ID: 08-006965a Acton

ID: nht93-2.29

DATE: March 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jay Lee -- President, Pacific Agritrade Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-14-93 from Jay Lee to Jackson Rice (OCC 8262)

TEXT: This responds to your January 14, 1993, letter asking for information on how to have an air bag you wish to import from Korea tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Safety Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, INCLUDING ANY PERSON IMPORTING MOTOR VEHICLES OR MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT FOR RESALE." (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION (49 CFR S571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like.

It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as original equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag 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 installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht78-4.13

DATE: 11/28/78

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

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 19, 1978, questions about the effect of the PACCAR V. NHTSA decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.

Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision. Only the "road testing" requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.

One question raised is whether the court invalidated these "road testing" requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation "at the time [the standard] was put into effect" (573 F2d. at 640).

Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks "no lockup" performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.

A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have already been antilock equipped, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that --

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall 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 . . . .

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the first retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.

The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different in the case of a manufacturer or agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under @ 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken. "Adequate repair" is defined in @ 159(4) not to include "any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment." The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safet related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.

A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export) trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain "road testing" portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, "no lockup", timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.

Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes an importation in violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.

ID: 2881o

Mr. Terry E. Quinn
Corporate Director of Quality
Hehr International, Inc.
PO Box 39160
Los Angeles, CA 90039-0160

Dear Mr. Quinn:

This responds to your letter of last year concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I regret the delay in our response. You explained that your company, Hehr International, is a prime glazing material manufacturer that tempers glazing material used in vehicular windows produced by your company and other companies. You stated that a prospective customer for your tempered glass does not wish to have your trademark appear on the glazing etch of its windows since it is a competitor of yours. You asked whether a prime manufacturer may sell its tempered glass without its distinctive designation or trademark. As explained below, Standard No. 205 requires that a manufacturer's distinctive designation appear on the glass. However, if the glass in question is marked with the prime manufacturer's DOT code mark, the designation marked on the glass may be the designation of the company that sells the glass, instead of the prime manufacturer.

Section S6 of Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205) sets forth the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.2 of the standard specify that each "prime glazing material manufacturer" shall mark glazing materials manufactured by him in accordance with Section 6 of the American National Standard "Safety Code for Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z-26.1 - 1977, January 26, 1977 as supplemented by Z26.1a July 3, 1980 (ANS Z-26). Paragraph S6.1 defines a "prime glazing material manufacturer" as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. Your company is therefore a "prime glazing material manufacturer" of all glazing material that it tempers, and so you are subject to these marking requirements.

One of the requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26 is that a manufacturer mark its glazing with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." In addition to the marking requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26, S6.1 of Standard No. 205 requires prime glazing material manufacturers to mark each piece of glazing they temper with an "AS" number, indicating that the glazing meets all of the performance requirements set for that glazing item number. S6.2 of Standard No. 205 further requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material designed to be used in a specific vehicle with the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency.

Standard No. 205, through its incorporation of ANS Z-26, requires that all glazing be marked with a distinctive designation or trademark by the prime manufacturer. Therefore, your company cannot do what you asked to do in your letter; that is, sell glazing without any distinctive designation or trademark appearing on the glazing. However, NHTSA has previously concluded that the designation or trademark on the glazing need not be that of the prime glazing material manufacturer, if the glazing is marked with the prime manufacturer's DOT code mark. This is because NHTSA can easily and accurately identify the prime manufacturer from the DOT code mark, regardless of the distinctive designation or trademark that appears on the glazing. The agency needs to be able to identify the prime glazing material manufacturer, since that is the party responsible for any defect or noncompliance recall campaigns.

When the agency can use the DOT code mark to identify the prime manufacturer, the agency does not need the distinctive designation or trademark appearing on the glazing to also identify the prime manufacturer. When a prime manufacturer sells glazing to another glazing company that sells the glazing to the public, the company selling the glazing to the public has a legitimate competitive interest in having its logo appear on that glazing. In recognition of these factors, we said in an October 16, 1986 letter to Mr. Edward T. Fennell, Jr. (copy enclosed) that Standard No. 205 permits a prime glazing material manufacturer to mark windshields with the logo of the company that was buying windshields from the prime manufacturer, with the permission of the purchasing company.

Your company would be permitted to do the same for the glazing you are selling to a competitor, if your company's assigned DOT code mark appears on the glazing you are selling. If your company's assigned code mark does not appear on that glazing, or if the glazing company that is purchasing the glazing from you will not give you permission to use its logo, Standard No. 205 would require you to mark your company's distinctive designation or trademark on the glazing.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205 d:5/31/88

ID: nht95-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

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

TO: Courtney M. Price -- Esq., Reid & Priest

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/4/95 LETTER FROM COURTNEY M. PRICE TO PHILIP R. RECHT

TEXT: This responds to your questions about how this agency's regulations apply to a product known as a Brake Locker that is manufactured by your client, Maatzorit. You requested this agency to confirm your understanding that installation of the Brake Locker i s not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, or Section 108(a)(2)(A) of what you refer to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act."). n1

n1 In 1994, Congress codified the Safety Act. The new citation for 108(a)(2)(A) is 49 U.S.C. 30122. In addition, please be aware that on February 3, 1994, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 135 Passenger Car Brake Systems that will eventually supersede FMVSS No . 105 with respect to passenger cars. Please note that your client's product will be subject to the same responsibilities, regardless of which FMVSS applies.

According to your letter, the Brake Locker prevents the theft of a parked vehicle by locking its brakes, without affecting brake usage while the vehicle is driven by an authorized driver. You stated that the Brake Locker is installed in the engine compa rtment on the brake fluid line between the brakes and the brake pump. An electronic coded transmitter is used to activate a motor which in turn activates a check valve, thereby preventing the release of the brakes by restricting the flow of brake fluid. When the check valve is activated, you state that "every press on the brake pedal causes the brakes to be locked."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the United States Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency pe riodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Nothing in FMVSS No. 105 nor FMVSS No. 106 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering such a product. Therefore, Maatzorit, as the device's manufacturer, would not have any certific ation responsibilities. Nevertheless, the requirements of FMVSS No. 105 are relevant to a hydraulic brake lock. That standard specifies a number of brake performance requirements to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify compliance. Since the ins tallation of a hydraulic brake lock requires the installation of a check valve on the brake fluid line between the foundation brakes and the brake pump, it is possible that the installation of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105.

If the Brake Locker is installed as original equipment on new vehicles prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, then the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that with the Brake Locker installed, the vehicle complies with all applicab le FMVSSs, including FMVSS No 105 and FMVSS No. 106. A vehicle manufacturer's specific certification responsibilities depend on when the brake locker is installed and are set forth in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. For instance, if a vehicle has already bee n certified by the vehicle manufacturer but has not yet been sold to the consumer, then the person doing the installation after that time would be considered to be an "alterer" who would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply w ith all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the Brake Locker is installed after the first consumer purchase, then 49 U.S.C. 30122 is relevant to your client's product. That section provides that

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Brake Locker, if such installation makes inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, such as FMVSS No. 105. For example, if the Brake Locker, caused the vehicle to no longer comply with the parking brake or service brake requirements in FMVSS No. 105, then installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safet y standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht75-3.16

DATE: 12/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I would like to acknowledge receipt of the Truck Body and Equipment Association's (TBEA) December 2, 1975, request that the applicability of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to fire fighting vehicles be delayed until January 1, 1977.

The NHTSA has decided to grant the TBEA request, and has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a September 1, 1977, effective date for these and several other categories of vehicles. A copy of the proposal is enclosed for your information.

You should understand that our publication of a proposal in this area does not signify that a final rule will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

I would like to remind the TBEA that a recent amendment of NHTSA rulemaking procedures provides that a request for rulemaking will only be considered as a petition for rulemaking if, among other things, it includes a heading preceding the text, that includes the word "petition" (49 CFR @ 552.4(b)).

Yours truly,

Enclosure

December 2, 1975

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

On November 11, 1975 the NHTSA proposed to temporarily withdraw certain sections of FMVSS 121 as they apply to a bus manufactured before January 1, 1975. The reasoning cited to support this proposal centered on data collected at the NHTSA's FMVSS 121 Hearings of October 27-29, 1975. These hearings resulted in the following findings:

1. Manufacturers of both transit and intercity buses do not appear prepared at this time to utilize antilock systems other than those manufacturered by Rockwell International Corporation.

2. The Rockwell antilock system currently available for bus application is characterized by malfunction the warrants its deactivation on all vehicles on which it is installed while a correction is fully developed.

3. Information furnished by Rockwell does not provide a basis to conclude that a demonstrably satisfactory correction to its antilock system defects is at hand.

4. A situation wherein purchasers of new buses are required to pay for antilock systems which are to remain deactivated for an indefinite period is inappropriate.

The compliance problem seems to be focused on the bus manufacturers sole dependence on the unreliable Rockwell International axle and anti-wheel-lock system.

We at TBEA and especially the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Division (FAMD) have taken a keen interest in the final outcome of this proposal. The custom fire apparatus industry is also effected by a singular dependence to the Rockwell System.

Fire Apparatus are generally broken down into two different categories: "Commercial Apparatus" - Those built on a commercial truck chassis ie: Ford, Chevrolet, International, and "Custom Apparatus" - Those built from the ground up. The present industry split is 60% and 40% in favor of commercial over custom apparatus. Based on a projected five thousand (Illegible Word) per year this split equates to three thousand commercial and two thousand custom pieces of fire apparatus.

Just as in the bus manufacturing market, Rockwell International has the custom fire apparatus to itself. The manufacturers of fire apparatus are presently beginning to build full FMVSS 121 equipped vehicles even though the standards effective dates for fire apparatus and special permit vehicles are three and nine months off.

There is deep concern within this industry as to the reliability of this yet to be proven anti-wheel-lock system on emergency vehicles. The operating mode of a fire truck is drastically different from a conventional truck. Rather than normal stops and starts, a fire truck must rapidly accelerate and decelerate over a short response time. Any failure of the electronic monitoring anti-wheel-lock system when used in conjunction with FMVSS 121 high torque brakes could result in a dangerously unstable vehicle.

The poor quality of anti-wheel-lock hardware available to the bus manufacturing industry has lead the NHTSA to propose a temporary withdrawal of the existing anti-wheel-lock and stopping requirements of FMVSS 121 as they relate to buses. This delay will afford those manufacturers with the time to collect real world experience with the anti-wheel-lock equipment.

The fire apparatus industry is not presently required to comply with FMVSS 121. The effective dates required for compliance range from March 1, 1976 - fire apparatus, September 1, 1976 - special permit vehicles (24,000 pound GAWR) to never - special permit vehicles (29,000 pound GAWR).

The FAMD wishes to petition the NHTSA to allow this industry the same consideration given the bus manufacturers, by withdrawing the stopping distance and anti-wheel-lock requirements for fire apparatus until January 1, 1977.

The amendment would allow the fire apparatus industry to proceed with the following: 1. Commercial fire apparatus built on FMVSS 121 truck chassis would continue to provide real world data reflecting the interaction of the commercial anti-wheel-lock systems on fire apparatus.

2. Custom fire apparatus could be built with FMVSS 121 hardware based on the availability of components. Those units produced with the Rockwell System could be carefully monitored during this grace period.

This grace period would also provide the industry with the following:

1. Opportunity to phase-in and monitor the new anti-wheel-lock equipment.

2. Reduce existing surplus inventory of non FMVSS 121 axles and suspensions.

3. A uniform effective date (January 1, 1977) would be established for fire apparatus provided that the hardware was improved sufficiently to warrant it.

We at the FAMD urge the NHTSA to consider these facts prior to the current FMVSS 121 effective date of March 1, 1976 for fire apparatus.

Very truly yours, Byron A. Crampton -- Manager of Engineering Services,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

ID: nht91-1.23

DATE: January 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John K. Roberts -- Vice President, Muth Advanced Technologies

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-29-90 to Richard Van Iderstine from John K. Roberts (OCC-5511)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You are developing a "Stop Turn Mirror" (STM) which you intend to be used "in combination with (or possibly in place of) center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's). The STM is so designed that it appears as a mirror to a vehicle operator, but as a stop and turn signal indication system to the operator of a following vehicle.

You have not provided us with a picture of the STM, and we are unable to tell from your letter and description sheet whether the STM is intended to be mounted as an interior rear view mirror, or as an exterior one. As a surrogate for the CHMSL, it would appear to be intended for installation as an interior rear view mirror. However, as a stop and turn signal system, the STM would appear more appropriate as two exterior mirrors mounted on either side of the vehicle. Nevertheless, we shall try to answer your questions on the basis of the information available to us.

Your first question is:

"(1) If the STM satisfies the current explicit requirements of FMVSS 111 and 108, is there further NHTSA approval we should seek before fielding the device?"

NHTSA does not "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment such as the STM. It will advise whether the equipment is permitted or not permitted by Federal laws, standards, or other regulations. If the equipment is permitted, then it may be manufactured and sold. However, it is the inquirer's responsibility to determine if there are any State and local restrictions on use of the equipment.

For the reasons expressed below, we have serious reservations whether the STM could meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. There is no requirement that a CHMSL be mounted on the rear of a vehicle or in the rear window. STM theoretically could fulfill the requirements for CHMSL's if combined with an interior rear view mirror conventionally placed in the center of the windshield area. In this location, it would appear to be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle as seen from the rear, as the standard requires. The STM will not be perceived by the driver as anything but a mirror; however it must also fulfill the requirement that light from it falling on the rear glazing not reflect back into the mirror, or, in the words of Standard No. 108 that means have been "provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rear view mirror." Most importantly, the STM must fulfill the photometric requirements and visibility requirements of center high-mounted stop

lamps. Compliance with these requirements is determined with the lamp mounted on or in the vehicle. Because of the different designs of back windows and adjacent "C" pillars in cars, and the distance of the STM from the back window, we believe that compliance with all applicable requirements would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Standard No. 108 does prohibit the physical combination of the required CHMSL with any other lamp or reflective device. A mirror is not a "reflective device" for purposes of Standard No. 108. Thus the question would be whether the turn signal functions of the STM are clearly separated from the stop function so that the question does not arise as to whether they are combined.

If the STM iS intended to be mounted as one or both exterior rear view mirrors it would not meet the location requirement, and could not be used as a substitute for the required CHMSL. Under Standard No. 108 it would be permissible as supplementary lighting equipment as long as it did not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, in its role as a supplementary stop/turn signal lamp system, we do not consider that the STM would impair the effectiveness of the original stop/turn signal lamp system.

"(2) Would it be reasonable for us to apply for a variance or to seek a change in FMVSS 108, if the STM doesn't meet the letter of FMVSS 106 in certain applications, but demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the standard."

"Variances", or exemptions from one or more requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard are only granted to manufacturers of motor vehicles. We have no authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer.

As for seeking a change in Standard No. 108, while any person may file a petition for rulemaking to change a standard, I have no reason to believe that the agency would look favorably on allowing the CHMSL to be combined with a turn signal lamp, or require use of the STM as standard equipment in place of the present CHMSL.

"(3) Before a pickup truck standard is published, would it be possible to certify the STM as a compliant device and ensure that the wording of the new rule doesn't needlessly prohibit utilization of STM's?"

It is a legal impossibility to certify something as a compliant device before the requirements for that device have been formally adopted, and the effective date established for compliance. We anticipate the "pickup truck standard" as you call it will be published sometime in January 1991. If you find that it prohibits utilization of the STM you may file a petition for reconsideration of the rule with the agency within 30 days after its publication.

" (4) Is it possible that someone at NHTSA would like to see this thing or test it before we go too far in our development and larketing? It may be a useful development in vehicle safety devices with importance to industry and the public. It also may be a ready solution to the difficult issue of requiring CHMSL's on pick-up trucks. We would be happy to support

any such investigative effort by supplying a model, information, etc.

We appreciate but decline your offer. The agency is satisfied that its forthcoming rule achieves a reasonable solution to the issue of CHMSL's on pickup trucks. The agency's resources are limited, and must be deployed in areas where there is a reasonable possibility that a mandatory safety standard may result as a consequence of its investigative efforts. Given the facts that the STM addresses an area of safety that is already covered by the CHMSL, and that any safety benefits of the STM remain speculative while those of the CHMSL are well demonstrated, there is no reasonable possibility that the STM would become a mandatory requirement of this agency.

ID: 86-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert J. Crail

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 6, 1986 Mr. Robert J. Crail Theurer, Inc. Route 1, Box 300 Helenwood, Tennessee 37755 Dear Mr. Crail: This responds to your letter of August 20, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You asked whether an extendible intermodel container chassis which adjusts to haul containers which vary in length between 40 feet and 48 feet is a "heavy hauler trailer" as defined in Section S4 of Standard No. 121. Specifically, you would like to know whether the extendible container chassis described above must comply with Sections S5.2.1.2 and S5.3, and whether you or your customer may utilize the options available in Section S5.6 for parking brake systems and in Section S5.8 for emergency brake systems. By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The extendible container chassis trailers which you describe have brake lines which are designed to extend with the vehicle frame. According to Section S4 of Standard No. 121, a trailer whose "brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame...." is, by definition, a heavy hauler trailer. Thus, your extendible chassis trailer would be considered a heavy hauler trailer within the definition of S4. Section S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121 provides that trailers with air brakes are generally required to have total service reservoir volume which is "at least eight time the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms." This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.2.1.2 which provides, "However, the reservoir on a heavy hauler trailer ... need not meet this requirement." Section S5.3 sets forth road test requirements, compliance with which must be certified for all trucks, buses and trailers. Generally, all trailers are required to be certified as complying with the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4. This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.3, which specifies, "However, a heavy hauler trailer ... need not meet the requirements of S5.3." Thus, heavy hauler trailers are expressly excepted from all of the requirements of S5.3. Finally, you asked whether the trailer you manufacture may take advantage of the options available in Section S5.6 for the parking brake system and in Section S5.8 for the emergency brake system. Both Sections S5.6 and S5.8 specifically give manufacturers of heavy hauler trailers the choice of complying with the requirements of those sections... "or at the option of the manufacturer, the requirements of sec. 393.43 of this title." Title 49 CFR section 393.43 sets forth requirements for breakaway and emergency brakes. An extendible container chassis which comes within the S4 definition of heavy hauler trailer may comply with the section 393.43 requirements or the parking emergency brake requirements or the parking and emergency brake requirements of Standard No. 121 Sections S5.6 and S5.8, respectively. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-3.32

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Berg Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 28, 1979, letter asking several questions about the compliance of your trailers with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

You first ask whether section S5.6.3 allows the use of service air to apply the parking brakes as long as a source of energy to apply the parking brakes is available at all times and is unaffected by any single failures in the service brake system. The answer to this question is yes. On August 9, 1979, the agency published in the Federal Register a notice amending section S5.6.3 of the standard to permit the type of parking brake system that you outlined in your letter.

In your second question, you ask whether your braking system complies with section S5.2.1.1. That section requires that a reservoir be provided that is capable of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes and that is unaffected by the loss of pressure in the service brake system. Your trailer has a tank and valve for each axle. You state that in the event of a service system failure including a failure of one of the tanks, that a reservoir is available such that when the supply line is pressurized to 55 psi, the vehicle's parking brakes will release. Assuming that your system operates as you have detailed in your letter, the agency concludes that it complies with S5.2.1.1 of the standard.

SINCERELY,

The Berg Manufacturing Company

June 28, 1979

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: 49CFR 571.121

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation as to the compliance of an air brake system for trailers with FMVSS 121.

Figure 1 depicts a typical tandem axle trailer brake system. It has a tank and valve for each axle. In the event of a service system failure, including the failure of one of the air tanks, the parking brakes can be released by pressurizing the supply line to 55 psi. In operation, the system works as follows:

Charging the system. Tractor air pressure, from the supply (emergency) line enters the trailer valve. Below 55 psi, the supply line air goes directly to the emergency section of the spring brake chambers. Above 55 psi supply pressure, the air flows through the valve directly to the air tank.

Normal driving conditions. Air pressure in the trailer air tanks and valves maintains a normal pressure of 100 psi to 120 psi and is ready when it is necessary to apply the brakes of the trailer by the tractor brake valve through the control (service) line. The spring brakes are kept released, through a double check valve built into the valve, by either the tank pressure or the supply line pressure, whichever is greater.

Service braking. In normal brake applications, control air from the tractor actuates the relay piston in the trailer valve, which applies air pressure from the air tank to the service section of the spring brake chambers applying the brakes in a service mode.

Parking and/or emergency braking. When air presssure in the supply line drops below 45 psi, the emergency piston in the trailer valve closes the control line and applies pressure to the top of the relay piston which delivers tank air pressure to the service section of the spring brake chambers applying the brakes in an emergency mode. If the supply line pressure drops slowly, the emergency brakes apply slowly. If the pressure drops rapidly, the emergency brakes apply rapidly. It is possible to release the emergency brake application by re-establishing pressure in the supply line, which will exhaust the pressure applied to the brake chambers.

No system air pressure. With no air pressure in the system, the brake is applied by the spring in the spring brake chamber in a stable parking mode. No matter how the air pressure in the system decays, slowly or rapidly, the parking brake application never ceases as the spring force takes over as the air pressure decreases.

We have determined, by a careful review of the standard, that we clearly comply with the specific requirements of the standard except S5.6.3 and S5.2.1.1 with which we believe we comply with the intent. We have an interpretation from your office, dated March 14, 1977, that allows the use of service air to apply the parking brakes as long as a source of energy to apply the parking brakes is usable at all times and is unaffected by any single failure in the service brake system which clarifies that the system does comply with S5.6.3.

Careful reading of the various interpretations of which we are aware, leads us to believe that we do comply with S5.2.1.1. In the case of any single service system failure, including one of the air tanks, a protected reservoir is available and pressurization of the supply line to 55 psi will release the parking brakes.

We encourage any queries or comments and would be pleased to supply any further information you may require.

We look forward to receiving your reply to this letter.

Robert J. Crail Director of Engineering

cc: SERGIO CAMPANINI; DAVID SPILLER (Illegible Word) PRESSURE PROTECTED RELAY EMERGENCY VALVE.

FIGURE I

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1983-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The BF Goodrich Company -- C.J. Johnston, Manager, Product Reliability

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Toyo Tire Corporation

TEXT:

Mr. C. J. Johnston Manager, Product Reliability The BF Goodrich Company Tire Group 500 South Main Street Akron, Ohio 44318

Dear Mr. Johnston:

This is in response to your May 12, 1983 letter regarding the tire sidewall molding requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. In that letter you indicated that, acting in reliance on statements by a NHTSA employee, your company modified certain new tire molds by deleting the numerical treadwear grade from the sidewall label, but leaving the word "TREADWEAR" in place. NHTSA subsequently stated, in a letter to Toyo Tire Company, that if the sidewall molded label is modified, both the numerical grade and the word "TREADWEAR" should be deleted. You also indicated that BF Goodrich is now in the process of modifying the molds again to delete the word "TREADWEAR".

In light of your good faith reliance on agency statements and your current efforts to conform to the policy stated in our letter to Toyo Tire Company, NHTSA will take no enforcement action regarding sidewall molding requirements for tires produced through the completion of the mold modification process.

For future reference, please be aware formal interpretations of legal requirements are issued only by this office and only in writing. To obtain an interpretation upon which reliance can be placed for purposes of making business decisions, you should direct a letter of inquiry to the Chief Counsel's Office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 12, 1983 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

The BF Goodrich Company agrees with the NHTSA decision to suspend the treadwear grading requirement specified in 49 CFR 575.104. We agree with the NHTSA statement that "the treadwear grades are apparently not only failing to aid many consumers, but also are affirmatively misleading then in their selection of new tires."

When the suspension was announced, we had several new lines of molds ready for production. We felt that removing the numerical grade would help avoid further confusion. Our decision to leave the word "treadwear" in these molds was simply a matter of economics. The molds were already stamped and we wished to avoid the expense and delay required to remove it, especially due to the uncertainties as to litigation on this issue.

Before deleting the numerical grade, we sought clarification of the new tire labeling requirements. On February 7, 1983, a telephone discussion was held with the designated NHTSA contact regarding the acceptability of leaving the word "treadwear" but removing the numerical treadwear grade from new lines of tire molds. We were advised that this would be acceptable. This same advice was given by the agency to the Deputy Director of the Tire Division, Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), and it was in turn reported to other RMA members.

We learned, according to your April 5, 1983 letter to Mr. K. Inoue of the Toyo Tire Corporation, that the omission of the numerical grade now is not considered an acceptable format for the UTQG labeling on the sidewall of tires. The reason stated was that the display format could be interpreted as attributing the grade which appears after the word "traction" to both the treadwear and traction performance of the tire and thus could confuse tire purchasers.

We had a telephone discussion with a member of your staff on April 12, 1983 to review this history and inquire about appropriate action to be taken with regard to our present circumstances. This letter is the result of his suggestion that essential information covering this situation be communicated to you.

Since February, 1983, we have produced several new lines of tires with the numerical treadwear grades omitted. To date, we have produced approximately 420,000 tires from these molds. The mold branding is being revised to remove the word "treadwear." However, because of the number of molds involved, it is anticipated that the branding revision could take up to two months to complete. During that period, we could produce another 150,000 tires.

To summarize, we acted in good faith to comply with the treadwear suspension and with verbal guidance from the agency to both us and the Industry, through RMA. Accordingly, our tires no doubt will be part of a larger group of tires produced by the Industry with various branding formats during the interim period prior to implementation of the final version of the new branding format. Nevertheless, and in the meantime, we have started the action described above, consistent with your letter of April 5, 1983 to Toyo Tire Corporation.

Yours truly,

C. J. Johnston Manager, Product Reliability

Enclosure (4/5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Toyo Tire Corporation omitted here.)