are producing motorcycles with this feature. I have enclosed a number of copies showing the headlamp coverings as now produced.

What I want to know is what specifications are required to add this feature, or, is there simply nothing stating that such a feature is permissible?

I also would like to know what specifications will be required to add a clear covering over normal D.O.T. approved turnsignals. I can find no ruling that in any way prohibits or even mentions any clear covering that does not interfere with the operating of the lamp or the visability. We have limited funds and cannot afford to tool up for a special flush fitting turnsignal. However, our experiments have added up to a 23% increase in fuel economy on our test motorcycle using the new design and we feel that the commuter can use any gain possible. A 23% increase in fuel economy with no mechanical changes and only aerodynamic improvements is significant.

Time is of the essense. We must have some information on this within the next 4 weeks. Thank you for your cooperation.

Matt Guzzetta, Vice-President

ID: nht80-1.29

DATE: 03/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 22, 1980, letter asking whether sections S6.1.8.1 and S6.2.6 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, permit the adjustment, after burnishing, of brakes that are equipped with automatic brake adjusters. The answer to your question is no.

On April 28, 1977, the agency responded to a similar request that you made for an interpretation of these sections to permit brake adjustment for brakes equipped with automatic adjusters. At that time, the agency stated that the provisions of Standard No. 121 do not permit the type of a brake adjustment that you request. However, the agency noted that it would accept a petition for rulemaking to modify the standard in the manner you suggest if such a petition were supported with sufficient technical data.

In your current request for an interpretation, you merely restate your 1977 letter without offering the necessary supporting data and without petitioning the agency to amend the standard. Accordingly, we must restate the agency's interpretation that the standard does not permit the type of adjustment that you request.

SINCERELY,

Heavy Vehicle Systems Group

The Bendix Corporation

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

January 22, 1980

Subject: Request for Interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121

Gentlemen:

The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group (Bendix) respectfully requests an interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the application of Section S6.1.8.1 and S6.2.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems (FMVSS 121) with respect to brakes equipped with automatic adjusters. These sections cover the brake burnish procedures for road and dynamometer testing and specify that after burnishing, the brakes are to be adjusted as recommended by the manufacturer. Specifically, Bendix requests concurrence from the NHTSA that FMVSS 121 Section S6.1.8.1 and S6.2.6 permits manual adjustment, after burnishing, of brakes equipped with automatic adjustment.

In considering this request, your attention is directed to the fact that on March 29, 1977 Bendix submitted a similar request, however the NHTSA's response of April 28, 1977 addressed the issue of disconnect and overadjustment, not the issue of manual adjustment.

Now, due to increased customer activity, and current governmental interest in fostering the use of automatic adjustment of brakes, Bendix again submits its request for an interpretation permitting adjustment, after burnishing, of brakes equipped with automatic adjuster. Such interpretation would allow all brakes, with or without automatic adjustment to be tested by using the same procedures.

Bendix supports the need to improve in-service brake performance and stability, which improvement can be achieved through the use of brakes equipped with automatic adjustment mechanisms, and as such Bendix feels that clarity in the applicable Standards are necessary to assure compliance. It should be noted that automatic adjusters maintain a good level of brake performance, however not to the original level of the manual adjustment of the brake. But this difference, in our estimation, is not detrimental because the total procedure of controlled conditioning of the brakes is to achieve optimum performance and repeatability, and is not necessarily representative of actual operating conditions. Under actual operating conditions, the use of automatic adjustment mechanisms insures continued good brake performance.

Bendix hereby respectfully requests concurrence of NHTSA in Bendix' interpretation that FMVSS 121 Section S6.1.8 and S6.2.6 permits the manual adjustment of brakes with or without automatic adjusters after the burnish procedures. Bendix believes that such an interpretation would greatly accelerate the voluntary usage by vehicle manufacturers of automatic adjusting brakes on air braked vehicles and alleviate the need for amended or new rulemaking in the area of brake adjustment.

We would be pleased to discuss this matter further at your convenience.

R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director Engineering

ID: 17332.nhf

Mr. Bud White
Honcho Products Company
3821 County Road 255-D
Henderson, TX 75652

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter requesting information on regulations applicable to the sale and installation of a flatbed conversion package manufactured for small ton pick-up trucks. I apologize for the delay in my response.

You state that you plan to manufacture a 6'-6" wide, 8' long steel flatbed that is designed to replace the standard bed on a small pick-up such as the standard cab, long wheelbase models of the Chevy S-10, Ford Ranger, and Dodge Dakota pickups. According to your letter, the conversion is intended to increase the bulk level load carrying capability of the trucks without increasing the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) load capacity. You also state that you intend to offer additional accessories such as steel boxes, side rails, replacement dual steel rear wheels, overload springs/shock absorbers, and cab and bed clearance lights. You explain that you intend to import some of these components. I appreciate the opportunity to explain the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) governing statutes and regulations to you.

We would like to begin by explaining that 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 approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA's certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567.

You state that the truck bed will be offered as a replacement for existing truck beds. The statutes and regulations applicable to the installation of the conversion truck bed will differ depending on whether the truck bed is installed before or after the first retail sale of the vehicle. A business that replaced the original truck bed with the truck bed you manufacture prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle, would be considered an alterer and would be required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7.

A business that replaced the original truck bed with the truck bed you manufacture after the first retail sale of the vehicle would not have not to certify that the vehicle, as converted, continues to comply with the standards. However, the business would have to comply with NHTSA's statutory make inoperative prohibition. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify or convert motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

You should be aware that the conversion could affect the truck's compliance with several of NHTSA's safety standards. For example, replacing the original truck bed with the conversion truck bed could affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. This standard sets performance requirements for fuel systems in crashes to preserve the integrity of the fuel system in a crash to prevent occupant exposure to fire. As another example, the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, would be compromised if the conversion bed somehow obscured the center highmounted lamp required by the standard. Any business that installs the conversion bed must ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. The installation of dual wheels may widen the vehicle to greater than 80 inches. Should this occur, clearance and identification lamps must be installed.

In response to your question as to whether there are any regulations that apply to steel wheels and clearance lights, Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, apply to dual steel rear wheels, and Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment applies to the clearance lights. The installation of dual wheels may widen the vehicle to greater than 80 inches. Should this occur, clearance and identification lamps must be installed.

You should also be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are responsible for any safety-related defects in their products. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. Thus, as a manufacturer, you are responsible for notification and remedy of safety related defects or noncompliances that are discovered in the kit either before or after its installation on motor vehicles. The defect requirement applies to all motor vehicle equipment, even in the absence of a safety standard. See 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, and 49 CFR Part 579, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility.

Finally, your letter indicates that you may import some of the motor vehicle equipment for the conversion package. As a general rule, all motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must conform (and be certified by their manufacturer to conform) to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency in order to be imported into the United States and sold here.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.6/30/98

ID: 1865y

The Honorable Henry J. Nowak
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 205l5

Dear Mr. Nowak:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Ms. Eugenia M. Pierakos and Mr. James L. Pierakos. Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos are president and sales manager, respectively, of a firm which is the western New York state dealer for Jaeger Industries, Inc., a Canadian manufacturer of curbside recycling equipment. They stated that Jaeger has had difficulty obtaining data/regulations that apply to a type of vehicle manufactured by Jaeger, and specifically asked about regulations related to the use of chain steering for dual steering applications, brakes, and throttle. According to the Pierakos' letter, Jaeger has spoken with two officials of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and no one has provided that company with any definitive answers. Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos requested assistance in obtaining the necessary information.

I note that we do recall speaking with a representative of Jaeger by telephone. We were not able to provide definitive answers to that company by telephone, since it is our policy not to provide oral interpretations of our safety standards. This policy is for the benefit of the person requesting the interpretation and the agency. It ensures that there are no misunderstandings as to the question or response, and that there is an opportunity for appropriate review of the interpretation within the agency. The policy also enables us to place all interpretations in the docket, so that the public has access to each interpretation. While we advised Jaeger that they could submit their questions in writing, our records do not show any written request from that company.

I will now provide what information I can in response to the Pierakos' request. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

Enclosed is a pamphlet which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Among other things, the pamphlet explains where to obtain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

As indicated above, Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos specifically asked about regulations concerning chain steering for dual steering applications, brakes, and throttle, that would apply to the vehicle manufactured by Jaeger. Information included with the letter indicates that the vehicle in question is an air-braked truck with a gross vehicle weight rating over 30,000 pounds.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for "chain steering." Moreover, no standard prohibits a manufacturer from providing dual steering. With respect to brakes, Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems, establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and Standard No. l06, Brake Hoses, specifies labeling and performance requirements for brake hose, brake hose assemblies and brake hose end fittings. Standard No. l24, Accelerator Control Systems, sets forth requirements for a vehicle's throttle. Also, Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays, includes requirements related to the steering wheel, brakes, and throttle. If the Pierakos, or Jaeger, have any specific requests for interpretation of these or other applicable safety standards, we would be happy to respond to such requests.

I note that one of the enclosures included with Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos' letter is a drawing from Jaeger which includes the following statement: "This document contains proprietary information and it shall not be used or reproduced or its contents disclosed in part or whole without prior written authorization." Since the drawing could become subject to a request for release under the Freedom of Information Act, I am returning to you the copy of the drawing included with your letter.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:57l d:6/27/89

ID: 20718nhf

Mr. Robert Boston
Adaptive Mobility Systems, Inc.
5865-B Oakbrook Parkway
Norcross, GA 30093

Dear Mr. Boston:

This responds to your letter to Nicole Fradette, formerly of my staff, requesting permission to modify pre-owned 1993-1995 Dodge Grand Caravans for your disabled clients. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that you mainly modify these vehicles by lowering the floor and relocating the fuel tank behind the lowered floor. (You explain that you cannot lower the floor without relocating the fuel tank.) You state that you use "accepted engineering practices" and perform this modification according to standards established by the Society of Automotive Engineers. You also explain that you ensure that there are no sharp angles or protruding bolts surrounding the relocated tank. Nonetheless, you are concerned that lowering the floor and relocating the gasoline tank will affect the vehicles compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You request blanket approval to perform any modifications which may require an exemption from the "make inoperative" provision of our statute. As explained below, we decline this request.

By way of background, 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. Manufacturers are required to certify that their new products conform to our safety standards before the products can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) would require businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which modifiers or repair businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Modifiers are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. We have issued letters stating that we would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modified a vehicle to accommodate a particular person's disability. We have always done this on an individual, case-by-case basis. While we understand your desire to avoid writing to the agency each time you need to modify a vehicle to accommodate a particular person's disability, we can not grant blanket approval at this time for all such modifications.

Further, we have not granted, and in all likelihood will not grant, an exemption from Standard No. 301. We do not believe such an exemption is justified or needed. In order to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires caused by leaking fuel during and after a crash, Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements for fuel systems in crashes. Preserving fuel system integrity in a crash to prevent occupant exposure to fire is extremely important to all persons, but perhaps even more so for persons with disabilities, since they often require more time to exit a vehicle. In addition, we believe that compliance with Standard No. 301 can be preserved in modified vehicles. We are aware of one tank manufacturer who has demonstrated that when its tank was correctly installed in the rear of a 1992 Ford E150 with a lowered floor and raised body, the vehicle met the performance requirements of Standard No. 301.

For your information, on September 28, 1998 (63 FR 51547), we published a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition for certain standards and under certain conditions. In place of our reviewing each request for exemption case-by-case, the proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. However, we announced in the NPRM that we strongly believe that a make inoperative exemption for Standard No. 301 is not justified. Standard No. 301 was not included in these standards because of the safety need to assure fuel system integrity in vehicles modified for persons with disabilities and because it is possible to modify vehicles while maintaining conformance to Standard No. 301. We anticipate publishing a final decision on the NPRM in the near future.

In closing, you do not have to ask NHTSA for an exemption from Standard No. 301 if the modification is done without compromising a modified vehicle's compliance with the standard. We urge you to ensure that the vehicles you modify will continue to meet the standard.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#301
d.3/20/00