ID: 1984-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Janet E. Odom -- Deputy City Attorney, Lakewood, Colorado

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter concerning legislation that went into effect on January 1, 1984, in Colorado governing the use of certain materials on vehicle windows. You asked us to review the legislation and to inform you as to the effect of Federal statutes or regulations on the Colorado statute.

Section 42-4-224(1)(a) of the Colorado statute enclosed in your letter prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle in which "the windshield or front side windows and side wings immediately forward of or to the left and right of the driver are composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component which presents an opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored appearance in such a way that the operator of the vehicle cannot be easily identified or recognized through such window from outside the vehicle." In addition, Section 42-4-224(d) provide that "No material shall be used on any window in the motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance."

Section 42-4-224(c) of the Colorado statute provides that the prohibition against the use of opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored windows shall not be construed "to prevent the use of any window which is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component in a manner approved by federal statute or regulation if such window was included as a component part of a vehicle at the time of the vehicle manufacture, or the replacement of any such window by such covering which meets such guidelines."

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) sets forth the agency's preemption authority. Section 103(d) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Pursuant to section 103(a) of the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles as well as replacement glazing to be installed in used vehicles. One aspect of performance covered by the standard is the light transmittance of windows which are requisite for driving visibility. Those windows must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. The agency considers all windows in passenger vehicles requisite for driving visibility. In most other motor vehicles, only the windshield and front side windows are usually considered requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, for instance, under Standard No. 205 the rear windows of a van could be opaque, since the transmittance requirements would not apply to those windows.

Because section 42-4-224(c) of the Colorado statute specifically provides that materials installed on a new vehicle or as replacement equipment in compliance with a Federal regulation are not prohibited, the statute is not in conflict with Standard No. 205 and thus is not preempted. In addition, since the reflectivity of a window is not an aspect of performance governed by Standard No. 205, Colorado's requirements concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted. Once a vehicle is sold, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, those persons may not install materials on a vehicle's window if the installation would mean that the vehicle no longer complies with Standard No. 205. The agency's authority does not extend to the activities of individual vehicle owners. Therefore, the Colorado statute's prohibition against an owner installing opaque and other films is a matter within the State's authority and is not affected by Federal law.

If you need any further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 23, 1983

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Effective January 1, 1984, legislation will go into effect in Colorado that will prohibit the use of any material on any window in a motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance. The windshield or front side windows and side wings to the immediate left and right of the driver cannot also be covered by or composed of any nontransparent or opaque material. To be unlawful, said material must serve to make the driver of the vehicle not easily identifiable or recognizable through such window from outside the vehicle.

Could you please review this legislation, which I have enclosed, and inform me of your opinion concerning whether metallic or mirrored windows are permitted by federal statute or regulation to be used anywhere in the motor vehicle? Since federal regulations, as stated in ANS Z26, mandate that windows that are needed for the driver's visability allow light transmittance of not less than 70 percent of the available light, would metallic or mirrored windows conform to these regulations?

I would appreciate any assistance you could provide in interpreting the federal requirements.

Sincerely, Janet E. Odom -- Deputy City Attorney, City of Lakewood

Encls.

SECTION 2. 42-4-224, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended, is REPEALED AND REENACTED, WITH AMENDMENTS, to read:

42-4-224. Windows unobstructed - certain materials prohibited - windshield wiper requirements. (1) (a) No person shall operate any motor vehicle on which the windshield or front side windows and side wings immediately forward of or to the left and right of the driver are composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component which presents an opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored appearance in such a way that the operator of the vehicle cannot be easily identified or recognized through such window from outside the vehicle.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), nontransparent material may be applied, installed, or affixed to the topmost portion of the windshield subject to the following:

(I) The bottom edge of the material extends no more than four inches measured from the top of the windshield down:

(II) The material is not red or amber in color, nor does it affect perception of primary colors or otherwise distort vision or contain lettering that distorts or obstructs vision;

(III) The material does not reflect sunlight or headlight glare into the eyes of occupants of oncoming or preceding vehicles to any greater extent than the windshield without the material.

(c) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to prevent the use of any window which is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component in a manner approved by federal statute or regulation if such window was included as a component part of a vehicle at the time of the vehicle manufacture, or the replacement of any such window by such covering which meets such guidelines.

(d) No material shall be used on any window in the motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance.

(e) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to deny or prevent the use of certificates or other papers which do not obstruct the view of the driver and which may be required by law to be displayed.

(2) The windshield on every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow, or other moisture from the windshield, which device shall be so constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.

(3) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class B traffic infraction.

(4) This section shall apply to all motor vehicles.

SECTION 3. Effective date. This act shall take effect January 1, 1984.

SECTION 4. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

Ted L. Strickland PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

Carl B. Bledsoe SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Marjorie L. Nielson SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

Lorraine F. Lombardi CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APPROVED June 1, 1983 8:13 pm

Richard D. Lamm GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

ID: nht78-2.34

DATE: 04/07/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Ullman; Fowler & Jeffries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 6, 1978, letter asking about the compliance responsibilities of a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a body on a motor vehicle chassis. In the situation you describe, the chassis would have been tested for compliance with the standards by the chassis manufacturer and the body would have been tested by the body manufacturer. You ask whether the final assembler would be required to crash test the vehicle as assembled.

The chassis manufacturer has responsibilities for compliance with Federal safety standards that are outlined in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Motor Vehicles Manufactured In Two Or More Stages, of our regulations. The chassis manufacturer must include with its chassis an incomplete vehicle document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the compliance of the chassis with Federal safety standards. Although not required by our regulations, body manufacturers often provide documents addressing the compliance of their vehicle bodies with applicable safety standards. If a body that complies with Federal standards is mounted in accordance with the instructions of the incomplete vehicle document, the final-stage manufacturer can ordinarily assume that the completed vehicle complies with the safety standards. Based upon this assumption, it can certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards.

By following the instructions of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and relying upon the statements of the body manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer would be considered to have exercised due care in ensuring that the vehicle complies. However, if the final-stage manufacturer does not follow the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or in some way makes a major modification that would affect the compliance of the vehicle, it might become necessary for it to undertake some further testing to ensure continued compliance. The amount of further testing, in these instances, would depend upon the extent of modification of the vehicle body or chassis.

For your information, our safety standards and regulations are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 501 et seq. I am enclosing a sheet which details the applicability of Federal Standards to various vehicles.

If after reading this letter, you still have questions that require a meeting, contact Roger Tilton of my staff.

ID: nht95-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 27, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Glyn Thomas -- Thomas Tire

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/13/81 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO ROY LITTLE FIELD (STD. 119) AND 12/19/94 LETTER FROM GLYN THOMAS TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10621)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 19, 1994, and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on that date, in which you requested a waiver enabling you to import into the United States truck tire casings without the DOT symbol on the sidewalls but with more than 2/32 inch tread depth for the purpose of retreading. You stated that casings with less than 2/32 inch tread depth are usually not of sufficient quality to be retreaded.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The statute requires that all newly manufactured motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment comply with all FMVSSs applicable to that product on the date of manufacture. Generally speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first re tail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or item of equipment becomes a matter of state regulation.

However, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a) provides:

[A] person may not . . . . import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date and applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . . takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the s tandard . . . .

In your telephone conversation, you asked about importing used passenger car tires from Canada into the United States. The effect of section 30112(a) with regard to passenger car tires is to require that such tires which are manufactured after the effec tive date of FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires (January 1, 1968), must be certified as complying with the requirements of that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. That certification is exhibited by molding the letters "DOT" into or onto the sidewall of the tire. To be legally imported into the United States, therefore, used passenger car tires must either display the DOT symbol on the sidewall of the tire or be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured before January 1, 1968.

With respect to tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, became effective March 1, 1975. That standard also requires display of the DOT symbol as the manufacturer's ce rtification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, in order for such tires to be imported into the United States, they also must either display the DOT symbol on the tire sidewall or be accompanied by proof that the tires were m anufactured prior to March 1, 1975.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread depth and which are imported solely for retreading may be imported without the DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. R oy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported. In determining that these tires are not motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA found persuasive that those tires cannot legally be used on the public highways, and require remanufacturing before they can be operated on the highways.

Although this agency has statutory authority to grant exceptions to compliance with the FMVSSs in certain specific categories of situations, NHTSA does not have the authority to waive requirements such as the one at issue here. Therefore, any used tire i mported into the United States must either display the DOT symbol, be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable FMVSSs, or in the case of tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, have less than 2/32 inch tread depth and be imported solely for retreading.

I hope the information provided above is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10621

Mr. Glyn Thomas
Thomas Tire
13342 - 72d Avenue
Surrey, B.C. Canada
V3W 2N5

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This responds to your letter of December 19, 1994, and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on that date, in which you requested a waiver enabling you to import into the United States truck tire casings without the DOT symbol on the sidewalls but with more than 2/32 inch tread depth for the purpose of retreading. You stated that casings with less than 2/32 inch tread depth are usually not of sufficient quality to be retreaded.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The statute requires that all newly manufactured motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment comply with all FMVSSs applicable to that product on the date of manufacture. Generally speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or item of equipment becomes a matter of state regulation.

However, 49 U.S.C. '30112(a) provides:

[A] person may not . . . import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard . . . .

In your telephone conversation, you asked about importing used passenger car tires from Canada into the United States. The effect of section 30112(a) with regard to passenger car tires is to require that such tires which are manufactured after the effective date of FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires (January 1, 1968), must be certified as complying with the requirements

of that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. That certification is exhibited by molding the letters "DOT" into or onto the sidewall of the tire. To be legally imported into the United States, therefore, used passenger car tires must either display the DOT symbol on the sidewall of the tire or be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured before January 1, 1968.

With respect to tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, became effective March 1, 1975. That standard also requires display of the DOT symbol as the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, in order for such tires to be imported into the United States, they also must either display the DOT symbol on the tire sidewall or be accompanied by proof that the tires were manufactured prior to March 1, 1975.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread depth and which are imported solely for retreading may be imported without the DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported. In determining that these tires are not motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA found persuasive that those tires cannot legally be used on the public highways, and require remanufacturing before they can be operated on the highways.

Although this agency has statutory authority to grant exceptions to compliance with the FMVSSs in certain specific categories of situations, NHTSA does not have the authority to waive requirements such as the one at issue here. Therefore, any used tire imported into the United States must either display the DOT symbol, be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable FMVSSs, or in the case of tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, have less than 2/32 inch tread depth and be imported solely for retreading.

I hope the information provided above is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:591#109#119 d:2/27/95

ID: nht74-2.29

DATE: 05/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Robert E. Langdon III

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1974, asking whether retreaded tires are required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 to have either a ribbed tread pattern or treadwear indicators.

Standard No. 117 does not have requirements for tread pattern design, and thus retreaded tires need not have a ribbed tread design. Each retreaded tire must, however, in accordance with S5.1.1(b) of Standard No. 117, incorporate a treadwear indicator that will provide a visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch.

YOURS TRULY,

April 12, 1974

Office of the Chief Counsel -- Attn: Lawrence Schneider, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Schneider:

I have talked with Mr. Zemaitas of the San Francisco office of the N.H.T.S.A. several times about the D.O.T. standards for retreaded pneumatic tires. He was able, after calling the enforcement section of N.H.T.S.A. in Washington, to answer the question I had. When I asked if he could send the information to me in writing, he told me that I would have to write to the legal section in Washington in order to receive a written reply, and he was kind enough to give me your address.

I am a member of the Code Committee of the Southern California Council of Sports Car Clubs. Our Council sanctions slaloms, which are non-racing time and maneuverability events for automobiles. These slaloms are normally held on privately owned parking lots. Many of the cars are towed or trailered to the events since, under the provisions of the California Motor Vehicle Code, they may not legally be driven on streets or highways.

My questions stems from the fact that our slalom code has a rule in reference to tires which states, "Tires must be listed . . . in the manufacturer's printed catalog, and/or have a D.O.T. marking." This rule applies to retreaded tires as well as to new tires.

We have dealt with several retreaders that have been retreading D.O.T. marked carcasses with rubber of a low Shore hardness for increased traction. These tires have met the D.O.T. standards and have always had a tread groove pattern. Consequently the retreaders have marked them with their D.O.T. marks in addition to the original manufacturer's D.O.T. mark already on the carcass. The reason our rule is written specifying a D.O.T. mark is that the safety and strength of tires used in our sport is very important to us. We feel that the retreaders will continue to supply us with high quality, safe tires if we require them to meet the D.O.T. standards for retreaded tires.

My question to Mr. Zemaitas which he referred to the enforcement section (Illegible Words) retreaded tire which meets the standards for retreaded pneumatic tires (Code of Federal REgulations, Title 49, Chapter V, Paragraph 571.117) be legally marked with the D.O.T. mark if (1) there is no groove or rib pattern in the tread, and (2) there are wear indicators in the tread.

The enforcement section indicated to Mr. Zemaitas that this can be done, as there is no requirement for a tread groove or rib pattern, but only for tread wear indicators.

What I would like from you is written verification that, as long as a retreaded tire has tread wear indicators, it does not need to have a tread groove or tread rib pattern in order to be legally marked with the D.O.T. mark. This letter will be shown to other members of the Southern California Council of Sports Car Clubs to verify to them that such a retreaded tire complies with D.O.T. standards and therefore can be legally marked with a D.O.T. mark.

I would appreciate a reply from you as soon as possible. If you have any questions, I am normally available from 10 am. to 3 pm. (PST) at the telephone number shown above.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Langdon III

ID: nht87-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Tony U. Otani

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Tony U. Otani Adyna Corporation 6124 Candor Street Lakewood, CA 90713

Dear Mr. Otani:

This letter responds to your letter asking whether there are any regulations with which you must comply in producing an invention you call an Automotive Steering Wheel Stabilizing Aid. I regret the delay in this response.

You describe your product and include a picture. The article you describe is a thick urethane rubber pad that a motor vehicle driver can fasten to the thigh with a band or buckle. The top part of this pad is contoured to fit under the steering wheel. You state that a driver can use this pad to apply pressure to the steering wheel, holding the wheel steady so that he may drive on a long distance highway when the course is straight. The driver then has his hands free.

Your product falls within the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in S102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle equipment" in relevant part as follows:

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

In determining whether an item of equipment is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordi nary users of motor vehicles. Under this framework, your invention is a motor vehicle accessory.

While NHTSA currently has no standard applicable to the kind of accessory you describe, the agency does have authority to regulate your invention. Even in the absence of a standard, please note that if you decide to market this product, then under our re gulations and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, you have the responsibility to conduct notice and remedy campaigns if you or the agency later find that your product has a safety-related defect.

We are concerned with the safety consequences of your product. This kind of product may encourage a driver to take his hands from the steering wheel while he is operating a motor vehicle, and therefore may increase the risk of accident involving a motor vehicle. For example, removing one's hands from the steering wheel makes a driver less efficient in responding to any unanticipated road event that may require a quick change in vehicle direction. Further, a driver who feels free to do something with his hands other than steer the vehicle may not be devoting full time and attention to his driving.

I ask you to give these implications your fullest consideration, and hope you find this information helpful in making your decision.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Adyna Corporation 6124 Candor St. Lakewood, CA 90713

To:

Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir,

I have an invention (patent pending) and planning for the production of;

Automobile Steering Wheel Stabilizing Aid

as shown in the enclosed picture.

It made of special contoured pad, with gripping soft material such as urethane rubber, with fastening means to left leg such as clamps as shown, or a band with buckle.

Please let me know by return if there are any regulations we have to comply.

Very truly yours,

Tony U. Otani

P.S. The device will function as follows:

This device will help to drive on a long distance highways when in a streight course. The driver can simply lift up left leg to create pad contact to, the wheel to hold it. He can also simply reverse the course for a freedom of steering, It reduces vibra tion to hands and make driving easier and will not interfere steering action when dissociated.

It can be further modified with an alarming devise built in, with a pressure switch to actuate a buzzer. When the driver falls in sleep he would tend to release the leg force and thus to actuate the alarm.

ID: GF005279

Mr. Fred Anderson
President
BrakeQuip International, Inc.
1470 Amherst Road
Knoxville, TN 37909

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of July 16 and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) "recognizes and accepts other countries test standards." Specifically, you state that the Australian standard ADR7 and Canadian standard CMVSS106 were both adopted from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (FMVSS No. 106), and are identical to that standard. Your product is certified to the Canadian and Australian standards. You ask whether your product has to be "re-tested in the U.S." before certifying compliance with FMVSS No. 106.

By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hoses.  NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new vehicles and equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (Vehicle Safety Act) [1] , establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify owners and purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge.

Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA follows these specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing.

Manufacturers are not required to test their products in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may choose any valid means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard and to provide a basis for its certification of compliance.

If the agency has reason to believe that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer. In addition, the manufacturer will be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it had no reason to know despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)). In addition, a manufacturer is prohibited from selling or making available for sale any vehicle or equipment that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

We cannot provide you with assurance that relying on testing conducted for Canadian and Australian standards would be sufficient to demonstrate "reasonable care." This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:106
d.8/12/03





---

[1] 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.

ID: nht92-2.3

DATE: 11/25/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: THOMAS PRICE -- ABAS MARKETING, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-23-92 FROM THOMAS D. PRICE TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7812)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about requirements for a device you call a "noncomputerized antilock braking assist system," for brakes installed on trucks and trailers. You stated that your device can be installed on vehicles equipped with air brake, electric brake, air over hydraulic brake, and vacuum/hydraulic brake systems. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

You asked what the agency's policy is regarding the approval, disapproval, or certification of any particular antilock brake system product. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

You also asked for a listing of the various standards and regulations with which you should be conversant, given your product, and an explanation of the responsibilities under the Safety Act of three types of parties: an original equipment manufacturer, an alterer of a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, and an installer of an ABS device on a used motor vehicle.

NHTSA has issued two standards about brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The agency does not have a regulation specifically covering a device such as a "noncomputerized antilock braking assist system" which is added to a brake system. However, since your device would be tied into a vehicle's brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121.

If one of your devices 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 safety standards, including Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) 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. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

If the 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, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).)

You should also be aware of the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. That standard applies to new motor vehicle equipment as well as to new motor vehicles. You should check to see if any parts of your devices are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106.

I also note that manufacturers of aftermarket equipment are subject to the Safety Act's defect provisions. Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required to notify purchasers and dealers and provide a cost-free remedy for the defect.

Enclosed is a copy of an information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which further explains a manufacturer's responsibilities under NHTSA's regulations. You may also wish to review the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which set forth requirements for commercial motor vehicles. The address of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards is included in the enclosed information sheet.

Finally, you asked how you could secure or have access to the complete Docket No. 92-29-01. This docket includes responses to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in which NHTSA announced that it is considering proposing additional requirements that might require medium and heavy duty vehicles to be equipped with antilock brake systems. The complete docket, including all the responses to the ANPRM, can be reviewed at the agency's Docket Section, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590. Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A complete copy of the docket is also available for a fee to cover search and copying costs by contacting the agency's technical reference division at (202) 366-4949.

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

ID: 7812

Mr. Thomas Price
ABAS Marketing, Inc.
P.O. Box 5644
Norman, OK 73070

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements for a device you call a "noncomputerized antilock braking assist system," for brakes installed on trucks and trailers. You stated that your device can be installed on vehicles equipped with air brake, electric brake, air over hydraulic brake, and vacuum/hydraulic brake systems. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

You asked what the agency's policy is regarding the approval, disapproval, or certification of any particular antilock brake system product. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

You also asked for a listing of the various standards and regulations with which you should be conversant, given your product, and an explanation of the responsibilities under the Safety Act of three types of parties: an original equipment manufacturer, an alterer of a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, and an installer of an ABS device on a used motor vehicle.

NHTSA has issued two standards about brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The agency does not have a regulation specifically covering a device such as a "noncomputerized antilock braking assist system" which is added to a brake system. However, since your device would be tied into a vehicle's brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121.

If one of your devices 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 safety standards, including Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) 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. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

If the 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, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).)

You should also be aware of the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. That standard applies to new motor vehicle equipment as well as to new motor vehicles. You should check to see if any parts of your devices are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106.

I also note that manufacturers of aftermarket equipment are subject to the Safety Act's defect provisions. Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required to notify purchasers and dealers and provide a cost-free remedy for the defect.

Enclosed is a copy of an information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which further explains a manufacturer's responsibilities under NHTSA's regulations. You may also wish to review the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which set forth requirements for commercial motor vehicles. The address of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards is included in the enclosed information sheet.

Finally, you asked how you could secure or have access to the complete Docket No. 92-29-01. This docket includes responses to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in which NHTSA announced that it is considering proposing additional requirements that might require medium and heavy duty vehicles to be equipped with antilock brake systems. The complete docket, including all the responses to the ANPRM, can be reviewed at the agency's Docket Section, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590. Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A complete copy of the docket is also available for a fee to cover search and copying costs by contacting the agency's technical reference division at (202) 366-4949.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 121 d:11/25/92

ID: 10456

Ms. Darlene Skelton
President
National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.
17155 Robey Drive, Suite 101
Castro Valley, CA 94546-3852

Dear Ms. Skelton:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards of this agency, in which you asked the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to three specific scenarios. I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, under the provisions of Chapter 301 of Title 49 U. S. Code, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture, and manufacturers must certify such compliance by affixing to each vehicle a manufacturer's certification label. Among other requirements, the certification label must contain the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of each vehicle and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of each axle on the vehicle, identified in order from front to rear.

a. Your first question referred to a situation in which the GVWR exceeded the tire load ratings. Specifically, you alluded to the case of a fire truck with four rear mounted tires, each rated at 7,000 pounds (lb), that were installed on a 31,000 lb. axle. You stated that the final stage manufacturer received a letter from the tire manufacturer raising the tire inflation pressures from 100 to 110 or 115 pounds per square inch and limiting the driving to not more than 7 miles at a speed not to exceed 55 miles per hour. You asked whether such practices violated the FMVSSs.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, provides in pertinent part:

[T]he sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's certification label required by 49 CFR part 567.

In other words, the load ratings of the tires on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be at least equal to the weight ratings of the axles on which the tires are installed. The standard makes no provision for changing the tire inflation pressures or driving at restricted speeds or limiting the distances the vehicle may travel to compensate for discrepancies in the load and weight ratings.

The facts you provided us, however, are not sufficient on which to base an opinion as to whether there has been a noncompliance in that instance. We would have to know all the facts and circumstances relevant to the tire manufacturer's alleged actions, including input from the manufacturer itself, before we could arrive at a conclusion in that regard.

b. Your second question referred to vehicles in which axles had been rerated. You cited a situation in which a manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Thus, the manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks from 22,000 to 24 000 lbs.

NHTSA defines the GAWR as:

[T]he value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interface (emphasis added).

A manufacturer's assigning different GAWRs to axles on different vehicles is not prohibited by our FMVSSs. In fact, manufacturers routinely assign different GAWRs and GVWRs to different vehicles based on the various equipment options and add-ons, particularly with respect to emergency vehicles. In any case, NHTSA expects that the GAWR(s) stated on the vehicle's certification label correctly reflects the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle.

c. Your final question asked whether it was a violation of the FMVSS for manufacturers to take the air supply for their vehicle horns off the air supply for the vehicle's brakes. The answer is, in general, no.

FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems, specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles other than passenger cars that are equipped with air brake systems. The standard does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for the horn, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If the horn operating off the brake air supply is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 121. If the horn is added to a previously certified new vehicle, the person so modifying the vehicle would be an alterer who would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the FMVSSs affected by the alteration. If the horn were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle repair business, that business would not be required to attach a label or recertify the vehicle. It would, however, have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

In addition, hoses connected to air horns could be subject to Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses. They are subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, i.e., if a failure of the hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, the hoses are "brake hoses" and must comply with Standard No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with the brake hose standard.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:106#120#121#567 d:4/10/95