ID: 7544

Mr. Bill Traylor
Waste Processing Equipment, Inc.
160 Dilbeck Road
P.O. Box 1047
Rainsville, AL 35986

Dear Mr. Traylor:

This responds to your letter of July 14, 1992, concerning certification of the trucks you are constructing on WCA Series Volvo GMC Class 8 truck chassis. As I understand it, you are planning to install your own coach body on the standard chassis purchased from Volvo.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq., "the Safety Act") to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we "certify" individual manufacturers. 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. In addition, each manufacturer is required to notify NHTSA of the types of vehicles it is constructing.

Waste Processing Equipment, Inc. is considered a final-stage manufacturer under 49 CFR 568.3 because it "performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." In other words, when your company purchases a standard chassis from Volvo, i.e., an incomplete vehicle, it upgrades the chassis to a completed vehicle, i.e., one which requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function (other than adding readily attachable parts such as mirrors or minor operations such as painting).

As a final-stage manufacturer, under 49 CFR 568.6, Waste Processing Equipment must complete each vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all relevant federal standards, and then must affix a label to the vehicle according to the requirements of 49 CFR 567.5. Your precise certification responsibilities would be dependent on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer; or

3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

I have enclosed sections 567 and 568 for your convenience.

This means that, if your company completes these vehicles in accordance with the specifications Volvo GMC furnishes with the chassis, your certification of the completed vehicle may be based entirely upon Volvo GMC's specifications. However, if the Volvo GMC chassis does not include specifications for all safety standards or if your company chooses to complete the vehicle outside of the specifications provided by Volvo GMC, your company would be responsible for the certification of the completed vehicle. Accordingly, you should review the Volvo GMC specifications to see if you can complete the vehicle in accordance with those specifications.

As a general matter, final-stage manufacturers are also responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and items not in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420), and are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. In addition, each manufacturer is responsible for furnishing to NHTSA information regarding vehicles they manufacture under 49 CFR Part 566, a copy of which is enclosed.

I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567 d:9/4/92

ID: 7548

Ms Carrie Minna
1942 Port Albans
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Dear Ms Minna:

This responds to your letter of July 13, 1992, with respect to your wish to import certain motor vehicles for use off main highways, in "small guarded gate communities such as Golf resorts, small island communities, and possible elderly communities." The vehicles appear to be of Asian origin, are three-wheeled and carry from three to eight passengers. The top speed of the vehicles is 80 kph.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (the "standards") are promulgated. The Act defines a motor vehicle as one that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." You will see from this that the primary determinant of whether the vehicle you wish to import is a "motor vehicle" is the manufacturer's intent, rather than your intent as the purchaser. It is clear to us from the speed capability of the vehicle (not to mention that one of them carries a "taxi" sign) that these vehicles are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Act and are therefore required to meet all applicable standards in order to be imported into the United States, notwithstanding your intent to use them in traffic off the public roads.

The standards that the vehicles are required to meet are those that apply to motorcycles, specifically to brake hoses, brakes, brake fluid, lamps and reflectors, rearview mirrors, vehicle identification number, controls and displays, and glazing. If the motorcycles are originally manufactured to conform with the standards, and bear a certification to that effect affixed by their manufacturer, they may enter the United States as manufactured in compliance with the U.S. standards of this agency.

It is probable, however, that the vehicles have not been manufactured to conform with the standards. In order for a nonconforming vehicle to be imported, the Administrator of this agency must have determined that they are capable of being modified to comply with the standards. Such determinations are most frequently made on the petition of the manufacturer or an entity known as a "Registered Importer." A Registered Importer is one that has been recognized by the agency as capable of performing conformance work. Once the Administrator has determined that a vehicle is eligible for importation, it may be imported only by Registered Importers, or those who have contracted with a Registered Importer to perform the work necessary to bring the vehicle into compliance with the standards. No eligibility determinations have been made that cover the vehicles you wish to import.

If you are interested in pursuing this matter further, you may write Robert Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Hellmuth can provide guidance on the motorcycle standards and other obligations, as well as a list of Registered Importers and information on the eligibility determination procedures.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:7/31/92

ID: 7556

Mr. Takashi Odaira
Chief Representative
Emissions & Safety
Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.
46401 Commerce Center Drive
Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Odaira:

This responds to your letter asking about the side door strength test procedures of Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, as they apply to a certain pickup truck design. You described three alternative methods of fixing the vehicle in position and asked whether they are consistent with the standard's test procedure.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

S4(a) of Standard No. 214 sets forth the following procedures for fixing a vehicle in position for the quasi-static side door strength test:

Place the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface. Fix the vehicle rigidly in position by means of tiedown attachments located at or forward of the front wheel centerline and at or rearward of the rear wheel centerline. (Emphasis added.)

The side door strength test is then conducted by applying a loading device to the outer surface of the door, until the loading device travels 18 inches. See S4(d).

You asked about these procedures in connection with a certain pickup truck design, which can be described as follows. The cab of the truck is attached to the frame by means of flexible rubber mountings. The rear body is installed separately on the frame. The cab of the truck is over the front wheels, and the rear body is over the rear wheels.

You requested our comments on three alternative methods of testing the pickup truck at issue. The first would involve fixing the frame of the vehicle at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and real wheel centerlines. You stated, however, that the rear portion of the cab would not be rigidly fixed by this method, and that the application of the Standard No. 214 loading device would result in the stretching of the cab's rubber mountings and upward tilting of the cab as a whole.

Your second alternative would involve adding a third fixing of the vehicle, in addition to the front and rear fixings of Alternative 1. This additional fixing would be at the rear of the cab, on both sides. You indicated that this would permit the side door strength test to be conducted without tilting the vehicle, but that the relative cab to frame fixing would not be the same as on an actual vehicle.

Your third alternative would involve fixing the cab alone to a test fixture, at three locations. You stated that a problem with this method may be that the cab itself, and not the vehicle, is tested.

In considering how the Standard No. 214 quasi-static test should be conducted for a particular vehicle, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to measure the crush resistance of a side door. The agency is not measuring the extent to which a vehicle's suspension or other design features permit the vehicle to tilt when specified loads are applied. In order to measure the crush resistance of a door in a test, it is necessary that the vehicle be fixed rigidly in position. Otherwise, the application of a load to the side door could simply result in movement of the vehicle as a whole.

Standard No. 214's test procedure was developed initially for cars. As noted by your letter, the combination of tying the vehicle down at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and rear wheel centerlines and placing the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface is sufficient to rigidly fix a passenger car in position for test purposes. Your letter raises the issue of how the Standard No. 214 test should be conducted if the specified procedure does not result in a particular vehicle, such as one with a divided body, being rigidly fixed in position.

For purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA would take the following actions. First, the agency would examine whether the procedure set forth in S4(a) would result in the vehicle being rigidly fixed in position. This could involve considering various tiedown arrangements within the areas specified by S4(a). If the agency determined that the procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix a vehicle in position, e.g., the entire cab of a pickup truck would tilt upward during a test, it would then follow the specified procedure but also add an additional tiedown attachment as necessary to rigidly fix the vehicle in position. In making this additional attachment, the agency would take care to ensure that the attachment did not interfere with the side door strength test.

I can offer the following comments on the three alternative test methods you described. NHTSA would not follow the Alternative 1 test procedure since the vehicle would not be rigidly fixed in position under that procedure. The agency would also not follow the Alternative 3 test procedure since it does not include one of the tiedown arrangements specified by S4(a). The agency might follow an approach along the lines of Alternative 2, assuming that it determined that the S4(a) procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix the vehicle in position.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:214 d:10/5/92

ID: 7571

Mr. Bob Bullard
12400 W. I-20 E.
Odessa, TX 79765-9620

Dear Mr. Bullard:

This responds to your letter to me, received on July 8, 1992, and your letter to Mr. Walter Myers of my staff, received on July 28, 1992. Both letters concerned the installation of used tires as original equipment on new utility trailers.

Your second letter, more detailed than the first, referenced your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers of July 20, 1992 and asserted that of the more than 200,000 utility trailers manufactured annually, approximately 185,000 are shipped to dealers mounted with used tires. You expressed concern that with used tires installed, the rated load weight of those trailers would be inaccurate, and that used tires could fail, resulting in serious accidents. You also expressed concern that our regulation on the subject, 49 CFR 571.120, S5.1.3, is not widely known to trailer manufacturers and dealers or, if they do know about it, they do not fully understand it. You requested a simplified interpretation of the regulation, spelling out what manufacturers and dealers can and cannot do. You also asked about penalties for violation and who should be contacted for enforcement.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to prescribe safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that no person may "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum fine of $800,000 for a related series of violations.

Trailers are classified as motor vehicles under the terms of the Safety Act, and tires are classified as motor vehicle equipment. Both, therefore, are subject to our Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

S5.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed), provides that, except as provided in S5.1.3, each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service must be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars, or Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Therefore, unless a new trailer with tires comes within the exception set forth in S5.1.3, it must be equipped with new tires that are certified to comply with Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 119. S5.1.3 reads as follows:

In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol.

What this means is that the following five conditions must be met for a trailer manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new trailer (or for a dealer to sell a new trailer equipped with retreaded or used tires):

1. The purchaser must request such retreaded or used tires;

2. The used or retreaded tires must be installed at the trailer's place of manufacture;

3. The used or retreaded tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser;

4. The sum of the maximum load ratings of the used or retreaded tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle (required by S5.1.2); and

5. Used tires installed on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 and contain the DOT certification symbol on the sidewalls.

The exception set forth in S5.1.3 accommodates a longstanding and widespread practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to vehicle manufacturers for installation on the new vehicles that they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been removed from vehicles no longer in service.

NHTSA's Office of Enforcement has responsibility for enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you wish to report possible noncompliances with Standard No. 120, you may contact Mr. Robert Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Enforcement, at this address.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref. #120 d:9/4/92

ID: 7577

Mr. J. W. Lawrence
Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation
Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation
P.O. Box 26115
Greensboro, NC 27402-6115

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your March 5, 1992 letter to the Administrator on the subject "Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS 108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements."

In that letter, Volvo GM petitioned "for the revocation of the 'Figure 2' requirements published in the December 12, 1991, Register. . . ." However, the notice published on that date (56 FR 64733) was not an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Instead, it was only a denial of a petition for rulemaking to allow tail lamps on vehicles 80 inches or wider to be mounted at locations up to 24 inches forward of the extreme rear of the vehicle, and to allow turn signal and stop lamps to be mounted up to 60 inches forward of the rear instead of "on the rear" as required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 expresses the general requirement that lamps be located so as to meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE standard. Figure 2 was included in the notice to illustrate the agency's interpretation of the visibility requirements for stop, tail, and turn signal lamps set forth in specific SAE vehicle lighting standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. A copy of that figure is enclosed. However, Figure 2 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108 itself.

Since Figure 2 is not part of Standard No. 108, a petition for rulemaking is not the appropriate way to address the problem you have raised. Accordingly, we are treating your letter as a request to change our interpretation of the SAE's specifications. As explained below, the agency is adopting a new interpretation that is consistent with your concerns and arguments.

The rationale for the agency's denial of the petition was that the amendments requested would adversely affect the ability of the lamps to meet the SAE specifications incorporated into Standard No. 108 that the lamps on both sides of a vehicle's rear end be simultaneously visible from any angle between and including 45-degree angles to the rear left and right of the vehicle. As noted above, Figure 2 pictorially represents NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE's uniform geometric visibility requirements. Using the SAE standard for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles as an example, NHTSA provided the following quotation from J1395:

"Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp. * * * To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex of at least 13 sq. cm. measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

Since the SAE measurement of photometry is made at a distance of 3 meters from the lamp, NHTSA also stated that compliance with the visibility requirements is to be determined at a distance of 3 meters.

NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE language quoted above, which Figure 2 illustrates, and which you have found objectionable, was:

"Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters."

You state that the term "simultaneously visible" does not appear in the SAE specifications. You also argue that the 3 meter requirement has no connection to the 45-degree installation visibility. These issues have also been raised with us by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), which met with us to express its views, not only on turn signal lamps, but stop and tail lamps as well, and by Ford Motor Company, and Freightliner, Corp. in several telephone calls. We are furnishing copies of this response to these three parties, as well as to the original petitioner, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA).

First of all, let me assure you that NHTSA had no intention of imposing any new requirements upon industry in its interpretation reflected in Figure 2, and that the reaction of industry to this interpretation came as a surprise to us. Although your letter concerns only the turn signal specifications for wide vehicles, we have reviewed this matter with respect to tail lamps and stop lamps as well, given the concern of other industry members.

Our review has led us to place added weight on the fact that the SAE visibility requirements are not consistently expressed from SAE standard to SAE standard. This difference in expression particularly calls into question our interpretation regarding turn signals. This same difference has led MVMA to apply one interpretation to turn signals, and another to stop and tail lamps. We shall discuss these two interpretations separately, and compare them with NHTSA's single, across-the-board interpretation. Under NHTSA's interpretation, the minimum specified lens area of a left stop, turn signal, or tail lamp, as seen at 45 degrees to the left of that lamp, must also be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp, and at all degrees in between (and vice versa) when viewed at a 3-meter radius from the rear.

As suggested above, MVMA does not believe that an across- the-board interpretation is appropriate, given the different expression of the turn signal specification for vehicles in J1395 and J588. SAE J1395 provides that visibility is "from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp." (Emphasis added.) The first underlined passage suggests that the viewing angle is a left 45 deg. angle, using a line parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis as the frame of reference for that angle, and that this viewing angle relates to the left signal lamp only. The passage says that the angle is 45 deg. to the left "for" the left lamp, and not 45 deg. to the left of that lamp. The second underlined passage indicates a similar limitation on the applicability of the language regarding the 45 deg. angle to the right. Even more specific is the corresponding requirement in SAE J588 NOV84, Standard No. 108's specification for turn signals on vehicles less than 80 inches wide. It provides: "signals from lamps mounted on the left side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the left and signals from lamps mounted on the right side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the right." For both wide and narrow vehicles, MVMA interprets the 45 degree left visibility requirement as applying only to the outboard side of the left turn signal lamp, and a 45 degree right visibility requirement only to the outboard side of the right turn signal lamp. NHTSA agrees that MVMA's interpretation regarding turn signal lamps is more fully consistent than NHTSA's interpretation with the language of these SAE standards. Adopting this interpretation moots the question of the particular distance at which visibility is to be determined. However, the fact that the SAE standard did not specify a measurement distance tends to strengthen the case for the MVMA interpretation since its interpretation obviates the need for a measurement distance, while the former NHTSA interpretation necessitated one. The MVMA and TTMA interpretations of the stop and tail lamp requirements are less clearly superior to NHTSA's in their faithfulness to the language of the SAE standards. Indeed, whether any of the competing interpretations is superior in this regard is harder to assess because the language regarding these lamps is more ambiguous. The SAE specifications for stop and tail lamps, incorporated in Standard No. 108, are respectively J586 FEB84 (narrow vehicles) and J1398 MAY85 (wide vehicles), and J585e Sept. 1977. Under all three of these SAE standards, "signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle", which is specified as "of 45 deg. to the left and to 45 deg. to the right" (J586), "of 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J1398), and "from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J585e).

TTMA and MVMA restrict the left-right 45 degree visibility requirement to the individual lamp in a horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 1 of the December 1991 notice. Under this interpretation, the minimum specified lens area that is seen at 45 degrees to the left on the left lamp must be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the left lamp, but need not be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp (and vice versa). In MVMA's view, there was never an intent by the SAE to expect that the minimum lens area of both lamps would be visible from both sides of the vehicle. MVMA also argued that there was no justification to use the photometric measuring distance of 3 meters to determine visibility.

Some aspects of the SAE standards regarding stop and tail lamps seem to favor the MVMA/TTMA interpretation, while others favor the NHTSA interpretation. For example, if these SAE standards are interpreted in light of the interpretation given above to the SAE turn signal requirements, then those stop and tail lamp standards will be interpreted as specifying angles of visibility whose frame of reference is each individual lamp instead of the vehicle as a whole. As in the case of the turn signal requirement, the absence of a specified measurement distance for stop and tail lamp visibility tends to support an interpretation that does not depend on such a distance being specified. On the other hand, the absence of any language, like that found in J1395, relating the angle or angles of visibility to any individual lamp, suggests a single continuous horizontal angle spanning the entire rear of a vehicle.

NHTSA has decided to adopt the TTMA/MVMA interpretation of the stop and tail lamp visibility requirements. We have said that NHTSA did not intend to impose new burdens on industry by its interpretation, and there appears to be no present safety justification to do so. The existing level of rear lighting safety on the nation's roads is that which is represented by industry's interpretation of the SAE visibility requirements. Thus, there would be no derogation of the existing level of safety by concurring with an industry interpretation. Further, given the lack of clear support for either of the competing interpretations, any attempt by NHTSA to apply its former interpretation to enforce these requirements in a court of law could be very problematic.

This letter will serve as notice to the industry that the agency will follow the interpretations stated herein in its future enforcement activities. The SAE visibility materials do not specify any measurement distance. Therefore, to carry the new interpretation to its proper conclusion, NHTSA is no longer specifying a measurement distance of 3 meters to judge compliance with the visibility requirements. Industry and NHTSA are both in agreement, however, that, wherever located, any of these lamps are required by S5.3.1.1 to continue to meet its photometric output at any applicable group of test points, unless excepted by the subsequent conditions of that paragraph.

Finally, you comment that Table II "does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers". We do not understand your remark since Table II clearly specifies that turn signal lamps be located on the rear of all vehicles to which the Table applies, and not trailers alone.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association Ford Motor Company Freightliner Corp.

ref:108 d:10/5/92

ID: 7579

Mr. Tom Mario
Vice President Sales
Sealco Air Controls, Inc.
215 East Watkins Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Dear Mr. Mario:

This letter responds to your follow-up inquiry about a recent amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems that deletes the requirement for a trailer to have a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. The final rule allows air from the tractor supply lines to be used to release the parking brakes instead of air from such a reservoir. (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed)

In our earlier response to you dated May 21, 1992, we stated that a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment became effective. That letter explained that while the amendment deleted a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device.

You now ask what pressure must be retained in the supply line with any single leakage type failure in the service brake system if an original equipment manufacturer decides to use a system with a protected reservoir. You explained that you are aware of a system that has a 60 p.s.i. pressure amplification valve that results in having 90 p.s.i. holding off the spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to further explain our requirements to you.

In deleting the provision requiring a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake, the agency adopted requirements in S5.8 addressing supply line pressure retention. That provision states that under certain test conditions

"any single leakage type failure in the service brake system (except for a failure of the supply line, a valve directly connected to the supply line or a component of a brake chamber housing) shall not result in the pressure in the supply line falling below 70 p.s.i., measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. . ." (S5.8.2)

Based on the above provision, the pressure in the supply line is not permitted to fall below 70 p.s.i when measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. Accordingly, a system with 60 p.s.i. in the supply line measured at the forward trailer supply coupling would not comply with the express requirements set forth in S5.8.2. Please be aware that after October 8, 1992, the provision in S5.8.2 applies to all new trailers, including those manufactured with a protected separate reservoir.

Your letter appears to imply that there would be no safety problem in having the pressure in the supply line falling to 60 p.s.i. if a pressure amplification valve served to hold off the spring brakes. I note, however, that problems could occur if only one trailer in a mixed train, multiple trailer combination used such an amplification valve. For example, if a single leakage-type failure in the service brake system of such a trailer resulted in the supply line pressure falling to 60 p.s.i., this could cause the supply line pressure in following trailers to also fall to 60 p.s.i. If the following trailers were not equipped with an amplification valve, they could experience brake drag.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 121 d:9/25/92

ID: 7603

Thomas E. Wilde
3440 Parkway
Butte, MT 59701

Dear Mr. Wilde:

This responds to your July 28, 1992 letter asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags. I note that your letter was stamped confidential; however, in a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you indicated that you did not object to your letter being placed in our public docket.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). 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 design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design 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. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which retrofit air bags must comply.

The only Federal requirement that might affect a retrofit air bag would be the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). 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.

With regard to retrofit air bags, the existing safety belts (in a vehicle not already equipped with an air bag) are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." If a retrofit air bag installed by a commercial business interferes in any way with the performance of the safety belt system, it would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition.

You should also note that a 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, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#208 d:9/9/92

ID: 7605

Mr. Kevin R. Boyne
Chief Engineer
Dynamics and Durability Engineering
Transportation Research Center Inc.
East Liberty, OH 43319-0367

Dear Mr. Boyne:

This responds to your letter requesting a clarification of the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. That section sets forth new requirements relating to key removal, which became effective on September 1, 1992. Your letter asks whether a vehicle which operates in the following manner would meet the requirements:

Initial Condition -Engine running and shift lever positioned in "drive".

Action -The operator depresses the thumb button on the left side of the shift lever and moves the shift lever to the "park" position.

Point of Concern -As long as the thumb button is held in the depressed position, the ignition key can be rotated to the lock position and removed. Still holding the thumb button, the shift lever can later be moved to any position. Removal of the key will only occur in the "park" position.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that a system which operates in the manner you described would comply with S4.2.1 of the standard for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, but not for vehicles manufactured after that time. This assumes, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, that steering is prevented after removal of the key. It also assumes that the system does not otherwise permit removal of the key when the transmission is not locked in park.

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

Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states:

Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

The system which you describe appears to permit removal of the key in a situation when both the transmission and transmission shift lever are not locked in "park" and when they do not become locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. This conclusion follows from the fact that, following the removal of the key, the shift lever can be moved to any position. Therefore, the system you describe would not comply with S4.2.1 unless one of the exceptions in section S4.2.2(a) and (b) apply.

The exception set forth in S4.2.2(a) only applies in the event of electrical failure and is therefore not relevant to the system you describe. S4.2.2(b) of Standard No. 114 reads as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

NHTSA included this second exception to allow for a manual override of the transmission shift lock so that a disabled vehicle could be moved. The requirement that such devices either be operable by the key or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface originally had an effective date of September 1, 1992. However, after considering petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA decided to provide an additional year's leadtime, noting that this would lessen the impacts associated with such redesign of the emergency override buttons of a number of systems.

While the agency was primarily concerned about emergency override buttons in drafting S4.2.2(b), it is our opinion that the language in (b)(1) is sufficiently broad to include the thumb button on a transmission shift lever itself, i.e., the button can be considered a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key. Therefore, assuming that steering is prevented after the removal of the key, the system you describe would come within the exception provided in S4.2.2(b)(1).

Effective September 1, 1993, of course, such a device must also meet the requirements set forth in S4.2.2(b)(2) in order to come within this exception to S4.2.1. The system you describe would not fall within the exception at that time. The thumb button is not "the key, as defined in S3." In addition, the thumb button is not "covered by a non- transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool." Therefore, based on the information you have provided, the system would not comply with S4.2.1 for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993.

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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:114 d:10/21/92

ID: 7614

Mr. Christopher Leone
NewBold Designs
765 Allens Avenue
Providence, R.I. 02905

Dear Mr. Leone:

This responds to your FAX of August 6, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for rules and regulations of the Department on electric vehicles. I understand that you talked with Mr. Vinson later in the day, and received an overview of the matter. I further understand that you intend only the construction of a single experimental vehicle, and have no plans for its production.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the introduction into interstate commerce, by any person, of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation, for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 may be imposed. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are set out in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. There are no standards that apply specifically to electric vehicles, and the standards that apply to your project car are those that apply to "passenger cars" in general.

However, the manufacturer of an electric vehicle may petition us for a temporary exemption (up to 2 years) from one or more of the safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle. The temporary exemption regulations are found at 49 CFR Part 555. An exemption covers up to 2,500 vehicles per year for any 12- month period that the exemption is in effect.

Regulations governing the licensing of motor vehicles are the prerogative of the individual States. Thus, you should inquire as to what Rhode Island requires for your contemplated vehicle.

There is a regulatory gap which your situation highlights, and that is the legal status of a person who intends to build only a single motor vehicle. Such a person is not a "manufacturer" under the Act, since the operative portion of the definition of "manufacturer" is one who manufactures or assembles "motor vehicles". The temporary exemption authority appears directed towards commercial enterprises and not single motor vehicles. Nevertheless, we believe we have the authority to exempt a single motor vehicle under these provisions.

If you wish to consult us further in this matter, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to help you.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:555 d:11/9/92

ID: 7633

Mr. Gary L. Hopkins
VP & G.M. Control Systems Products
Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems
901 Cleveland Street
Elyria, OH 44036

Dear Mr. Hopkins:

This responds to your letter of August 3, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). More specifically, your letter sought "confirmation of (y)our position that vehicles equipped with electronic engine control systems ... which include an electronic treadle assembly are not covered by the scope and requirements of FMVSS #124." As explained in detail below, your understanding is incorrect. Standard No. 124 applies to all listed vehicle types, regardless of whether their engine control systems use electronic or mechanical means to control the engine.

The purpose of Standard No. 124 is to reduce deaths and injuries caused by vehicles that continue to supply fuel to the engine when there is a malfunction in the accelerator control system. To ensure that drivers could bring vehicles that experience a problem with the accelerator control system to a controlled stop, instead of having the vehicle continue to speed forward, Standard No. 124 requires that the vehicle's throttle return to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control and that the throttle return to idle whenever there is a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. The safety need for these requirements is the same for all vehicles, regardless of whether their accelerator control system is electronic, mechanical, or some other type of technology.

S4.1 sets forth the following definitions:

Throttle means the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver-operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver-operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed.

Fuel metering device means the carburetor, or in the case of certain engines, the fuel injector, fuel distributor, or fuel injection pump.

Driver-operated accelerator control system means all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.

You said in your letter that the electronic treadle assembly in your company's accelerator control system "modulates an electric signal, received from an outside source, in response to the input of the operator's foot. This signal is an input to the engine electronic controller which in turn provides electronic signals that operate the engine fuel injectors to control engine power."

You asserted that the electronic treadle assembly is not a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. Based on the information provided in your letter, we agree. Standard No. 124 expressly provides that the throttle must be part of the fuel metering device. In the example you have given, the electronically controlled fuel injectors, together with any pumps or other metering systems connected to those injectors, appear to be the "fuel metering device." Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the electronic treadle assembly would be considered to be part of the "driver-operated accelerator control system," because it is a vehicle component that regulates engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control.

You went on to assert that no component of an electronically controlled diesel engine would be considered a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. We disagree. Standard No. 124 defines a throttle as "the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver-operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver- operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed." Every engine design of which we are aware, including electric, diesel, conventional gasoline, and Wankel rotary gasoline, has a component that controls the engine speed in response to inputs from the driver. That component is the throttle. Indeed, an engine design without a throttle would not allow the driver to control the engine speed.

NHTSA has already addressed the applicability of Standard No. 124 to electronic accelerator control systems. In an August 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Koji Tokunaga of Isuzu (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 would apply to a proposed electronic accelerator control system. In a November 9, 1988 letter to Mr. J.E. Carr of Caterpillar (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 applies to an electronically controlled diesel engine. Hence, the issue of how Standard No. 124 applies to electronic accelerator control systems has been settled at least since 1988. Given the broad language used in the standard, the agency's previous interpretations of the standard, and the compelling safety need to prevent runaway vehicles if malfunctions should occur in the accelerator control system, we must reject your suggestion that Standard No. 124 should be interpreted in such a way that it does not apply to electronically controlled diesel engines.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions or would like some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:124 d:9/23/92