ID: nht89-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: HENRY J. NOWAK -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/30/89 FROM HENRY J. NOWAK -- CONGRESS TO JOHN STONER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 04/14/89 FROM EUGENIA M. PIERAKOS AND JAMES L. PIERAKOS -- SNOWFIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND CONSULTING OF BUFFALO INC;

TEXT: 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 Ind ustries, 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 def initive 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 t hat 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 safet y 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

2 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 compl y 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 l etter 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. 121, Air Brake Systems, establishes performance and equipment requirements for bra king systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, specifies labeling and performance requirements for brake hose, brake hose assemblies and brake hose end fittings. Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, se ts forth requirements for a vehicle's throttle. Also, Standard No. 101, 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

Enclosures

ID: nht88-4.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BILL WHITESIDE, SUBCONTRACT MANAGER - HARRIS CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/3/87 letter from Bill Hunt (Telex) to Erica Z. Jones

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as those regulations apply to the certification of certain trailers. Your letter follows an ea rlier request for interpretation from Telex Communications. In the letter from Telex, your company, Harris Corporation, was identified as Company XYZ. Telex's question was whether it or your company had "ultimate responsibility for DOT certification" pu rsuant to 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. NHTSA responded to Telex in a letter dated March 1, 1988. Because the information provided in the incoming letter from Telex was somewhat sketchy, and we had to make certain assumptions about whether your company was the end user or intended to resell the trailer, we could not provide a definitive answer to them.

Your letter and a telephone conversation between Larry Little of Harris Corporation and Dorothy Nakama of my staff have given us the following additional information. Your company has a contract with Telex under which Telex is required to deliver traile rs to your company. According to your letter, Telex designs, integrates and/or fabricates all "transport related" features of the trailer, including structure, wheels, axles, brakes, running lights, towing package, and other parts. You state that in yo ur specifications, Telex is "required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations in the design and fabrication of the trailer." After Harris receives a trailer from Telex, other parties in a contractual relationship with Harris permanently mount hard ware, such as generators and radio equipment, onto the trailer. You asserted that this additional equipment does not result in exceeding or modifying the GAWR or GVWR of the trailer, which comes from Telex. After the vendors have mounted the hardware o nto the trailer, Harris delivers the finished trailer to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pursuant to a Federal contract with that agency.

2

My answers to the questions posed in your letter are based on the above understanding of the facts. I will now address the specific questions posed in your letter.

Questions One and Two: Is Telex the complete vehicle manufacturer of this trailer? What process(es) are proper for certification of the trailer?

Response: Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the trailers delivered to Harris by Telex are "completed vehicles" within the meaning of 49 CFR @ 568.3. That section defines a "completed vehicle" as:

a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting.

The determination of whether a vehicle meets this definition is made at the time it is delivered to the purchaser. In this case, the vehicles delivered to Harris by Telex are trailers which, according to your letter, already have the body structure, whe els, axles, brakes, lights, towing package, and all other components that are necessary for the trailer to be used as is without any further manufacturing operations. Assuming this is the case, these vehicles are completed vehicles because they do not r equire any further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function as trailers. Hence, Telex must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle standards, as specified in 49 CFR @ 567.4. This c ertification should appear on the trailer at the time it is delivered to Harris.

However, Telex is not the only party that must certify that the trailers conform to applicable safety standards. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the parties that permanently mount hardware to these trailers are "alterers," an d must affix their own certifications that the trailers conform to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, after they have mounted the hardware to the trailer.

Alterers that are required to affix certification labels in accordance with @ 567.7 are defined in that section as follows:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with @ 567.4 or @ 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishin g operations such as painting, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, . . .

* * * * *

The parties that permanently mount hardware to the trailers delivered by Telex are altering previously certified vehicles before the first purchase of the trailer in good faith for purposes other than resale.

3

The only conditions in which these alterers would not be required to affix their own certification labels to each trailer on which they permanently mount hardware would be:

1. The hardware consisted of "readily attachable components;" or

2. Permanently mounting this hardware is only a "minor finishing operation."

Based on the information you have provided, neither of these exceptions would apply to these parties. Equipment of the sort described in your letter (generators, powerful radio antennas, communications equipment, etc.) are not "readily attachable compon ents." Similarly, the operations performed by these parties appear to be far more sophisticated than "minor finishing operations."

Since the requirements set forth in 49 CFR @ 567.7 appear to apply to these parties, the parties must make the certification specified in that section. To summarize, alterers must allow the certification labels affixed by the original manufacturer (Tele x, in this case) to remain in place and affix their own certification labels in accordance with@567.7. The alterers' certification label must identify the alterer and the month and year in which the alterations were performed, and state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration.

The information you have provided suggests that your company simply purchases the trailers from Telex and delivers the trailers to the two parties to be altered. Assuming that your company does not itself either manufacture or alter these trailers befor e delivering them to FEMA, your company is not required to make any certification pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. However, since the parties that are altering the Telex trailers are doing so under contract to Harris, Harris could, if it chooses to do so, a ssume the certification responsibilities for the parties with whom it has contracted. In that case, Harris would have to affix a certification label in accordance with @ 567.7 that identifies Harris as the alterer of the trailers.

Question Three: If you rule that Telex has certification responsibility for the trailer, do we have any recourse through your office to enforce certification of the trailer?

Assuming that the facts presented in your letter and our understanding of those facts are correct, Telex must certify that the trailers it delivers comply with all applicable safety standards and each party that has mounted hardware inside the trailer mu st certify that the trailer complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. If you believe that you have information showing that some party has failed to comply with its certification responsibilities or any other requirement in our regulations or safety standards, we would appreciate it if you would forward that information to our Office of

4

Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address. That office will investigate the matter and take appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: 3147o

The Honorable Beverly B. Byron
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives
Westminster District Office
6 North Court Street
Westminster, MD 21157

Dear Ms. Byron:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requirements. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with windows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on the side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows.

However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Maryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, not the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Washington Office Constituent's Correspondence

ref:VSA#205 d:l0/27/88

ID: nht76-4.27

DATE: 09/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Freightliner Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 23, 1976, question whether the "no lockup" requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the "no lockup" performance is provided by means of an antilock system. Sections S5.3.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.3.2 (trailers) specify that the vehicle shall, under various load, road surface, and speed conditions, be capable of stopping

. . .without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for:

(a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system. . .

(b) * * * * *

This basic requirement is stated in performance terms, permitting a manufacturer to choose any brake system design that will ensure that the wheels do not lock up under the specified conditions.

The exception to the "no lockup" requirement set forth above permits "controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system." Manufacturers demonstrated, during the course of rulemaking, that properly functioning antilock systems might be designed to allow wheel lockup for a fraction of a second, and that antilock design should not be inhibited by a prohibition on all lockup. The agency made the "controlled lockup" exception a part of the standard (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971) and has subsequently interpreted the term to permit manufacturers latitude in the design of their systems.

In compliance with the basic requirement, most manufacturers have equipped each axle of a vehicle with a valve to regulate the air pressure that applies the brakes, sensors at each wheel to send a signal when a wheel is locking up, and a logic module that receives the signals and instructs the valve when to release air pressure to prevent lockup ("axle-by-axle control"). Recently, some manufacturers have simplified their systems by utilizing only one valve and logic module to modulate the air supply to both axles of the typical tandem axle system found on many trucks and trailers ("tandem control"). Two approaches to wheel sensor placement have been used for tandem control systems. If it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only, knowing that reduced air pressure in response to a signal from the "sensed" axle will also release the brakes on the "unsensed" axle. In other cases, where it is not possible to predict which axle will lock first, tandem control systems may have sensors on all four wheels of the tandem.

In November 12, 1974, and March 7, 1975, letters of interpretation to Dana Corporation, the NHTSA confirmed that a manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. Thus, tandem control is not prohibited by the standard, regardless of the number of wheel speed sensors provided. When Dana asked if lockup on the unsensed axle of a single-axle sensor system would qualify for the "controlled lockup" exception of the requirement, the agency said that it would not, reasoning that the logic module would not exert effective control over the lockup of the unsensed axle without benefit of input signals from wheels on that axle. Therefore, according to the Dana interpretation, the unsensed axle in a single-axle sensor system could not be allowed to lock at all, even momentarily, during the service brake stopping test. No data of actual performance was submitted with the Dana letter.

Your letter argues that the NHTSA's interpretation of "controlled lockup" (to Dana Corporation) creates an anomalous and unjustified restriction on the use of "tandem control." Your submission, and data received by the agency from other interested persons, demonstrate that the Dana interpretation does not adequately reflect the degree of control which a single-axle sensor system actually can exert over the unsensed axle of a tandem system. Based on analysis of the submitted data, it appears that the amount of lockup permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the available antilock systems. While there is a measurable difference in stopping performance between "axle-by-axle" control and "tandem control," the standard already permits either of these means to satisfy the requirements. When the narrower question of the performance difference between sensors on one or both axles is analyzed, it is apparent that virtually no difference exists in the stopping distance of vehicles equipped these two ways. The effective lateral stability available during a stop also appears comparable regardless of placement of sensors on one or both axles. A technical report summarizing these findings will be placed in the public docket as soon as possible.

For this reason, and based on review of test unavailable at the time of the Dana interpretation, the agency concludes that its interpretation of "controlled lockup" in response to the question posed by Dana should be, and is hereby, withdrawn. It is the agency's interpretation that the "controlled lockup" exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION

July 23, 1976

LEGAL COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (49CFR571.121)

Dear Sir:

Freightliner Corporation, a manufacturer of light-weight heavy-duty air braked vehicles, is vitally affected by the requirements of FMVSS-121. Therefore, we are requesting a clarification of the exemption contained in S5.3.1, for "controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system." In reading the requirements of Standard No. 121, the exemption to the "no wheel lockup" requirement contained in S5.3.1 clearly applies to any wheel of a tractor, truck or bus which is subject to the control of an antilock system. But in a previous interpretation on this subject (March 7, 1975, letter of James C. Shultz to Harold D. Shall, Dana Corporation), the Acting Chief Cousel appeared to limit this exemption only to wheels which are equipped with antilock wheel speed sensors. Clearly, this interpretation is design restrictive in that it is stated in design rather than performance terms. Further, this interpretation does not take into consideration the possibility of alternate means for achieving controlled wheel lockup, such as mechanical drives which interlock both tandem axles.

The results of recent tests conducted by Freightliner show that the wheels on both tandem axles of a tandem axle vehicle can be effectively controlled through the use of one antilock system sensing wheel speeds from only one axle, and demonstrate that "controlled lockup" typical of that provided by axle-by-axle antilock systems can be achieved through a combination of suspension design, controlled brake actuation timing, and antileck system design. The test results (see attachment) indicate that the vehicle equipped with only one antilock controller meets the stopping distance requirements of FMVSS-121 with performance equivalent to that of vehicles equipped with the more complex and costly axle-by-axle antilock systems currently employed.

Since tractors and trucks, such as those manufactured by Freightliner Corporation, are subject to stopping distance requirements under a variety of road and load conditions, efficient utilization of available traction for braking is already a requirement of the standard for powered vehicles. Therefore, we believe that requiring the use of axle-by-axle antilock systems is unnecessary to ensure efficient utilization of available traction for braking of powered vehicles. Accordingly, we request interpretation of the requirements of S5.3.1 which is:

1. Stated in performance rather than design criteria.

2. Which does not impose a more strigent requirement for axles which are not equipped with wheel speed sensors (but subject to the control or an antilock system) than the "controlled lockup" requirement applicable to wheels which are equipped with wheel speed sensors.

If further information is necessary or desirable, we would be pleased make a technical presentation to you and appropriate members of the NHTSA staff, which would include a discussion of our test results along with movies of the tests.

Respectfully submitted,

Ray W. Murphy -- Director, Research and Development

Attach. FMVSS-121 STOPPING DISTANCE TEST DATA

Vehicle - Three Axle COE Tractor, 138" Wheelbase Control Axle Loads (lbs.) Steering Drive Trailer Loaded 10,480 34,110 33,290 Bob tail 7,550 6,040 -

Brakes Size Actuation Power Linings Steering Axle 15x4 14 degrees x9 ABB-551D Drive Axle 15x7 12 degrees x12 (Dual) ABB-551D

Average service brake stopping distances in ft., vehicle equipped with tandem control antilock system (numbers in parenthesis are values from tests of similarly configured vehicle equipped with axle-by-axle antilock control system)* Loaded Bobtail FMVSS-121 Requirement 20 MPH Dry Asphalt 33.6 27.6 35 (SN 75) Test Surface (34.0) (26.4) 60 MPH Dry Asphalt 259.8 251.2 293 (SN 75) Test Surface (253.7) (225.5) 20 MPH Wet Slippery 58.8 60.2 ** (SN 20) Test Surface (71.3) (57.3)

* Freightliner CTC Report No. T081-75/12, November 20, 1975

** 60 ft. on SN 30 test surface

ID: nht95-4.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 17, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Brester -- Director of Product Engineering, Velvac Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT R. BRESTER TO STEVE WOOD (OCC 11116)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brester:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning how Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, affects the brake products you sell. According to your letter:

Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking.

The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached catalogue drawings . . . )'

You stated that Mr. Richard Carter of this agency advised you that different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the braking performance requirements of Standard No. 105, and that the responsibility of certifying vehicles to Standar d No. 105 lies in the hands of your customers. This information is correct. However, you should be aware that some of the components listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and must be certified by their manufacturer as co mplying with that standard. A further discussion of the issues raised by your letter is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issu e several vehicle and/or equipment standards related to braking performance. These standards include the aforementioned Standards No. 105 and No. 106, as well as ones on air brake systems, motorcycle brake systems, and motor vehicle brake fluids.

You specifically asked about Standard No. 105. That standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic servic e brake systems.

If your brake products are installed as original equipment on a new vehicle subject to Standard No. 105, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the products installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of that standard (as well a s all other applicable safety standards). If your brake products are added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" under our regulations, and would be required to cer tify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If your products are installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a repair shop, the repair shop would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a devi ce or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as the hydraulic brake system. n1

n1 The make inoperative provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with th e FMVSSs. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Assuming you do not manufacture or alter new vehicles, you do not have a responsibility to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105. However, I note that some of the brake products listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106. Th at standard specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake house, end fittings and assemblies. Standard No. 106 applies not only to new vehicles, as is the case with Standard No. 105, but also to brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies that are sold in dividually or in kit form. Manufacturers of these items must certify that the equipment complies with Standard No. 106, and persons selling these items must sell only certified items.

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to statutory requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehi cle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in w hich your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per vio lation.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes various responsibilities of motor vehicle manufacturers under our regulations, and information on how you can obtain copies of our standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 22652.ztv

AIR MAIL





Mr. Richard King
Manager/Director
Wheel Lighting Devices, Ltd.
Downs Road South Brydone R.D. 4
Gore, New Zealand


FAX: 64 3 2066786




Dear Mr. King:

John A. Hill has asked that we send our reply to you responding to his e-mails of January 4 and February 2, 2001, in which he asked for an interpretation of U.S. Federal laws as they relate to "HubLites." His e-mails have been supplemented by yours of March 5, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Mr. Hill explained that HubLites are "novelty lighting equipment," installed on the hubs of heavy trucks and trailers. It is equipment offered in the aftermarket and will "be retrofitted by truck owners themselves." In his opinion, HubLites do not interfere with any of the lighting equipment required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have informed us that HubLites are steady-burning and "orange/amber" in color.

The installation of aftermarket lighting equipment under the laws of the United States is governed by 49 U.S.C. 30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative. Essentially, this section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from modifications that create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, Section 30122 does not include owners in the list of persons prohibited from making modifications. Mr. Hill has informed us that HubLites will be installed by truck owners. Thus, the prohibition would not appear to apply. However, the use of HubLites is subject to the laws of the individual states in which they are used, and we are unable to advise you on these.

We differ with Mr. Hill's unsupported conclusion that HubLites would not interfere with any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The fact that a vehicle owner may legally modify his or her vehicle in a manner that would cause it to no longer comply with a Federal safety standard does not mean that it is wise to do so; in fact, it lowers the safety level of the vehicle. I would call your attention to a similar product which was the subject of an opinion letter from this Office of March 15, 1989, to Byung M. Soh. In that instance, the product was a self-lighting hub cap which included a motion-activated LED light whose intensity varied according to the speed of the vehicle. We stated our belief that "effectiveness [of some required lamps] may be impaired if the device created . . . confusion with the signal sent by another lamp," and that the hubcap light might cause "motorists to confuse its signal with the signal emitted by headlamps, stoplights, brakelights, taillights, side marker lamps, and other lighting devices." In our opinion, "such confusion is possible since your product is located on the wheels at approximately the same level as some of the lights required by Standard No. 108. This impairment of effectiveness would be especially likely if the hub cap lights were the same color (red, amber, or white) as the lights required by Standard No. 108." The previous two sentences apply equally as well to the factors of color and location of HubLites; they would not be permissible under Standard No. 108 as original equipment. Although a truck or trailer owner may install HubLites without violating Section 30122, this should not be interpreted or advertised as indicating U.S. "approval" of HubLites. We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" vehicles or equipment; we only advise as to the relationship of these products to the laws that we administer.

Mr. Hill asked if other Federal safety laws might apply. Trucks and trailers used in interstate commerce within the United States are subject to the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the Department of Transportation. We have asked the FMCSA whether HubLites would be prohibited by any of its regulations, and it has informed us that HubLites would not be allowable. Section 393.3 (49 CFR 393.3) of the FMCSA's safety regulations prohibit interstate motor carriers from using additional equipment and accessories if the use of such devices is inconsistent with that agency's regulations, or if the use of such devices decreases the safety of operation of the vehicles on which they are used. With respect to vehicles that it regulates, FMCSA concurs with the impairment conclusions that we have reached. Because 49 CFR 393.11 requires interstate motor carriers to maintain their vehicles to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, and HubLites would not be permissible under Standard No. 108, HubLites may not be used on trucks and trailers used in interstate commerce and regulated by the FMCSA.

Mr. Hill also asked if there are any other Federal rules that the manufacturer of HubLites should be aware of in order to sell motor vehicle equipment in the United States, such as the need to have a registered agent (the product would be imported from New Zealand). HubLites are motor vehicle equipment. This means that Wheel Lighting Devices, Ltd. must designate an agent for service of process, as set forth in 49 C.F.R. 551.45, Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers.

Additionally, you should be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you will be subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of motor vehicle equipment with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either you or we determine that HubLites contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would be required to notify purchasers of the defect, and either repair HubLites so that the defect is removed, or provide a non-defective replacement. In either case, your company must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than ten years before the notification campaign.

If you have any questions, you may email Taylor Vinson at tvinson@nhtsa.dot.gov.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/12/01

ID: nht80-4.2

DATE: 09/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. H. Madison

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 25, 1980, letter asking whether a proposed air brake system that you submitted would comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of systems constructed in compliance with safety standards. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to assure that their vehicles or equipment comply with the requirements of the safety standards. It is frequently impossible for the agency to tell from diagrams and descriptions of devices whether they will comply with the standards. Compliance is based upon testing and observation of the entire vehicle or piece of equipment as it is installed on the vehicle. Without the benefits of such tests, NHTSA cannot state whether your system would comply with Standard No. 121.

Our engineering staff has reviewed your letter and offers the following information. First, the standard contains no requirements for tractor protection valve control pressures. However, control pressures are usually set so that the trailer brakes apply before the tractor brakes.

Second, you asked whether it is appropriate to require the release of parking brakes by pushing in both the tractor protection control valve and the park valve. The standard states that the parking brake control shall control the parking brakes of the vehicle and any vehicle it is designed to tow. The standard is silent regarding the release of those brakes.

SINCERELY,

R. H. MADISON Engineering Consultant

June 25, 1980

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation related to compliance with FMVSS 121.

A portion of one arrangement of air brake systems is illustrated on the attached sketch. The tractor protection control valve is designed to have several features.

1. With the system fully pressurized, pulling the knob out will exhaust the tractor supply line pressure and apply the trailer emergency brakes.

2. In case of trailer breakaway, the valve knob will automatically pop out, trap approximately system pressure in the tow vehicle, exhaust the tractor supply line, and apply the trailer emergency brakes.

3. If the total system pressure drops at a relatively slow rate (less than breakaway type leakage), the valve knob will automatically pop out and exhaust the tractor supply line at a system pressure not lower than 20 psi nor higher than 45 psi. The valve can be manually pushed back in but, if the system is 20 psi or lower, the valve will exhaust the tractor supply line pressure (non over-ride function).

4. When the tow vehicle is operated without a trailer, the knob is pulled out so that the tractor supply pressure is zero.

The tractor protection valve functions as follows:

1. It has a straight through passage so that the tractor supply line pressure and the trailer supply line pressure are equal.

2. The tractor service port pressure is blocked when the supply port pressure is between 20 and 45 psi.

Question One Is:

If the tractor protection valve were designed so it automatically blocked the tractor service port when the supply port was between 5 and 10 psi (rather than 20 to 45) would this, by itself, cause the system to be in non compliance?

One rationale for considering that this system would comply is as follows.

Function Present Proposed a) Tractor protection control 45 to 45 to valve automatically exhausts 20 psi 20 psi the supply pressure to the tractor protection valve. b) Tractor protection valve 45 to 10 to automatically blocks 20 psi 5 psi the trailer control port. c) Manual override of the 20 psi 20 psi tractor protection control valve is not possible below.

In both cases, when system pressure is reduced to 20 psi, the trailer emergency brakes are applied and the trailer control pressure port is blocked. The automatic operation of the tractor protection valve at 45 to 20 psi is redundant because the supply pressure to it goes to zero at not lower than 20 psi by the non override function built into the tractor protection control valve. The only difference in system performance would be the small increment of time required for the tractor protection control valve to deplete the supply pressure to the tractor protection valve from 20 psi to a range between 10 and 5 psi. System protection would still be provided by the tractor protection control valve at a supply line pressure of 20 psi or less.

Question Two Is: With the system described above (automatic operation at 10-5 psi), would a further modification, by itself, cause non compliance?

With this second proposal the park valve would apply the tractor and trailer parking brakes in the normal manner. Release would require that both the park valve and the tractor protection control valve be pushed in.

R. H. Madison

FIG. I -- TYPICAL CURRENT SYSTEM

FIG. II - TYPICAL SYSTEM WITH PROPOSED TRACTOR PROTECTION VALVE

FIG. III - PROPOSED SYSTEM WITH PROPOSED TRACTOR PROTECTION VALVE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht89-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: BYUNG M. SOH -- TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM BYUNG M. SOH TO TAYLOR VINRON; OCC 2648

TEXT: Dear Mr. Soh:

This responds to your letter of October 5, 1988, inquiring whether your "Starrace" hub cap violated Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @ 571.211) or any other of our safety standards. You explained that your self lighting hu b cap includes a motion activated LED light whose intensity varies according to the speed of the vehicle. You further noted that the LED, which has a maximum intensity of 40mmAmp, is designed for cosmetic rather than illuminating purposes. As explained below, your device would not appear to violate Standard No. 211. However, this device may present problems of compliance with Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR @ 571.108).

Standard No. 211 prohibits winged projections on wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. This prohibition extends to these items of motor vehicle equipment both as items of original equipment on new passenger cars and multipurpose vehicles and as items s old in the aftermarket as replacement parts for use on such vehicles. Judging by the picture enclosed with your letter, it does not appear that this hub cap has any winged projections. Nothing in Standard No. 211 explicitly prohibits LEDs on hub caps, wheel nuts, or wheel discs. Accordingly, your product does not appear to violate any provision of Standard No. 211.

However, the self lighting nature of your hub cap may raise questions under Standard No. 108. If this hub cap is marketed as original equipment to be installed before the initial sale of a motor vehicle, the vehicle with these hub caps installed must be certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 provides that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." As I stated in my September 13, 1988 letter to you with respect to different equipment, we interpret this requirement as follows:

"Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or ab ove the maxima permitted by the standard." (emphasis added)

Your product might impair the effectiveness of the required lighting by causing motorists to confuse its signal with the signal emitted by headlamps, stoplights, brakelights, taillights, side marker lamps, and other lighting devices. Such confusion is p ossible since your product is located on the wheels at approximately the same level as the lights required by Standard No. 108. This impairment of effectiveness would be especially likely if the hub cap lights were the same color (red, amber or white) as the lights required by Standard No. 108.

As for the aftermarket sale of your product, under @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, an element of design, s uch as lighting equipment, installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Again, if these lighted hub caps would impair the effectiveness of the lighting required by Standard No. 108, we would consider each aftermarket installation of the hub c aps by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to be a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the "render ino perative" provision. Please note that the Safety Act does not restrict a vehicle owner from modifying his or her own vehicle, even if the modification resulted in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108. Such modifications may, however, b e prohibited by State law.

Additionally, you should be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with defe cts related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and either:

1. repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

In either case, the manufacturer must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-1.9

DATE: 12/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JANET TAYLOR -- MARKETING AND SALES MANAGER, A-PEX INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-92 FROM JANET TAYLOR TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 7922)

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device called the "Tap Root Equipment Stand." The equipment stand consists of a base plate which is bolted to the floor of a vehicle, a vertical tube which attaches to the base plate, and a rotating shelf at the top of the tube. The stand is intended to be used for portable equipment such as laptop computers, facsimile machines, and car phones.

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

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering equipment stands. However, it is possible that the installation of an equipment stand could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an equipment stand is installed in a certified vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if an equipment stand is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

In order to determine how installation of thRvrzz" $`@\"4)4) 4)%$4)%955Y54)Y5 YM4)MI4(4 of the device. The same safety concerns that we expressed in January 1990 remain valid today. xample, S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1. Nothing in Standard No. 121 specifies an exception for vehicles with a maximum speed below 50 mph. Moreover, since the tests in question are dynamometer tests and not road tests, there would be no difficulty in conducting the tests at a speed higher than the vehicle's maximum speed.

I note that this opinion assumes that Standard No. 121 applies to the vehicles in question. Certain vehicles with slow maximum speeds are excluded from the standard's coverage. See S3. However, these exclusions do not appear to apply to the refuse trucks in question.

Your letter appears to imply that Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests are inappropriate for vehicles which have a maximum speed governed to less than 50 mph. We note, however, that a governor set at 45 mph does not prohibit a vehicle from achieving speeds greater than 50 mph in certain situations such as driving downhill. In addition, as indicated above, the specified decelerations are designed to heat the brakes to simulate the severe driving conditions caused by prolonged and severe use and long downhill driving. The same degree of heating can occur at speeds below 50 mph. Therefore, we believe that the specified tests are appropriate for vehicles with a maximum speed governed to below 50 mph.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. you please give me an interpretation of the Safety Standards as they apply to the CHILD-SAVER.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. at they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Although we do not have any safety standards that directly apply to your product, there are several provisions of the Safety Act that apply to the sale of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your head restraints are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, the use of aftermarket items could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design 92.

ID: Wallach.3