ID: 12507.ogm

Adrian Burrows, Homologation Engineer
Daewoo Motor Company
Worthing Technical Centre
Downlands Business Park
Lyons Way, Upper Brighton Road
Worthing, United Kingdom, BN149LA

Dear Mr. Burrows:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of two of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 201, Occupant

Protection in Interior Impact and Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I regret the delay in this response.

Your request regards the installation of glass mirrors on passenger side sun visors. You note that Standard 201 does not address the presence of mirrors on sun visors but that S3.4 of the Standard contains general requirements for sun visors. You ask if S3.4 requires the exposed edges of any mirror attached to a sun visor to meet the radii requirements of S3.4.2 or be covered by energy absorbing material pursuant to S3.4.1.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that paragraph S3.4.1 of Standard No. 201 does not prohibit the installation by manufacturers of vanity mirrors on sun visors.

Consequently, so long as the mirror does not interfere with the energy-absorbing requirement of S3.4.1, manufacturers are free to incorporate such mirrors into or onto sun visors.

You also ask if the mirror must meet the radii requirements of S3.4.2. S3.4.2 provides that a visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." In a letter dated June 19, 1989, from Stephen P. Wood to a Mr. Jack Satkoski of Spectra Enterprises the agency interpreted this requirement to apply to both the visor and its mount. Therefore, your mirror must be installed in a fashion that assures that your visor meets the radii requirements of S3.4.2

Your final question relates to whether a glass mirror attached to a sun visor must meet any glazing requirements. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing material for use in specified locations in motor vehicles, including motor homes. The agency has previously stated that the standard establishes requirements for glazing used in windows and interior partitions in motor vehicles. Glazing used in locations other than windows and interior partitions would not be subject to the requirements of the standard. Therefore, the vanity mirror you propose would not have to meet the requirements of Standard 205.

I hope that this response is helpful. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Mr. Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:201
d.7/3/97

ID: 12530.ztv

Mr. Marvin Lee Eastman
1033 E. Vine
Fresno, CA 93706-5303

Dear Mr. Eastman:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1996, with respect to a "safety display board to be mounted on the rear of a trailer in the effort to help prevent accidents involving cars and tractor trailers." You would like to know if this is permissible under the laws that we administer.

The message board could be mounted on the side (at an angle) or on the rear of the trailer. When the turn signal is activated, a message "will rotate around the message board" which may read "For your safety please move in front of the tractor or to the rear of the trailer."

We appreciate your thoughtful wish to improve safety on our nation's highways, but, in our opinion, your invention may create more problems than it would solve. In order to read and comprehend a moving message, a vehicle operator will be diverted from giving full attention to driving. Furthermore, a flashing turn signal that is used for purposes other than to indicate an intention to turn has the potential to confuse motorists to the front as well as to the rear

of the trailer. For these reasons, we believe that this system could impair the effectiveness of some lighting equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps which we require to be on trailers. When a lamp's effectiveness is impaired, it is equivalent to making that lamp inoperative, in our view.

Under the laws we administer, this system would not be permitted as original equipment on new trailers. In the aftermarket, the system could be marketed for trailers in use, but it could not be legally installed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses. However, the owner would not be prohibited from installing the message board system. In this event, the legality of the message board becomes a matter of State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the States in which the system may be used.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
11/2/96

ID: 12535.ztv

Mr. Clive Rock
3920 West 23 Avenue
Vancouver
British Columbia V6S 1L2
Canada

Dear Mr. Rock:

This is in reply to your email of October 1, 1996, asking two questions about rear lighting on motor vehicles.

Your first question is why the agency has not required rear turn signals to be amber rather than allowing a manufacturer to choose between red and amber. Historically, red has been the color preferred by American manufacturers, while the practice in countries outside the United States has been to use amber. Intuitively it would appear that a separate amber lamp might provide a more effective signal than a red signal emitted by a combination stop/taillamp. However, Standard No. 108 compensates for a lack of separation in a rear combination lamp by requiring s the red turn signal have a higher candela than the taillamp to differentiate it, and specifies that the turn signal will override the stop lamp when it is activated. Although our field studies do show a very slight improvement in signal detectability when amber is used as a separate turn signal, the improvement is insufficient to warrant eliminating red as an acceptable color for rear turn signals, and requiring amber as the sole permissible color.

Your second question is why the agency doesn't require taillamps to be at the outer extremities of vehicles. We are aware that it is the practice of some countries to specify dimensional locations for rear lamps (e.g., within 3 inches of the edge of the vehicle), but Standard No. 108 is drafted so as to afford a manufacturer freedom to locate rear lighting as the manufacturer chooses, within the broad directive that such lamps be "as far apart as practicable." This is the requirement for the location of rear stop, turn signal, and taillamps. A manufacturer may choose to stack the lamps or to locate two of the rear lamps inboard of the third. The agency will not contest the manufacturer's determination unless it is clearly erroneous.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263) or email Tvinson@NHTSA.DOT.GOV.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:10/23/96

ID: 12548a.mls

Mr. William Shapiro
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter asking whether "belt positioning seats" as defined in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems may be either the booster seat cushion (base) by itself or the base with a fixed or removable back. After asking a number of questions about belt positioning seats, you ask what requirements would be applicable to a removable slip cover for a belt positioning seat. The responses set forth below are based on our understanding of the facts set forth in your letter and related attachments.

You state that Volvo currently markets a two piece, cushion (base) and backrest belt positioning booster seat for children over 50 pounds. You further state that this restraint positions a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of the vehicle's Type 2 belt system. The restraint lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, to restrain the forward movement of the child's torso in a forward impact. According to your letter, Volvo is contemplating marketing this device in the United States as a belt positioning booster for children 33 pounds and higher. You further state that Volvo markets a backrest which, without tools, may be easily attached and removed from the booster cushion. You state that as a child grows, first the backrest and then the base will no longer be needed.

You ask nine questions about Standard No. 213. You also request that we confirm what you refer to as three "interpretations" of the Standard. Your questions and "interpretations" are restated below, followed by our answers.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO BELT POSITIONING SEATS

You initially ask whether your device meets the definition of a belt positioning booster seat, if it is sold for use by children 33 pounds and higher.

Yes. "Belt positioning seat" is defined in a July 21, 1994 final rule as

A child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II belt system on the child and that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, designed to restrain forward movement of the child's torso in a forward impact. (59 FR 37167)

The system you describe is consistent with the definition of "belt positioning seat." Moreover, the agency adopted labeling requirements that state that "booster seats shall not be recommended for children of masses of less than 13.6 kg" (30 pounds). Accordingly, it would be permissible for you to market your belt positioning booster seat for use by children weighing 33 pounds or more.

Question 1. Must a belt positioning booster seat that lacks any component to restrain forward movement have a backrest?

No. A belt positioning seat may be either the base by itself or the base with a backrest. In either case, the belt positioning seat must comply with all the performance requirements when tested.

Question 2. If a belt positioning booster must have a backrest may the back be detachable from the base cushion?

As stated in our answer to question 1, a belt positioning booster seat is not required to have a backrest.

Question 3. If the belt positioning booster has a detachable backrest, can it be sold separately from the base cushion?

Nothing in NHTSA's regulations would prohibit a manufacturer from selling a detachable backrest separately from the base cushion.

Question 4. If the belt positioning booster has a fixed or detachable backrest, does it need to meet any requirements such as surface area or side support?

Yes. A belt positioning booster seat with a fixed or detachable backrest is required to meet all requirements that would be applicable to a belt positioning seat with a back, including the surface area and side support requirements set forth in S5.2.2.

Question 5. Is the backrest considered a child restraint under the definition in this regulation?

A detachable backrest, by itself, would not be considered a child restraint under the definitions in Standard No. 213. Nevertheless, a detachable backrest used in combination with a base cushion would be a child restraint system. A "child restraint system" is defined as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." As stated above, a "belt-positioning seat" is defined as "a child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat..."

Question 6: Must the detachable backrest be labeled in the same way as the cushion base?

No. A detachable backrest would not be required to be labeled in the same way as the cushion base, provided that the cushion base is labeled with all the information required by Standard No. 213.

Question 7: If a belt positioning booster seat with a detachable backrest is tested by NHTSA for compliance to FMVSS 213, will NHTSA test with or without the backrest attached?

If the seat is recommended for use both with and without the backrest, then NHTSA would test the belt positioning seat in both use modes: as a cushion alone and with the backrest attached. The agency believes that it is necessary to test the seat both ways in order to replicate fully the actual anticipated use of the child restraint system.

You conclude this section by stating that:

It is our interpretation that the booster seat cushion (base), by itself, constitutes a belt positioning booster seat that may be labeled as being suitable for children weighing not less than 30 pounds. Further, we believe that a belt positioning booster seat that lacks any component, such as a belt or a structural element like a shield, may have a back that is either fixed or removable.

We agree with both of your statements: A seat cushion (base) by itself may be a belt positioning booster seat, and a belt positioning booster seat may have a back that is either fixed or removable.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO SLIP COVERS

You state that Volvo is considering marketing a removable slip cover for the belt positioning booster seat that would either be one piece that covers both the base and the attached back or two pieces that would separately cover each piece. You anticipate selling the slip cover either with the booster seat or as an accessory separately. You state that the slip cover may cover labels on the booster seat required by Standard No. 213.

8. Volvo would like to know if a slip cover as described above would be permitted to be sold with the booster or separately as an accessory?

A slip cover would be permitted to be sold either with the booster or separately as an accessory.

The applicable requirements differ depending on whether a slip cover is sold with the booster seat or as an accessory. A slip cover sold with the booster seat would be considered part of the child restraint system, and therefore would be subject to all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213, including the labeling requirements in S5.5 and the flammability resistance requirements in S5.7. A slip cover sold separately as an accessory would not be subject to these requirements. While it is unlikely that the slip cover would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. No commercial business listed in 30122 can install a slip cover if the product undermines the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard, including FMVSS 213's labeling requirements.

The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment on their own child restraint systems. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages owners not to degrade the safety of their child restraint systems.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 United States Code 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

9. Must the required warning labels or other information, such as the date and location of manufacture on the booster seat, be visible with the slip cover installed?

Under S5.5.3, information specified in S5.5.2(g) through (k) must be visible with the slip cover installed. The agency notes that it is important for this information to remain visible, given that child restraint systems may be used by people other than the initial purchaser such as grandparents and child care providers who would not know about a warning label that was covered by a slip cover. Nevertheless, information specified in S5.5.2(a) through (f) (such as the date and location of manufacture) need not be visible when a system is installed, and thus may be obscured by a slip cover.

With respect to a slip cover sold as an accessory, the agency cannot require labeling information to be visible when the slip cover is installed. Nevertheless, NHTSA strongly urges you to either label the slip cover with this important safety information or not obstruct this information already labeled on the child restraint system.

You conclude your letter by asking us to confirm the following statement:

It is our interpretation that FMVSS 213 does not apply to either the backrest or the slip cover. As we understand, the standard applies to new child restraint systems that are designed to restrain, seat or position children. Both the backrest and the slip cover, by themselves, were not designed to restrain, seat, or position the child and thus would not be subject to the standard. Since the backrest would not be considered a child restraint system, it would not have to be labeled nor would it have to meet the surface area or side support requirements of the standard. Also, since the slip cover is installed over the child restraint by the consumer after the initial sale we believe that labeling the child restraint appropriately is sufficient to meet the requirements of the standard and that it is not required to label the slip cover in any way.

As explained above, we cannot fully agree with your interpretation. If it is sold with a child restraint system, a slip cover would have to comply with the flammability resistance requirements. In addition, the slip cover must either be labeled or not obstruct the safety information on the child restraint system.

While a backrest sold alone would not be a child restraint system, a backrest in connection with a bottom cushion would be a child restraint system and therefore would be subject to all applicable requirements in Standard No. 213.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213

d.12/5/96

ID: 12566-3.pja

Mr. John Breiland
Project Engineer
PIVCO AS
Stanseveien 4
N-0975 Oslo, Norway

Dear Mr. Breiland:

This responds to your letter of September 27, 1996, asking several questions about how the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, especially Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, would apply to the electric vehicle (EV) you produce. The vehicle has only one forward gear and a regenerative braking system, and weighs less than 4,536 kg. Our response follows your letter's organization in which you group questions into four categories: regeneration, symbols and displays, reverse, and transmission shift lever sequence.

Regeneration

You first ask whether regeneration would "violate[s] any regulations." Regeneration, or use of the engine as a generator to slow the vehicle and recharge the battery, does not violate any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulation, and Standard No. 102 does not require the regeneration system you described. The vehicle you described has only one forward speed, so the requirement for transmission braking effect in S3.1.2 of Standard No. 102 does not apply. As we indicated in our May 3, 1996 interpretation letter to you, the applicability of this requirement is restricted by the prefatory phrase "[i]n vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio . . . ."

NHTSA does not have any recommendations on how regeneration should be performed or on the need for a switch to disable regeneration. Whether to equip a vehicle with these characteristics is at the manufacturer's option. However, as you are aware, NHTSA has proposed to include the regenerative braking effect in the performance of the service brakes under Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems, only if the regenerative braking effect is actuated by the service brakes

(60 FR 49544, copy enclosed). We would consider a vehicle equipped with a disabling switch as not having the regenerative system actuated by the service brakes, since regeneration could be disabled. Therefore, if the final rule is issued as proposed, you would not be able to use regeneration in your braking performance tests.

Symbols and Displays

You also raised several questions about Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. There is no standardization of controls, displays, and symbols unique to EVs, and no special telltales that are required for EVs. Provision of a power or current gauge is at your option. NHTSA does not regulate use of the additional EV-related telltales mentioned in your letter, and you may provide them at your option, so long as they do not result in confusion with the required telltales. A complete response to your question "how should we proceed to ensure that illumination of telltales fulfills Standard No. 101" would merely be a recitation of S5.3.4 (not S5.3.3, as cited in your letter) that specifies requirements for illumination of telltales.

Reverse

NHTSA has no recommended maximum reverse speed. However, most vehicle reverse speeds are the lowest of any gear. This is appropriate, because visibility is limited by the necessity to turn around, and drivers are less accustomed to steering in reverse. Therefore, an unreasonable increase in reverse gear speed could result in a safety problem. There are no requirements for driver "warning" signals when the shift lever is in reverse, other than the requirement in S3.1.4 of Standard No. 102 to display the shift lever position.

Transmission Shift Lever Sequence

You stated that you were unsure of which regulations exist concerning the relationship between the ignition key, shift lever sequence, and the "park lock device" on EVs. There are no special requirements in these areas that pertain only to EVs. The regulations concerning the relationship of the "park lock device" to the shift position in automatic transmission vehicles are in S4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. Basically, they require that the key cannot be removed unless the vehicle is in the park position, and that the vehicle prevent mobility when the vehicle is in park. There is no regulatory problem with your ignition key positions (Off, Radio, On, Start). You proposed three transmission shift lever sequences and asked us to tell you if any of the proposals comply with our regulations. Note that the first sentence of S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102 requires "[a] neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions." Therefore your proposal A (P-R-N-D) complies with this requirement, while proposal B (P-R-D) and proposal C (R-D) do not comply. Note, however, that S4.3 prohibits the park-lock device from taking effect when the vehicle is in motion, as your description of proposal A seems to suggest.

Regarding your uncertainty on which office to send your inquiries to, it depends on the type of question you have. You should send all requests for interpretation of our standards to this office. Requests for standards or other technical information should be directed to the Office of Safety Performance Standards (that office's designation has been changed from NRM, as mentioned in your letter, to NPS). We advise against directing the letter to any particular person within the office, given reorganizations and personnel changes.

If you have any further questions, 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

Enclosure

ref:102#101#135#114

d.12/17/96

ID: 12581.wkm

Mr. Stan R. Gornick, P. Eng.
Manager Engineering Quality
Western Star Trucks
2076 Enterprise Way
Kelowna, British Columbia
Canada V1Y6H8

Dear Mr. Gornick:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on October 10, 1996, and your letter of October 11, 1996, addressed to Mr. Myers. You asked whether emergency doors on sleepers manufactured by your company for installation on the back of truck cabs must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The answer is no.

You stated in your letter that your company offers a sleeper that can be mounted on the back of a truck cab. Access to the sleeper is provided through an opening in the back wall of the cab and the front wall of the sleeper. An emergency door 20.25 inches wide and 28 inches high may be installed as an option on the passenger side of the sleeper. Although the interior opening is the primary access, the emergency door provides a means of both ingress and egress to the sleeper from outside the cab. There are no seating accommodations in the sleeper, only a bed. The bed is equipped with 2 restraint straps to hold an occupant in place if the vehicle were to suddenly stop or to roll over. Nothing is provided, however, for anyone sitting on the edge of or at the back of the bed.

As you correctly pointed out in your letter, paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 206 provides that "[c]omponents on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" must comply with the

requirements of the standard. The key words here are "directly" and "one or more seating accommodations."

On July 28, 1972 this office issued a letter to Mr. J. Donald Waldman of Resources Applications, Designs & Control, Inc. (copy attached), in which we stated in response to a question similar to yours that even though the sleeper is a passenger compartment, it is a separate unit with no seating accommodations. Thus, FMVSS No. 206 would not apply. However, we went on to say that:

[I]f the sleeper berth equipment is installed in such a way that it is contiguous to the truck cab and can be entered by the driver from within the cab, then any side doors on the sleeper berth equipment would be side doors leading into a passenger compartment (the cab) containing seating accommodations and they would have to meet the requirements of the Standard.

This language could be interpreted to say that if there is any means at all of ingress or egress through the sleeper door into the cab, even if one must crawl through the sleeper compartment and over the bed to get into the cab, then the door must comply with FMVSS No. 206. We think that such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the plain language of the standard. Accordingly, in a letter to Mr. Jiro Doi of Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc., dated April 26, 1996 (copy enclosed), we stated that a back door "that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" means:

[A] door through which vehicle occupants enter from outside the vehicle directly into a vehicle compartment in which occupant seats are located, or exit the vehicle directly from a compartment in which they have been seated to the outside of the vehicle.

Thus, doors "leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" means just that, and does not include a compartment through which or over which a person must crawl or climb to reach a compartment containing seating accommodations. Accordingly, the small emergency door leading into or out of your sleeper compartment does not lead directly into a compartment containing seating accommodations, and is therefore not

required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. Any interpretation to the contrary that is stated or may be inferred in the Waldman letter is hereby rescinded.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206

d:11/18/96

ID: 12582.mls

Mr. Michael C. Horan
833 Hawks Hollow
Delafield, WI 53018

Dear Mr. Horan:

This responds to your inquiry asking whether there were Federal safety laws in 1968 or 1969 pertinent to side-mounted exhaust systems known as "heat shields" on passenger cars. You state that a Wisconsin State trooper ticketed you for not having the original-equipment heat shield.

Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to regulate the safety of newly manufactured motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards, it has never issued any Federal motor vehicle safety standard or other regulation applicable to heat shields. Thus, Federal regulations neither require nor prohibit them.

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:mis

d.11/21/96

ID: 12583-2.pja

Allen F. Brauninger, Esq.
Regulatory Affairs Division
Office of the General Counsel
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington, D.C. 20207

Dear Mr. Brauninger:

This letter responds to your inquiry of whether PepperGas brand Defensive Pepper Spray (a defensive chemical spray used for protection from attackers) is an item of motor vehicle equipment. You forwarded a letter and some advertising literature from Mr. Dennis English, who after purchasing the "specially formulated automotive model" spray in a market, attached it to his sun visor, as illustrated in the advertising. While he was driving, the canister of spray leaked on him and on his child safety seat. The answer to your question is that this model of PepperGas defensive spray is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 USC 30102(a)(7) defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;

(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or

(C) any device or an article or apparel ... that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death. (Emphasis added.)

The agency uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an "accessory." The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that

retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, then the product would be an "accessory."

Applying these criteria to the "specially formulated automotive model" PepperGas spray, we conclude that it is an accessory. The advertising and product labeling state that "PepperGas brand for automobiles" is "designed for personal protection and safe storage in vehicles." It says it is needed "while driving your own automobile." It is allegedly "especially formulated" to withstand the extreme temperatures in parked vehicles, up to 200 degrees F. It is advertised and pictured as attached to the sun visor, map pouch, center console and other vehicle locations with the built-in clip or enclosed Velcro backing. Due to the advertising, special design, and labeling, we conclude that its expected use is related to the operation of the motor vehicle. Since Mr. English purchased it at a market, we conclude that the product is purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. We note that only this particular model which is marked to be used especially in motor vehicles is a motor vehicle accessory.

Mr. English may call NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline at (800) 424-9393 to report the incident. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Dennis English
ref:VSA
d:1/30/97

ID: 12600.drn

Mr. Vladimir Rabkin
Express Marketing Systems
1414 30th Avenue #5
San Francisco, CA 94122

Dear Mr. Rabkin:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your product, a warning device without a self-contained energy source, may be sold for use with motor vehicles that have a GVWR under 10,000 pounds. As explained below, although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot "approve" your product, the answer is yes.

In your FAX transmission, you asked for NHTSA's "review and approval" to market your product the "EMERSIGN" to the public and to car manufacturers. You stated, the "EMERSIGN is designed for vehicles that have GVWR under 10,000 pounds." A drawing enclosed with your transmission depicts a triangular object placed on one triangular point on a car roof. The words "Call 911" with a cross underneath the words are depicted on the triangle. Your product is described as having five basic signals for requesting "ambulance, police, fire engine, tow truck, and 'STOP'."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the triangles are flat and made of reflective material. A magnet is placed at one triangular point to facilitate placing the triangle on the vehicle. You stated that telescoping posts (which you described as "antennae") are also provided so that the triangle may be placed on the vehicle side, roof, trunk top or other places.

By way of background information, our agency NHTSA, is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

As you know, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 125 Warning devices. The application section (S3.) of Standard No. 125 states that: "the standard applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds."

Your FAX stated that the EMERSIGN is designed for vehicles that have a GVWR under 10,000 pounds. Thus, if the EMERSIGN is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds, Standard No. 125 would not apply, the EMERSIGN would not have to meet Standard No. 125's specifications, and you, the manufacturer, would not certify that the EMERSIGN meets Standard No. 125.

Even when sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds and no safety standard applies, other NHTSA laws may apply to the EMERSIGN. As an accessory to a motor vehicle, the EMERSIGN is an item of motor vehicle equipment. If either you or this agency should determine that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the EMERSIGN, you, the manufacturer, will be required to notify consumers and dealers, and remedy the safety related defect at no cost to the consumers and dealers.

The EMERSIGN may also be subject to the laws of the individual States. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but you can get information by contacting the Department of Motor Vehicles of each State in which you wish to market your product.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a NHTSA publication that provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:125
d:10/30/96

ID: 12607.ztv

Larry Keith Evans, Esq.
Evans & Evans
113 West Taylor Street
Griffin, GA 30223

Re: Ox Bodies, Inc.; Fayette, Alabama

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of October 9, 1996, with reference to the lighting design on the rear of a dump truck manufactured by Ox Bodies, Inc. Although you did not ask for a reply, I assume that you are interested in our comments regarding several observations you have made.

Your understanding of the pertinent requirements of 49 CFR 571.108 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment is essentially correct. A truck whose overall width is 80 inches or more must have two red clearance lamps mounted on the rear. Rear side marker lamps and rear clearance lamps may be combined providing that the minimum photometric candela requirements for each are met. Compliance of rear clearance lamps, combination or otherwise, with the photometric minimum candela requirements of SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker and Identification Lamps, July 1972 (incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108) is determined with the H-V axis of the lamp taken as parallel with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Ox Bodies is correct insofar as it states that the lamp must meet the minimum requirements when tested in the laboratory, but incorrect when it states that "there is no requirement that the light meet any requirements as installed on the vehicle." While Section S5.3 Location of required equipment does not specifically state that photometric requirements must be met when the clearance lamp is installed on a vehicle, compliance upon installation is implicit in paragraph S5.3.1.1. This paragraph specifies that "no part of the vehicle shall prevent . . . any other lamp [e.g. a clearance lamp] from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE

Standard. . . ." However, the issue in this case is whether a clearance lamp has been supplied in the first instance.

The photographs you enclosed clearly show that the side marker lamps on the truck in question are recessed in a side panel and cannot be seen from the rear. In our opinion, the truck has not been equipped with clearance lamps as required by Standard No. 108.

I note that you have furnished a copy of this letter to one of our standards enforcement engineers. The agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will give this matter the consideration it deserves, and we thank you for calling it to our attention.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:11/18/96