ID: 7495a

Mr. Lyle Walheim, Lieutenant
Motor Carrier and Inspection Services
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
P.O. Box 7912
Madison, WI 53707-7912

Dear Mr. Walheim:

This responds to your letter seeking a clarification of whether Wisconsin's current requirements for the activation of stop signal arms on school buses would comply with the stop signal arm requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. Your letter was prompted by my June 17, 1992 interpretation to Blue Bird Body Company. After evaluating the information provided in your letter, together with the information previously supplied by Blue Bird, we have reconsidered our assessment of the Wisconsin requirements. Subject to the qualifications discussed below, it is our reconsidered view that the Wisconsin requirements are not preempted by Standard No. 131 and that Blue Bird can continue to supply buses meeting Wisconsin's specifications, with the addition of the audible warning device described in Blue Bird's letter.

The distinguishing feature of Wisconsin's requirement is that it ties the operation of the stop arm to the opening of the service door, not to the operation of the red flashing lamps. In practice, the lamps on a Wisconsin bus equipped with a four-lamp system would operate like those on a bus equipped with an eight-lamp system, with the red lamps (instead of yellow lamps) flashing while the bus is coming to a stop. Since S5.1.4(b)(ii) of Standard No. 108 requires the yellow lamps on an eight-lamp system to turn off automatically and the red lamps to turn on automatically whenever the entrance door opens, and since the red lamps on the Wisconsin buses would operate whenever the entrance door is open, the Wisconsin buses would conform to the requirements of Standard No. 108. That standard does not prohibit the flashing of red lamps on a four-lamp system while the service door is closed.

For purposes of Standard No. 131, the question is whether there is any circumstance in which the stop arm may be deactivated while the red lamps are flashing. From the standpoint of practicality, we agree with you that the stop arm should not function before the bus has stopped and the driver has opened the service door. We further believe it is consistent with the purpose of the standard for the stop arm to be deactivated on a Wisconsin bus before the bus stops, even though the bus's red lamps may be flashing. To reconcile this view with the language of the standard, however, requires us to address the requirement of the standard that the arm must extend "at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated. . . ."

Standard No. 131 expressly contemplates a situation in which the stop arm would not automatically extend despite the operation of the red lamps. The final clause of S5.5 provides that "a device may be installed that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm." The question in Wisconsin's situation is whether the manual switch that activates the red signal lamps but not the stop arm would qualify as such a device. In our view, it does. Since the only time the red lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to operate is when the entrance door is open, and since the Wisconsin system would automatically extend the stop arm when the entrance door opens, we believe that the manual switch in the Wisconsin system can be fairly characterized as an override device that prevents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm until the red lamps are required to operate. For an override to be permitted, the device must comply with the other provisions set forth in S5.5, including the presence of a continuous or intermittent signal.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref:131 d:9/14/92

ID: nht92-4.7

DATE: September 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lyle Walheim -- Lieutenant, Motor Carrier and Inspection Services, Wisconsin Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/92 from Lyle Walheim to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7495)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking a clarification of whether Wisconsin's current requirements for the activation of stop signal arms on school buses would comply with the stop signal arm requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. Your letter was prompted by my June 17, 1992 interpretation to Blue Bird Body Company. After evaluating the information provided in your letter, together with the information previously supplied by Blue Bird, we have reconsidered our assessment of the Wisconsin requirements. Subject to the qualifications discussed below, it is our reconsidered view that the Wisconsin requirements are not preempted by Standard No. 131 and that Blue Bird can continue to supply buses meeting Wisconsin's specifications, with the addition of the audible warning device described in Blue Bird's letter.

The distinguishing feature of Wisconsin's requirement is that it ties the operation of the stop arm to the opening of the service door, not to the operation of the red flashing lamps. In practice, the lamps on a Wisconsin bus equipped with a four-lamp system would operate like those on a bus equipped with an eight-lamp system, with the red lamps (instead of yellow lamps) flashing while the bus is coming to a stop. Since S5.1.4(b)(ii) of Standard No. 108 requires the yellow lamps on an eight-lamp system to turn off automatically and the red lamps to turn on automatically whenever the entrance door opens, and since the red lamps on the Wisconsin buses would operate whenever the entrance door is open, the Wisconsin buses would conform to the requirements of Standard No. 108. That standard does not prohibit the flashing of red lamps on a four-lamp system while the service door is closed.

For purposes of Standard No. 131, the question is whether there is any circumstance in which the stop arm may be deactivated while the red lamps are flashing. From the standpoint of practicality, we agree with you that the stop arm should not function before the bus has stopped and the driver has opened the service door. We further believe it is consistent with the purpose of the standard for the stop arm to be deactivated on a Wisconsin bus before the bus stops, even though the bus's red lamps may be flashing. To reconcile this view with the language of the standard, however, requires us to address the requirement of the standard that the arm must extend "at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated...."

Standard No. 131 expressly contemplates a situation in which the stop arm would not automatically extend despite the operation of the red lamps. The final clause of S5.5 provides that "a device may be installed that prevents

the automatic extension of a stop signal arm." The question in Wisconsin's situation is whether the manual switch that activates the red signal lamps but not the stop arm would qualify as such a device. In our view, it does. Since the only time the red lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to operate is when the entrance door is open, and since the Wisconsin system would automatically extend the stop arm when the entrance door opens, we believe that the manual switch in the Wisconsin system can be fairly characterized as an override device that prevents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm until the red lamps are required to operate. For an override to be permitted, the device must comply with the other provisions set forth in S5.5, including the presence of a continuous or intermittent signal.

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: 8084

Mr. M.M. Palkar
Senior Manager (Marketing)
Kalyani Brakes Limited
Aurora Towers, 4th Floor
9 Moledina Road, Pune 411 001
INDIA

Dear Mr. Palkar:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for the manufacture of brake hose assemblies. I am pleased to provide this information.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hose assemblies. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," copy enclosed) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's 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 purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hose is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities you must meet as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Standard No. 106, "Brake Hoses," applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above.

You ask that NHTSA "approve" your assemblies so that you can "punch DOT on the end fittings of the assemblies." As explained above, NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or conduct pre-sale testing of their products. In the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS's.

Your question about "DOT punching" seems to confuse two options for labeling brake hose assemblies specified in Standard No. 106. The "DOT" mark is used in the standard to constitute a manufacturer's certification of conformance with all applicable FMVSS's. For hydraulic brake hose assemblies It is unclear from your letter whether you will be manufacturing hydraulic brake hose assemblies, or air brake hose assemblies made with crimped end fittings. The labeling requirements for crimped air brake hose assemblies are similar to those for hydraulic assemblies (see S7.2.3, S7.2.3.1). The assembly would be labeled by either a band containing the DOT mark and a manufacturer designation, or by stamping the designation on an end fitting. , S5.2.4 of Standard No. 106 requires the DOT mark to be placed on a band (not an end fitting) around the hydraulic brake hose assembly, along with a designation that identifies the assembler. As an alternative to this requirement for a band, S5.2.4.1 permits manufacturers of hydraulic brake hose assemblies to label their assemblies by marking at least one end fitting with the manufacturer designation. Assembly manufacturers choosing to mark their assemblies only with a designation must separately furnish the certification of conformance with the applicable FMVSS's. The certification may be in the form of a label or tag on the completed brake hose assembly or on the outside of a container in which the assembly is delivered.

The manufacturer's designation that is marked on either the band or an end fitting of a hydraulic or air brake hose assembly is described in S5.2.4(b) and S7.2.3(b), respectively, of Standard No. 106. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products. You must file your designation (which may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division at the following address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. You may telephone Mr. Richard Carter of the Crash Avoidance Division at (202) 366-5274 if you have questions about filing your designation.

I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

1.A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2.The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3.Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4.A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5.A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,

6.The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

7.In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

You also asked whether you must obtain approval from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to sell your assemblies in this country. The answer is no. You must meet only NHTSA's requirements to sell your product in the U.S. Please note, however, that assemblies used on commercial vehicles operating in interstate commerce are subject to the requirements of our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). If you are interested in the FHWA's requirements for brake hose assemblies, you can write to that agency at the addressed provided in the enclosed information sheet.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:106#VSA d.2/4/93

ID: nht71-1.20

DATE: 06/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: D.C. Transit System, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1971, to Mr. Roy J. Dennison, concerning the use of Abcite coated acrylics in side windows of D.C. Transit buses.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials-Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses presently allows the use of AS-4 or AS-5 rigid plastics in the side wiodows of buses when the side windows are readily removable. Readily removable windows are defined in ANSX Standards ZZ6.1-1966 as "windows that can be quickly and completely removed from the motor vehicle without tools."

If this provision of the Standard is not adequate to satisfy your needs, we will be pleased to meet with you to discuss the matter further.

Office of the General Counsel D.C. Transit System. Inc.

June 15, 1971

Roy A. Dennison,

Safety Standards Engineer

Code 41-42

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dennison:

Pursuant to our conversations regarding the use of acrylic coated with Aboite, I enclose herewith for your consideration two letters from the Dupont Company relative to certain tests made.

I wish to request that you give this matter your prompt consideration for the reason that this organization would like to be able to use this material in certain new buses that it intends to order as part of its fleet together with the use of same in windows on our used buses. I am arranging for a sample of the material to be sent to you under separate cover.

What we hope to obtain from you is a statement to the effect that the material does meet the safety standards of your department and in turn this would allow us to take this matter up with the District of Columbia authorities in order to be able to use this material as windows in our fleet.

I will await your reply after your investigation of this matter.

Very truly yours,

May 28, 1971

R. Dennison, Office of Crash Injury Reduction, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Bureau,

Dear Mr. Dennison,

I have been having difficulty trying to contact you over the last two weeks, probably because of your vacation, but hope that you can give me a very quick answer to two questions arising out of the proposed modifications to Standard 205.

The first question concerns the date when the marking modifications become effective. My own reading of the Standard is that, since it is a Standard for glazing materials, then the effective date applies to the manufacture of the glazing material and not to the fitting of the glazing material into the automobile. If I am wrong in my assumption, then we have to bring our whole modification process very much more forward, because a glass to be, fitted in January must have been made by September, because of the large number of glasses already in the pipe line.

The second problem concerns the actual form in which the DOT certification appears. Triplex has been allocated symbol DOT 17 and that is the symbol which we put on the glass. The proposed modification to 205 calls for a hyphen to be placed between DOT and the number (17 in our case). Will you accept the marking DOT 17 without the hyphen, because all our stencils and master plates have been made in this form and we should be put to both considerable expense and delay in getting all the master plates modified.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Clue to Mr. D. Ferguson in case you are still on vacation, as I am urgently needing advice.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

A. J. HOLLAND--TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS CO. LTD.

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

May 7, 1971

H. T. Smyth

Vice President Purchasing - Contracts

D. C. Transit System, Inc.

Dear Mr. Smyth:

In your letter of March 25, 1971, you asked me to certify to the following:

Du Pont Abcite abrasion resistant sheet - acrylic satisfies the requirements of Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the ASA Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for glazing motor vehicles operating on land highways - Z26.1 - 1966.

I am pleased to advise that our tests and investigations are now completed to an extent where we certify our material (Abcite abrasion resistant sheet - acrylic) does meet all of the ASA Z26.1 - 1966 requirements for the above items.

I hope this certification is in time for you to specify Abcite for your new coaches, and you will now proceed with additional usage on your current fleet.

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Russell H. Berry, Jr.--

Development Specialist

Abcite Venture

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

March 29, 1971

H. T. Smyth

Vice President, Purchasing - Contracts

D. C. Transit System, Inc.

Dear Mr. Smyth:

Thank you for your letter of March 25, and we are pleased to hear of the satisfactory results of your tests with windows of acrylic coated with Abcite (Registered). Your decision to convert your fleet to Abcite (Registered) pending governmental approval is also exciting news.

You asked for a letter "stating that this material satisfies the requirements of: Items 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the ASA Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for glazing motor vehicles operating on land highways - Z26.1 - 1966".

All our data indicate that acrylic coated with Abcite (Registered) abrasion resistant coating satisfies all of the requirements in the above items of the ASA Code. We are submitting sample material to an outside testing laboratory for certification to verify our data. Tests run by an independent testing laboratory at the request of the Department of Transportation show a non-compliance in the weathering tests with which we seriously disagree. All our weathering data, both in lab tests and outside weathering tests, show essentially no change in optical quality, light transmission and haze levels. (See Page 3 of attached product bulletin.) However, as I stated, we are having these tests run at our request for certification.

I hope the above satisfies your requirements but if there are any questions or if you need additional information, please contact me. My telephone number is 302//4-4639.

Sincerely,

Russell H. Berry, Jr. --

Development Specialist

Abcite (Registered) Venture

Enclosure

ID: 2874yy

William F. Canever, Esq.
Staff Attorney
Office of General Counsel
Ford Motor Company
The American Road
Dearborn, MI 48l2l

Dear Mr. Canever:

This responds to your letter concerning Ford's plan to allocate MY l986 light truck credits to cover MY l985 and MY l989 shortfalls. For each of those model years, manufacturers have the option of complying with separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards or a combined standard. Ford elected to comply with the separate standards for MY l985 and the combined standard for MY l986 and MY l989. The MY l986 credits are applied in the plan on a prorated basis to MY l985.

In response to your letter, we have reviewed Ford's credit allocation plan in light of 49 CFR 535.4(e). That section provides, among other things, that "(c)redits may not be applied between classes of light trucks, except as determined by the Administrator to account for changes made in the definitions of classes between model years." Since Ford's plan involves applying credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, we have considered whether the plan represents a cross-class application of credits that is prohibited by 535.4(e). As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited.

In your letter, you suggest that the regulatory scheme creates two methods of complying with light truck CAFE standards and not three classes of light trucks. You also state that the term "class" is nowhere applied to the combined light truck fleet. You conclude that there is no cross-class application of credits.

We do not agree with your suggested analysis. Section 535.3(a)(4) states that the term "class of light trucks" is used in accordance with the determinations in Part 533 of this chapter. Section 535.4(b) then indicates that credits are earned "whenever the average fuel economy for a class of light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer exceeds an applicable average fuel economy standard established in Part 533 of this chapter." The term "class" in Part 535 thus refers to each possible grouping of light trucks that is averaged together for determining compliance with CAFE standards. Looking at Part 533, there are, in fact, six classes of light trucks for the model years in question: (l) Combined captive import, (2) Combined other, (3) 2-wheel drive captive import, (4) 2-wheel drive other, (5) 4-wheel drive captive import, and (6) 4-wheel drive other.

While we do not agree with your suggested analysis, we believe that there is ambiguity with respect to how 535.4(e) applies to the factual sitation at issue. First, Ford's plan involves overlapping classes. Thus, while there is a degree of cross-class application of credits, it is limited. Second, NHTSA has never addressed in rulemaking the issue of whether manufacturers should, in effect, forfeit credits as a result of choosing particular compliance options for particular years. This situation is analagous in some respects to the issue of whether forfeiture of credits should occur where NHTSA changes the definitions of classes between model years. In that situation, the agency decided, based on its understanding of statutory intent, against forfeiture. Third, in a letter dated April 26, l988, NHTSA approved a Ford carryback plan for MY l985 light trucks which set forth Ford's proposed allocation methodology. While the agency did not expressly address that methodology in the letter approving the plan, Ford could have assumed that the agency considered the proposed allocation to be permissible.

Given the ambiguity surrounding this issue, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate to decide the issue, for now, in favor of the manufacturer. The agency believes that this is a type of ambiguity that should be resolved, for the future, by rulemaking. However, the issue will become moot, at least for the time being, since, beginning with the MY l992 light truck CAFE standards, NHTSA decided not to set optional separate two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive standards. Should the agency decide to issue optional CAFE standards at some future time, it will address this issue in rulemaking.

For now, NHTSA will treat situations where a manufacturer changes compliance options between model years in the same manner as situations where the agency changes the definitions of classes between model years. In both types of situations, NHTSA will follow the policy first announced in a November 8, 1979 notice of interpretation (44 FR 64943), and reaffirmed in a December 18, 1980 Federal Register notice (45 FR 83233), of attempting to assure that credits are applied to offset shortfalls on the same types of vehicles which generated the credits.

Ford's plan to apply, on a prorated basis, credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, is consistent with the examples set forth in the November l979 and December l980 notices. Ford's plan then to apply remaining MY l986 credits to its MY l989 shortfall, incurred against the MY l989 combined standard, does not involve any cross-class application of credits. I therefore conclude that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:535#502 d:3/l4/9l

ID: nht91-2.33

DATE: March 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William F. Canever -- Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-1-90 from William F. Canever to Stephen P. Wood (OCC 5713)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Ford's plan to allocate MY 1986 light truck credits to cover MY 1985 and MY 1989 shortfalls. For each of those model years, manufacturers have the option of complying with separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards or a combined standard. Ford elected to comply with the separate standards for MY 1985 and the combined standard for MY 1986 and MY 1989. The MY 1986 credits are applied in the plan on a prorated basis to MY 1985.

In response to your letter, we have reviewed Ford's credit allocation plan in light of 49 CFR S 535.4(e). That section provides, among other things, that "(c)redits may not be applied between classes of light trucks, except as determined by the Administrator to account for changes made in the definitions of classes between model years." Since Ford's plan involves applying credits earned by exceeding the MY 1986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY 1985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, we have considered whether the plan represents a cross-class application of credits that is prohibited by S 535.4(e). As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited.

In your letter, you suggest that the regulatory scheme creates two methods of complying with light truck CAFE standards and not three classes of light trucks. You also state that the term "class" is nowhere applied to the combined light truck fleet. You conclude that there is no cross-class application of credits.

We do not agree with your suggested analysis. Section 535.3(a)(4) states that the term "class of light trucks" is used in accordance with the determinations in Part 533 of this chapter. Section 535.4(b) then indicates that credits are earned "whenever the average fuel economy for a class of light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer exceeds an applicable average fuel economy standard established in Part 533 of this chapter." The term "class" in Part 535 thus refers to each possible grouping of light trucks that is averaged together for determining compliance with CAFE standards. Looking at Part 533, there are, in fact, six classes of light trucks for the model years in question: (1) Combined captive import, (2) Combined other, (3) 2-wheel drive captive import, (4) 2-wheel drive other, (5) 4-wheel drive captive import, and (6) 4-wheel drive other.

While we do not agree with your suggested analysis, we believe that there is ambiguity with respect to how S 535.4(e) applies to the factual sitation at issue. First, Ford's plan involves overlapping classes.

Thus, while there is a degree of cross-class application of credits, it is limited. Second, NHTSA has never addressed in rulemaking the issue of

whether manufacturers should, in effect, forfeit credits as a result of choosing particular compliance options for particular years. This situation is analagous in some respects to the issue of whether forfeiture of credits should occur where NHTSA changes the definitions of classes between model years. In that situation, the agency decided, based on its understanding of statutory intent, against forfeiture. Third, in a letter dated April 26, 1988, NHTSA approved a Ford carryback plan for MY 1985 light trucks which set forth Ford's proposed allocation methodology. While the agency did not expressly address that methodology in the letter approving the plan, Ford could have assumed that the agency considered the proposed allocation to be permissible.

Given the ambiguity surrounding this issue, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate to decide the issue, for now, in favor of the manufacturer. The agency believes that this is a type of ambiguity that should be resolved, for the future, by rulemaking. However, the issue will become moot, at least for the time being, since, beginning with the MY 1992 light truck CAFE standards, NHTSA decided not to set optional separate two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive standards. Should the agency decide to issue optional CAFE standards at some future time, it will address this issue in rulemaking.

For now, NHTSA will treat situations where a manufacturer changes compliance options between model years in the same manner as situations where the agency changes the definitions of classes between model years. In both types of situations, NHTSA will follow the policy first announced in a November 8, 1979 notice of interpretation (44 FR 64943), and reaffirmed in a December 18, 1980 Federal Register notice (45 FR 83233), of attempting to assure that credits are applied to offset shortfalls on the same types of vehicles which generated the credits.

Ford's plan to apply, on a prorated basis, credits earned by exceeding the MY 1986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY 1985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, is consistent with the examples set forth in the November 1979 and December 1980 notices. Ford's plan then to apply remaining MY 1986 credits to its MY 1989 shortfall, incurred against the MY 1989 combined standard, does not involve any cross-class application of credits. I therefore conclude that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited.

ID: 11645DF

Mr. David T. Holland
President
Europa International, Inc.
1570A Pacheco Street
Santa Fe, NM 87605

Dear Mr. Holland:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff and your telephone conversations with Mr. Myers. You asked whether tires for vehicles other than passenger cars that are not labeled with the DOT symbol must be branded "FOR OFF ROAD USE ONLY" before you can sell them, or whether you can test such tires and if they pass the test, brand the DOT symbol on them.

You explained to Mr. Myers that your company imports Mercedes sport utility vehicles whose tires are not labeled with the DOT symbol. You stated that you remove the noncertified tires from the vehicles and substitute certified tires therefor so the vehicles can be sold in the United States. However, since neither Bridgestone, the manufacturer of the tires, nor Mercedes will accept return of the tires, you are seeking ways in which these tires can legally be sold in the United States. Based on the information you provided to Mr. Myers, the tires in question must meet the performance and labeling requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and the labeling and recordkeeping requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire be marked with:

(a) The symbol DOT, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This symbol may be marked on only one sidewall.

The DOT symbol is normally molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires during the manufacturing process to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the original manufacturer of the tires must mold a tire identification number into or onto the sidewall of each tire it produces in accordance with Part 574.5. Thus, whether or not tires comply with FMVSS No. 119 and are marked with the DOT symbol, if they do not contain the required tire identification number, they cannot be sold in the United States.

Although tires for vehicles other than passenger cars that do not contain the DOT symbol may not be sold for use on the streets, roads, or highways of this country, they may be sold for off-road use only. There is no requirement that tires be branded or otherwise marked "FOR OFF ROAD USE ONLY" before selling them in this way. However, it is advisable that the seller of such tires make a statement to that effect on the sales voucher or other written document as proof that the seller sold the tires with the understanding that they would only be used off-road.

The FMVSSs are not applicable to tires intended solely for export, provided the tires and their shipping containers are labeled for export only. Thus, you are free to export the tires in question, whether or not they comply with FMVSSs. In that respect, see attached letter to Oxytire, Inc., dated May 24, 1995.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:119 d:4/23/96

ID: nht95-2.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 12, 1995

FROM: K. Howard Sharp -- Attorney at Law, Arnason Law Office

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/7/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO K. HOWARD SHARP (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Our firm represents NYTAF Industries, Inc. of Edmore, North Darora. NYTAF has developed a device known as Safety Bright(R) which is an auxiliary signalling system for heavy duty vehicles. I have enclosed for your consideration a draft of a brochure NYTAF intends to distribute when it begins to manufacture and market the device. Exhibit A, attached. Additionally, Exhibit B provides an explanation of the product's functions.

On May 9, 1995 I spoke to Mr. Taylor Vinson who suggested we request a written opinion from N.H.T.S.A. regarding the applicability of the federal motor vehicle safety standards to Safety Bright(R). Mr. Vinson expressed concern that Safety Bright(R) m ight violate Standard 108 by impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. See 49 C.F.R. @ 571.108 (S 5.1.3). Mr. Vinson declined to offer an opinion, however, since he had not seen the device and knew nothing of it. Consequently, NYTAF now requests a written opinion from N.H.T.S.A. regarding the compliance of Safety Bright(R) with federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The attached brochure describes Safety Bright(R) and illustrates the product as it would appear installed on the rear of a semi-trailer. The unit mounts on the rear of the trailer frame directly below the trailer body in the center putting the displa y panel on approximately the same horizontal plane as the tail lights, and brake lights.

Safety Bright(R) displays a verbal message appropriate to the particular potential hazard. The red L.E.D. (light emitting diode) panel displays the auxiliary warnings listed in Exhibit B. NYTAF originally designed and manufactured prototype devices with the option of displaying the word "Thanks" but recently decided to delete that message.

Safety Bright(R) does not interfere with lighting required by Standard 108. Safety Bright(R) connects to the tractor's power source through the pigtail connection. While certain functions operate in conjunction with existing lighting; such as turn si gnals and brake lights, if the Safety Bright(R) unit were to fail, the existing lamps and signals would continue to operate normally.

The L.E.D. display is somewhat more intense than existing brake lights, turn signals and tail lamps. NYTAF believes the greater intensity attracts attention to the vehicle and to the message conveyed by the conventional signals but does not detract f rom the visibility and conspicuity of existing equipment. The greater intensity, while averaging less than one candlepower per L.E.D., enhances Safety Bright's(R) visibility in bright daylight.

One might argue that Safety Bright(R) could constitute a distraction and thereby decrease the effectiveness of existing signals and lights required under the regulations, See 49 C.F.R. @ 571.108 (S 5.1.3). We do not agree. To the extent Safety Brigh t(R) might cause such a distraction, it would result only from the product's novelty after its introduction to the market. Safety Bright(R) should create no more of a distraction than reflective tape, retroreflective strips, side marker turn signals, or fuel efficient, aerodynamically designed truck bodies. NYTAF is confident the motoring public would readily accept and undoubtedly benefit from the use of Safety Bright(R) on trucks and semi-trailers.

Anecdotal evidence suggests N.H.T.S.A. has considered and rejected a number of somewhat similar products in the past. "Message boards" mounted in car windows and L.E.D. advertising signs mounted on automobiles do create a distraction and a consequent traffic hazard. Safety Bright(R) differs from such devices because it displays only standard traffic related messages. Drivers cannot display their own personal messages or commercial advertising, and they cannot alter the messages programmed into the unit. Therefore, the reasons for rejecting seemingly similar products submitted to N.H.T.S.A. in the past simply do not apply to Safety Bright(R).

NYTAF believes Safety Bright(R) fully complies with the federal motor vehicle safety standards. As an enhanced auxiliary signalling device, Safety Bright(R) operates in conjunction with existing, required equipment and furthers the purpose of the app licable standard, which purpose is

to reduce traffic accidents and death and injuries resulting from traffic accidents, by . . . enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that, their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in day light and in dark ness or other conditions of reduced visibility."

49 C.F.R. @ 571.108 (S2). This is exactly the same purpose for which Safety Bright(R) was designed.

Ironically, heavy trucks and semi-trailers -- the largest vehicles on our roadways -- have a profound need to increase conspicuity, especially with respect to speed and signals, See generally Exhibit C. Retroreflective strips and reflective tape repr esent recent advances in this area. Nevertheless, the trucking industry along with the general motoring public stand to benefit from an enhanced signalling system for heavy duty vehicles such as semi-trailers. Studies show that most semi-trailer acciden ts occur on city streets at speeds of less than eighteen (18) miles per hour. Exhibit C. Safety Bright(R) offers a special advantage for traffic safety under those circumstances by giving a clear and conspicuous warning to drivers and pedestrians at th e rear of the vehicle of the operator's intended maneuver.

At highway speeds, Safety Bright(R) should give other motorists extra reaction time in many instances because of the bright, clearly visible and unambiguous message. Experienced drivers know that even an extra half second of reaction time can sometim es mean the difference between an appropriate response and a tragedy. NYTAF believes Safety Bright(R) would give motorists a more obvious indication of a truck's intended maneuver, thereby alerting other drivers more quickly and decreasing reaction time s.

Other messages such as "WIDE LOAD," "LONG LOAD," "BACKING," "CAUTION" and "HELP" draw attention to the special circumstances indicated. The wide or long load messages supplement existing requirements for appropriate markings to increase awareness of the size of the vehicle. The backing signal visually alerts motorists and pedestrians to the truck's directon of motion whereas no regulation currently requires a visual backing signal for semi-trucks. The caution signal works in conjunction with the e mergency flashing signals. The help signal quite obviously is a summons for assistance intended for use by operators of disabled trucks.

Attached as Exhibit D are the schematic diagrams of the Safety Bright(R) device and other pertinent electronic date. If you need any additional information, please let us know. The manufacturer will gladly meet with N.H.T.S.A. officials to demonstra te the product and to discuss any aspect of its construction or operation. NYTAF is eager to consider any comments or suggestions for improvement.

Thank you for your attention to this request. We look forward to your response. With best regards, I am

(Brochure and exhibits omitted.)

ID: nht75-4.10

DATE: 06/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toledo Clutch & Brake Service, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 21, 1975, questions whether a 121-equipped chassis must be certified to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, after installation of a tractor conversion kit, whether an antilock wiring harness may be spliced for purposes of frame extension, whether additional weight (such as a body) or an axle may be added to a vehicle after it is sold and put into use, and whether the standard regulates the replacement of worn brake components. You state that it should be assumed that the vehicle has been delivered to the first user.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or importation of a vehicle which does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of manufacture. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A)). However, the Act also provides that this prohibition no longer applies to a vehicle (except in the case of importation) after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (1)). The Act also prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or design (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)).

These provisions mean that the manufacturer of the vehicle must assume responsibility for compliance and certification. Most trucks are built in several stages and completed by final-stage manufacturers like yourself. Cab-chassis are only incomplete vehicles which have not been certified, and therefore, whoever completes the vehicle and subsequently sells it or introduces it on the public highway must certify its compliance. In answer to your first question, it is the responsibility of the person who installs the fifth wheel, tractor protection system, etc., to certify compliance, whether or not the vehicle has been delivered to the first user. The owner himself would qualify as a final-stage manufacturer if he installed the conversion kit.

In answer to your third and fourth questions, the installation would be subject to certification unless it followed "the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." "Good faith" means that the first user could not, for example, buy a completed vehicle, drive it around the block and then install a non-conforming tag axle. Installation of a body after delivery to the first purchaser without compliance with Standard No. 121 would in most cases not appear to be good faith because the vehicle is not capable of use without the body.

It is permissible to make modifications to a vehicle that is already in service after the first purchase in good faith. A private party may make any change, but as noted above, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business such as yours cannot "knowingly render inoperative" a safety device in the process of modification. In answer to question number five, Standard No. 121 regulates the manufacture of new vehicles only and does not contain provisions which limit use of replacement parts. The only restriction in replacement would be to avoid knowingly rendering inoperative safety devices or design.

In answer to question number three, the standard establishes performance levels and does not contain any design requirements concerning the wiring harness of antilock systems. We would advise that you contact the antilock manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer as to the wisdom of splicing antilock wiring.

For your information, I enclose a discussion of the standard which addresses final-stage manufacture at page seven.

YOURS TRULY,

April 21, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Toledo Clutch & Brake Service, Inc. is a "Heavy Duty" brake shop. That is the majority of our sales is to fleets, school buses and off road equipment (earth moving equipment, cranes, quarry vehicles, etc.). By the nature of our business we must be and are a very safety oriented business, having held classes, clinics and seminars on brakes, brake safety and related subjects. We have followed the course of FMVSS 121 since its original proposal nearly five years ago. Our customers, and many of our competitors customers have relied on us to give them the latest up-date on FMVSS 121. However, since its implementation this year, many legal questions have arisen in the aftermarket that we feel only the Department of Transportation can clarify. We have listed a number of actual circumstances and some cases that we feel will arise in the future. We would like to have the Department of Transportations interpretation of these questions, assuming in all cases, except where noted, that the vehicle has been delivered to the first user with straight air brakes, and that any materials added comply with FMVSS 121:

1. A vehicle chassis is purchased, having no body (van, dump, stake, etc.), with the intention of converting to a tractor. Can a tractor convertion kit (hand valvue, tractor protection system and trailer outlets) be added after delivery to the first user, without recertification?

2. Can a truck frame be extended after delivery to the first user? If so, will a new anti-skid wiring harness be required or can the original one be spliced?

3. Can a tag axle be added to a vehicle that is already in service? A lift axle? A third axle to trailer? A twin screw to a tractor?

4. After delivery to the first user, can additional weight be added to a vehicle, such as saddle tanks, bodies, material to comply with up dated noise abatement laws etc?

5. When brake system parts (including foundation brake parts) wear out or become defective, through normal usage, can they be replaced with parts that are competetive with original equipment parts so long as the competetive or replacement parts are certified to comply with FMVSS 121?

Richard Schlichting President TOLEDO CLUTCH & BRAKE SERVICE, INC.

ID: 77-4.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Bedell Trailer Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 18, 1977, letter asking who is responsible for compliance with the standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Compliance with Federal safety standards is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . ." Therefore, in the cases to which you refer, the assembler of the vehicle would be responsible for ensuring the compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal safety standards. The purchaser is not responsible for compliance with the requirements unless he assembles the vehicles, thereby becoming the manufacturer.

Dealers are prohibited by section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act from selling any completed motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the standards. A dealer is permitted, however, to rely upon the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle conforms to the standards' requirements. Therefore, prior to sale of a vehicle a dealer should make sure that the manufacturer has complied with the certification requirements of Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, of our regulations which are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

A dealer is not prohibited from selling an "incomplete vehicle" as that term is defined in Part 568 of our regulations. Such an incomplete vehicle would require further manufacturing before its final certification for compliance with the standards. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer would need to fulfill it's responsibilities as outlined in Part 568. The person who completes the vehicle would then be responsible for the vehicle complying with standards. You should note that vehicles that lack merely readily attachable components are not "incomplete vehicles." They are completed vehicles. The sale of any such vehicle that was not certified for compliance with all applicable standards would be a violation of the Act.