ID: 11153-3

Mr. Saburo Inui, Vice President
Toyota Motor Corporate Services
of North America, Inc.
1850 M. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to Toyota's August 22, 1995, letter regarding the test procedures in this agency's June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (60 FR 30006). You were concerned that the test procedure seems to say that the service brake should be applied at two different steps during the test procedure, without specifying when the service brake should be released in between those two steps. You suggested a revised procedure that specifies a step for releasing the service brake, and asked if that procedure conforms with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) test requirement.

After reviewing the issues raised by your letter, we have concluded that a technical amendment should be issued to clarify the test procedure. We expect to issue such an amendment shortly.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:114 d:10/13/95

ID: 11154

Karen Coffey, Esq.
Chief Counsel
Texas Automobile Dealers Association
1106 Lavaca
P.O. Box 1028
Austin, Texas 78767-1028

FAX: 512-476-2179

Dear Ms. Coffey:

This responds to your letter asking whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state,

"a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable."

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor.

By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) 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 vehicle safety standard . . .

It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law.

In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208#VSA d:8/31/95

ID: 11155b

Hugh J. Bode, Esq.
Reminger & Reminger
The 113 St. Clair Building
Cleveland, OH 44114

Dear Mr. Bode:

This responds to your letter concerning whether 49 U.S.C. ''30101 et seq. (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to ensure that its vehicle continues to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) after the first retail purchase of the vehicle.

You specifically ask about FMVSS No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems," and its application to a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck. It appears from the questions you ask that corrosion developed inside the carburetor of the pickup truck at some point during the life of the vehicle, such that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

You asked us to "confirm the accuracy" of a number of statements. Your first statement, concerning the application of the FMVSSs generally, is as follows:

As we understand it, former '108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. '30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former '108(b)(1), 49 U.S.C. '30112(b)(1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former '108(a)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. '30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

Your general understanding is correct. However, a manufacturer has responsibilities in addition to those in '30112, that may bear upon on "continuing compliance" of its vehicle. Under ''30118-30122 of our statute, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge.

This is not to say that the development of the corrosion in the carburetor necessarily constitutes a safety-related defect. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility of such a finding in certain circumstances, such as where the corrosion developed unreasonably quickly in the vehicle and the problem was such that it could lead to crashes involving injuries or fatalities.

State law could also be relevant to this issue. For example, as part of its vehicle inspection requirements, a State could require that the accelerator control systems on vehicles "continue to comply" with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

With the above discussion in mind, I will now address your other four questions on Standard No. 124.

Question 1. We ask that NHTSA confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle.

As explained in our answer above, your understanding is correct with regard to our requirements (49 U.S.C. '30112). There may be State requirements that apply.

Question 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in- service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124.

Your understanding is essentially correct. As permitted by Federal law, Chrysler sold the truck based upon its own certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 124. That corrosion developed in the system may or may not be relevant with respect to the existence of a safety-related defect.

Question 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5.

While your understanding is essentially correct, note that Standard No. 124 and other motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards.

Question 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance.

Standard No. 124 does not specify a test for corrosion resistance. It is unclear what you mean by "durability." The requirements of the standard must be met when the engine "is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40N F. and +125N F. ...." (S5) In addition to the performance regulated by Standard No. 124, each manufacturer must ensure that its motor vehicle does not have a safety-related defect.

If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#124 d:10/26/95

ID: 1116a

Mr. Robert R. Brester
Director of Product Engineering
Velvac Inc.
2900 South 160th Street
New Berlin, WI 53151

Dear Mr. Brester:

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

Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking. The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached catalogue drawings . . . .)

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

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new

motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue several vehicle and/or equipment standards related to braking performance. These standards include the aforementioned Standards No. 105 and No. 106, as well as ones on air brake systems, motorcycle brake systems, and motor vehicle brake fluids.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:105#106 d:10/17/95 The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSSs. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

ID: 1117

Mr. William Meurer
President
Green Motorworks
5228 Vineland Avenue
North Hollywood, CA 91601

Dear Mr. Meurer:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995, responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process.

You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally made to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c).

49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j)) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency "decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events." Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an importer such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j).

Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain "a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation." The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purpose for which it was imported.

The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Management District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project.

Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point; when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessary to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs.

Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must "at all times retain title to and possession of" vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and "shall not lease" them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bees to BART for the duration of the demonstration project.

I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes "on terms [NHTSA] decides are necessary." Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is not required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers.

The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the proposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, NHTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest.

If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366- 5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591#208 d:8/30/95

ID: 11175a

Mr. Glenn J. Vick, National Account Manager
Marketing and Sales Office
Commercial Truck Vehicle Center
Ford Automotive Operations
Regent Court, Suite 950
16800 Executive Plaza Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut- away cab for use by final-stage manufacturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis.

I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221.

As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's delivery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as "the incomplete vehicle document.") This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard:

1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or,

3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Standard No. 221.

As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle.

Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the final-stage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of the incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle.

I hope this responds to your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:221#567#568 d:10/20/95 Please note that NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567, provides an incomplete vehicle manufacturer the option of assuming legal responsibility for certifying the compliance of the vehicle as finally manufactured. See 49 CFR section 567.5(e).

ID: 11176-2

Mr. Eric D. Swanger
Engineering Manager
Specialty Manufacturing Co.
P.O. Box 790
10200 Pineville Road
Pineville, NC 28134

Dear Mr. Swanger:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. According to your letter, a State has requested that you use light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to outline the word "STOP" on the stop arm blade. That State believes such lighting would increase the sign's conspicuity in certain weather conditions. In your letter and in an October 2, 1995, telephone conversation with Mr. Paul Atelsek of my staff, you expressed your concerns that using LEDs on stop signal arms may cause confusion and asked whether they are permitted. You raised three specific issues relating to viewing angles, legibility from certain distances, and inconsistencies among various jurisdictions.

The short answer to your question is that the LEDs could comply with our standard, but only under certain conditions. As you are aware, S5.3 Conspicuity states that "The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both." Either method of providing conspicuity is by itself sufficient. I will discuss how the presence of LEDs relates to each of these options and then address your specific questions below.

Section S5.3.1 sets forth the requirements of the reflectorization option, stating that "[t]he entire surface of both sides of the stop signal arm shall be reflectorized with type III retroreflectorized material . . . ." LEDs would appear on the surface of the arm but could not, as far as we know, qualify as type III retroreflectorized material. Therefore, LEDs are not permissible when compliance depends upon the reflectorization option.

Section S5.3.2, which references S6.2, sets forth requirements addressing flashing lamps. Section S6.2 specifies the lamp's color, flash rate, and on-off time. These rather specific requirements reflect the importance of consistency in any signage or labeling requirement. However, we do not see anything intrinsic about LEDs that would preclude their use in stop signal arms with flashing lamps. As long as the familiar flashing lamps are used, we do not believe that interstate confusion would result from the addition of LEDs. Note that we do not consider the use of LEDs as an "optional" method of compliance with S5.3.2, because the LEDs would not be centered on the vertical centerline at the top and bottom of the stop arm.

You expressed concerns in your letter about the narrow viewing angle of LEDs compared to incandescent lights, and about the legibility of the LEDs at a distance. Since the LEDs would be used as a supplement to a standard method of compliance (i.e., flashing lamps), a diminished viewing angle is not important. We assume manufacturer's quality control practices would prevent uneven viewing angles from LED to LED within a given stop arm. While your concerns about the legibility of the word "STOP" at a distance are important, they do not seem to relate to the presence or absence of the LEDs unless the LEDs reduce the legibility of the word. If you have data indicating that the size or spacing of the letters needs to be increased to achieve greater legibility at a distance, you may petition NHTSA to revise the standard.

I want to raise one potential safety issue, in case you receive a request to design an LED-equipped stop signal with flashing lamps. Certain arrangements of LEDs might affect compliance by impairing the effectiveness of the stop signal arm's flashing lamp. Very closely spaced red LEDs could enhance the readability of the letters in poor visibility conditions. On the other hand, red LEDs spaced every few centimeters around the outline of the 15 cm high letters could appear as a random field of lights (like a Christmas tree), distracting the observer and resulting in diminished readability. Similarly, different flash rates or on-off speeds from installed incandescent lamps might detract from readability by creating a distracting double-flash effect, as you suggest. Whether a particular LED-equipped stop signal arm complies with Standard No. 131 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:131 d:11/21/95

ID: 11186

Mr. Larry W. Strawhorn
Vice President of Engineering
American Trucking Associations
2200 Mill Road
Alexandria, VA 22314-4677

Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock malfunction indicator requirements set forth at S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This provision explains the situations in which the trailer lamp malfunction indicator must remain activated. Section S5.2.3.3 reads as follows:

S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including a trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2006 shall be equipped with a lamp indicating a malfunction of a trailer's antilock brake system. Such a lamp shall remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system. The display shall be visible within the driver's forward field of view through the rearview mirror(s), and shall be visible once the malfunction is present and power is provided to the system. (Emphasis added.).

In particular, you request that the agency confirm your belief that the lamp activation pattern for trailers may be such that the bulb be ON when the antilock system is working properly and OFF when a malfunction exists, the antilock system is not getting electrical power, or the lamp bulb is burnt out. You contended that such an activation pattern provides a fail safe pattern i.e., it will signal an inoperative antilock system even when the system is not receiving electrical power or the lamp bulb is burnt out.

NHTSA disagrees with your suggested reading of the malfunction indicator requirements. Such a reading would be inconsistent with S5.2.3.3's language stating that the lamp must "remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system." As with other malfunction indicators, the agency intends the malfunction indicator to activate when a malfunction exists and not activate when the system is functioning properly. To require otherwise would be inconsistent with our requirements for other indicators and thus would create confusion. Please note that NHTSA provided a lengthy discussion about the issue of a malfunction indicator's activation protocol in the March 10, 1995 final rule. (60 FR 13216, 13246) The agency stated that in response to an ABS malfunction, a trailer or tractor indicator

must activate and provide a continuous yellow signal. The agency explained that such a common indicator pattern standardizes the activation format, thus reducing ambiguity and confusion and expediting Federal and State inspections.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121 d:`0/30/95

ID: 11187

Mr. Joseph J. Smith
Assistant Chief Maintenance Officer
New York City Transit Authority
25 Jamaica Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11207

Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your inquiry about whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR ' 571.302), applies to air conditioning return air filters. You state that these filters are placed on top of the air conditioning evaporator coil and are separated from the bus interior by a louvered panel. You were concerned that the filters may be subject to Standard No. 302 because they may be considered located in the "occupant compartment air space." As explained below, Standard No. 302 does not apply to air conditioning return filters.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Section S4.1 represents a complete listing of all components in new vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requirements. Any component not identified in section S4.1 is not subject to those requirements. Therefore, an air conditioning return filter is not subject to those requirements.

Please note that there are other NHTSA requirements that could affect the manufacture and sale of products related to motor vehicles. A motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer incorporating air conditioning filters in its vehicles or equipment would be subject to 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 to ensure that its vehicles or equipment do not contain any safety related defect. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:302 d:9/29/95

ID: 11188

Mr. Larry W. Strawhorn
Vice President of Engineering
American Trucking Associations
2200 Mill Road
Alexandria, VA 22314-4677

Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock power circuit requirements set forth at S5.1.6.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This provision states that

S5.1.6.3 Antilock Power Circuit for Towed Vehicles. Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997 and each single unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 that is equipped to tow another air-braked vehicle shall be equipped with one or more separate electrical circuits, specifically provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle(s). Such a circuit shall be adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable. (Emphasis added.)

You believe that the phrase "separate electrical circuit" allows for the continued use of the single SAE J560 connector if one of the seven pins provides full-time power for the ABS. You further believe that the ABS malfunction signal can be multiplexed on any circuit of the connector and that the other trailer devices can be powered off the circuit as long as the circuit is adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable.

In the March 10, 1995 final rule, NHTSA decided to adopt the proposed full-time power requirement for trailer ABSs. (60 FR 13216) The agency explained that it amended the standard's wording to clarify that towing vehicles must have a corresponding separate circuit specifically provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle or vehicles. The agency stated that requiring a separate circuit "will ensure the strongest possible source of electrical power from the tractor to ensure the functioning of all the ECUs and modulators that are employed in the antilock brake system, or systems, on single trailers, or multiple trailers and converter dollies in multi-trailer combinations.@ It also stated that this requirement will ensure a continuous malfunction indication whenever a malfunction exists. The agency further stated that it has left the decision about which type of connector should be used to the industry.

In response to your question about the use of one of the pins in the seven-pin connector to provide full-time power for the ABS, the use of such a pin would be permissible provided that the

pin services a "separate" electrical circuit to "specifically provide" full time power for the trailers in combination vehicles. This means that the circuit's sole function must be to provide ABS powering, i.e., other trailer devices may not be powered off this separate electrical circuit. This would preclude the use of the pin to power the ABS malfunction signal. Since the requirement for the ABS malfunction circuit did not specify that the circuit used for transmitting the malfunction signal be a "separate" one, ABS malfunction signals can be multiplexed on other circuits with pins in the electrical connector, but not on the circuit and pins used to power the ABS system.

It is important to note that the ABS semitrailer fleet study report (DOT HS 808 059) concluded that the voltages delivered by powering system approaches that employed dedicated separate circuits (i.e., the Cole Hersee, ISO, and 6-pin auxiliary systems) were well within the required limits for ECU powering; whereas, the voltages delivered through the stoplamp circuit did not perform as well. The agency concluded that these data indicate the superiority of a separate circuit powering of the trailer ABS and therefore, justify the separate circuit requirement.

As you are aware, NHTSA received several petitions for reconsideration about the separate electrical circuit. The agency anticipates that the final rule in response to these petitions for reconsideration will have a detailed discussion of these requirements. In addition, the agency may decide to modify these requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:121 d:11/17/95