ID: nht94-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Fabrycky

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 12/4/93 From David Fabrycky To NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9433)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fabrycky:

This responds to your letter about an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device wou ld cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device re quires "manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously."

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations a nd answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product.

Additionally, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traff ic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

2

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-1 59 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your produ ct might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restr aint buckles:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722; August 21, 1985)

It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield i nstalled. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restr aint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the b uckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied "in many directions simultaneously." Your device woul d thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot

3

legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, "Flammability of Int erior Materials." If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restra int owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints.

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

Sincerely,

ID: 86-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. J. Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. Leon Conner Manager Long & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 691 San Angelo, TX 76902

Dear Mr. Conner:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you asked wether this regulation requises the treadwear testing for a tire size to be conducted only with vehicles that specify the subject tire size either as the original equipment size or as one of the recommended optional tire sizes. The UTQGS does not contain any such provision.

The conditions and procedures to be followed in grading tires for treadwear under the UTQGS are set forth in S575.104(e). That section specifies tire loading conditions and rim dimensional requirements for the vehicles used in the treadwear testing. However, it does not specify that the vehicles used in the treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle when new. Accordingly, persons testing tires to determine the treadwear grade may mount the tires on any vehicle, provided that the tire and vehicle satisfy all the requirements of S575.104(e), relating to tire construction, inflation pressure, size designation, vehicle loading, and wheel alignment.

You stated in your letter that the UTQGS compliance test procedures, used by this agency for conducting its enforcement testing for treadwear grades, currently specify that tire sizes must be tested on vehicles that specify that size as either original equipment or recommended optional size. This specification may have been adopted after the following language appeared in a 1975 preamble to a final rule establishing the UTQGS:

Several commenters suggested that the rule specify all vehicles in a given convoy be identical, to reduce variations in projected treadlife...Variations in vehicle type, however, do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections. Nevertheless, to minimize such variations, tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which they are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. 40 FR 23073, at 23076, May 28, 1975.

As explained above, the UTQGS regulation does not specify that the vehicles used in treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle. The agency's compliance test procedures are only the methods the agency itself uses to determine the appropriate treadwear grade for a tire. Persons outside the agency are not bound by any testing conditions and methods not set forth in the UTQGS itself. Such persons may, therefore, conduct their own testing in a manner different from that specified in NHTSA's compliance test procedures, provided that their testing satisfies all requirements of S575.104(e).

You also stated that the use of different vehicles for treadwear testing of tires will produce measurably different treadwear grades for the tire, even when all the vehicle factors are closely and properly controlled. As quoted above, NHTSA concluded that vehicle-to-vehicle variations "do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections", when it examined this issue in 1975. However, the agency is currently reexamining the effects of vehicle-to-vehicle variations on treadwear projections, particularly with respect to front-wheel vs. rear-wheel drive vehicles and passenger cars vs. light trucks and vans. If you wish to provide some additional data on this subject, please forward the data to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, at this address. We would be interested in analyzing whatever data form the basis for your belief that our 1975 conclusion was incorrect.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, if you have any further questions about our UTQGS.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office Of Chief Counsel, NAO-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Subject: Uniform Tire Quality Grading Testing

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are requesting clarification of the UTQG Stnadard relative to selection of test vehicles.

The UTQG Compliance Test Procedure requires that, "the vehicles must specify the tire size to be tested as standard equipment or approved alternate for that vehicle", i.e. government compliance testing will be performed with vehicles selected in this manner. It behooves the tester then to select vehicles in the same manner it would seem.

While outdoor road testing inherently involves a large number of variables it is apparent from our accumulated CMT data that different cars do produce different wear rates for a given set of tires and conditions, even when vehicle factors (wheel alignment, wheel loads, mechanical maintenance) are closely and properly controlled. It is therefore possible to bias the candidate tire grades measurably through selection of the control tire car, the candidate tire car or both. Use of certain larger vehicles produce faster wear of the CMT tires and consequently higher grades for the candidate tire; tested in the same convoy.

If the UTQG Standard allows the tester to choose any car in which he can attain the required wheel loads, manufacturers may seek the tester who can obtain the highest grades.

Hopefully you can clarify the intent of NHTSA on this matter. If we can be of assistance in any way please do not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

J. Leon Conner JLC:bf

ID: nht94-5.40

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Fabrycky

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 12/4/93 From David Fabrycky To NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9433)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fabrycky:

This responds to your letter about an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device would cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device requires "manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously."

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product.

Additionally, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

2

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restraint buckles:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722; August 21, 1985)

It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield installed. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied "in many directions simultaneously." Your device would thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot

3

legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-7.16

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Delapp -- Executive Coach Builders, Inc. (Springfield, MO)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to undated letter from Tom Delapp to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 8868)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, "Door locks and door retention components," as it pertains to the locking mechanism of a so-called "5th" door installed on your limousines. I apologize for the delay in responding. We conclude that the locking mechanism on the 5th door is not prohibited by Standard 206.

Based on your letter and a conversation with David Elias of my office, I understand that you have replaced the extra panel on the right side of a 1993 Lincoln Town Car based limousine with a passenger door (i.e., the 5th door). The door consists completely of the original equipment manufacturer's materials and hinges. The 5th door is a supplementary door, and does not replace or effect in any way the two side rear doors with which your vehicles are normally equipped.

When the 5th door is closed, its locking mechanism engages automatically, and the door cannot be opened from the inside or the outside. A solenoid locking mechanism that unlocks the 5th door is located inside the vehicle in a "privacy panel" behind the driver's seat. For the driver to unlock the 5th door, the car must be stopped and the driver must then get out of the car and reach through a window into the area behind the driver's seat. The locking mechanism cannot be reached by the driver while seated in the driver's seat, and cannot be reached by the passengers in the rear seats. The 5th door cannot be accidentally opened; unless the locking mechanism has been actively disengaged, the door remains locked. Disengaging the locking mechanism for the 5th door allows the driver to open the door from the outside, although passengers could push the door open from the inside, as well.

There are two pertinent requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to your situation. First, S4.1.3 (Door Locks) states that:

Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

In two prior letters, to Mr. Charles Murphy on May 10, 1974, and to Mr. Gary Hackett on April 11, 1988, the agency interpreted S4.1.3 to mean that the locking mechanism must also be OPERABLE from within the vehicle.

The first question to be addressed is whether the 5th door meets the requirement of S4.1.3. We believe the answer is yes, the door is equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle that is operable from within the vehicle. The operating means for the locking mechanism is in the interior of the vehicle in that the locking mechanism engages automatically when the 5th door is closed. While the means to

disengage the operating mechanism is not accessible to occupants in the vehicle, Standard 206 does not require the locking mechanism to be capable of being disengaged by an occupant. This is because the purpose of the standard is to minimize the chance that occupants of the vehicle will be ejected in a collision. Thus, the thrust of the standard is to ensure that occupants are retained within the vehicle, such as by requiring doors to have door locks that occupants are capable of locking.

The second pertinent requirement is S4.1.3.2 (Side Rear Door Locks), which states that:

... when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The 5th door appears to comply with S4.1.3.2, in that it cannot be opened from the outside or inside when the locking mechanism is engaged.

In a letter to Ms. C.D. Black, dated April 10, 1987, the agency interpreted a question on child safety locks that is relevant to your situation. The child safety lock operated as a "secondary locking system" that, when activated, rendered the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. (It had no effect on the outside door handle.) As we stated in that letter, our conclusion was that Standard 206 permitted the child safety lock because the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems that interfere with the ENGAGEMENT, but not with the DISENGAGEMENT, of the primary locking system. In that letter, we wrote:

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of... S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of ENGAGING the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is ENGAGED. Since we have determined that... S4.1.3.2 do(es) not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202)366- 2992.

ID: nht92-9.39

DATE: January 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Richard Gray -- Secretary of Sports Car Club of New Zealand, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/11/91 from Richard Gray to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6724)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking for information about whether certain motor vehicles manufactured in the United States and imported into New Zealand comply with the requirements of the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (MOT) is introducing new vehicle safety standards in an effort to align New Zealand's standards with those of the United States, Europe, Australia, and the United Kingdom. To that end, you stated that the MOT is requiring importers to ensure that the vehicles they import meet the relevant safety standards of these countries. You further indicated that you are responsible for providing proof to the MOT that certain privately imported, "low volume vehicles" (built in numbers less than 200 per year) comply with the requirements of their country of origin, or that the country has a special exemption for low volume vehicles. Accordingly, you asked for clarification of Standards No. 205 and 208, and other Federal regulations, as they would be applied to these vehicles. I am pleased to be able to provide the following information.

In the case of the United States, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue a number of safety standards. The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufactured or sold in, or imported into, the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under S114...

Generally speaking, then, to the extent that the vehicles you import are manufactured and sold in the United States, those vehicles would have to comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 208, regardless of the number of such vehicles produced by the manufacturer.

The fact that your letter is seeking proof that a motor vehicle ACTUALLY COMPLIES with applicable safety standards may, however, indicate a misunderstanding of the certification process in the United States. The process of certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, many European nations require manufacturers to deliver motor vehicles to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the vehicle, the government approves the vehicle and assigns an approval code. In countries using such a pre-sale approval certification process, the governmental entity would have specific information about the ACTUAL COMPLIANCE of vehicles with applicable standards.

In the United States, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to do any pre-sale testing or approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Consequently, NHTSA does not have any "proof of actual compliance" of vehicles. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards by permanently affixing a label to the driver's side door hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Among other things, that label must contain the statement: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above."

Under the self-certification process used in the United States, NHTSA does conduct periodic enforcement tests on vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by their manufacturer to ensure that the products do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. In order for this agency to determine whether any of the vehicles imported into New Zealand were subject to an enforcement test or a defects investigation by this agency, you would have to provide us with specific descriptive information about each of the subject vehicles, including the date of manufacture.

It should be a simple exercise for you to check the area around the driver's side door of the vehicles in question to see if the manufacturer affixed a U.S. certification label, stating that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the vehicle has such a label, there would not seem to be any reason for questioning the manufacturer's representation. On the other hand, if there is no such label, neither the vehicle's manufacturer nor anyone else has suggested that the vehicle conforms with the safety standards of the United States.

Finally, you asked whether the United States has any Federal regulations regarding the installation of registration plates on the front of vehicles. The answer is no; vehicle registration is a matter addressed by each of the individual States, not by the Federal government. Thus, the requirements for display of registration plates on the front of

vehicles differ from State to State. If you are interested in further information on the requirements of the individual states, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, U.S.A.

ID: GF000843.2

Mr. Robert S. Livingston
Stewart & Stevenson Tactical Vehicle Systems
PO Box 330
Sealy, TX 77474




Dear Mr. Livingston:

This responds to your January 27, 2005, e-mail regarding lamp, reflex reflector, and conspicuity system requirements for trailers. First, you ask whether the rear side marker lamp, the rear clearance lamp, and the reflex reflector can be combined into a single lighting device so long as it is "visible from both vehicle axes. " Second, you ask whether the retroreflective sheeting located at the rear of the trailer can be combined with the retroreflective sheeting located on the underride guard. You provided a photograph of the prototype vehicle and indicated that its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is over 10,000 pounds. Our answers follow.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment on trailers and other motor vehicles is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. S5.4 of FMVSS No. 108 permits combining certain items of lighting equipment if the requirements for each item are met. Based on the language of this section, you ask two questions regarding combining lamps, reflex reflectors, and retroreflective sheeting on trailers.

Combining Lighting Devices

Tables I & II specify that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things:

1. 2 red clearance lamps located at the rear outboard edges of the trailer as near the top as practicable.
2. 2 red side marker lamps, located on the sides of the trailer, as far to the rear as practicable.
3. 4 red reflex reflectors. 2 located at the rear outboard edges of the trailer as far apart as practicable. 2 located on the sides of the trailer, as far to the rear as practicable.

You ask if these requirements can be met by single lighting devices at each rear corner of the trailer. The photograph accompanying your e-mail shows a lamp and a reflex reflector tilted at a (approximately) 45-degree angle on each rear corner of the trailer.

With respect to reflex reflectors, S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that your trailer be equipped with a conspicuity system. Further, S5.1.1.29 specifies that a trailer equipped with a conspicuity system in conformance with S5.7 need not be equipped with the reflex reflectors required by Table I, if the conspicuity material is placed at the locations required for the Table I reflectors. Thus, if your trailer is equipped with conspicuity material at the appropriate locations specified above, you may omit installing reflex reflectors on this trailer.

With respect to side marker and clearance lamps, S5.4 discussed above allows these lamps to be combined, if the photometric requirements for each lamp are met, as installed on the vehicle. SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps," July 1972, specifies that both side marker and clearance lamps meet the minimum photometric requirements (expressed in candela) at test points located 45 degrees to the left and right of each lamp. We are familiar with combination lamps that emit a photometric output over 180-degrees wide in order to simultaneously satisfy the photometric requirements for side marker and rear clearance lamps. This is because the angle between the furthest forward test point of the side marker lamp and the furthest inboard test point of the rear clearance lamp is 180-degrees.

We examined the photograph of the prototype trailer and question whether your lamp could simultaneously meet the applicable photometric requirements of J592e for both a clearance and side marker lamp because it does not appear to be a combination lamp capable of emitting light over a 180-degree angle. We suggest you contact the lamp manufacturer to determine whether the proposed combination lamp would be capable of complying with all the applicable requirements as installed on your trailer.

Combining Retroreflective Sheeting

Table I specifies that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things, a conspicuity system meeting the requirements of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108. In particular, S5.7.1.4.1 requires 3 elements of retroreflective sheeting at the rear of each trailer. Element 1 must be located at the bottom, horizontally across the full width of the trailer. Element 2, consisting of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, must be located horizontally and vertically at the upper contours of the body. Element 3 must be located horizontally across the full width of the rear underride guard. You ask if Element 1 and Element 3 retroreflective sheeting could be combined into one retroreflective sheet located on the underride guard.

Our answer is no. S5.4 does not apply to your second question because trailers equipped with underride guards must have separate retroreflective sheeting on the underride guard, and on the rear at the bottom of the trailer. Thus, the retroreflective sheet

located on the underride guard cannot satisfy the location requirements for Element 1 retroreflective sheeting, which must be located on the trailer, above the underride guard. Accordingly, your trailer must have Elements 1 and 3 retroreflective sheeting to comply with the requirements of S5.7.1.4.1. We are enclosing Figures 30-1, and 30-2 to clarify this issue.

We note that the picture of your prototype trailer appears to be missing Element 2 retroreflective sheeting. Your trailer must also, be equipped with Element 2 retroreflective sheeting.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.5/3/05

ID: GF007569-2

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your letter asking us to reconsider our May 22, 2003, interpretation letter to Mr. Babcock of Hyundai concerning whether a multi-component rear reflex reflector configuration would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that each passenger car (and certain other specified vehicles) be equipped with 4 red and 2 amber reflex reflectors. Table IV of the standard requires that two red reflex reflectors be located on the rear of the vehicle, one on each side of the vertical centerline, and as far apart as practicable. The applicable photometry requirements for reflex reflectors are incorporated by reference from SAE J594f, "Reflex Reflectors," January 1977.

In our letter to Mr. Babcock, we addressed a rear reflex reflector configuration which consisted of three separate reflex reflectors. One reflector was installed on the fender and a second reflector was located adjacent to it, on the deck lid. The third reflector was hidden by the deck lid and was not visible until the deck lid was raised. No single reflector fulfilled the photometric requirements for a rear reflex reflector, but these requirements were met when the reflector on the fender and either of the other two reflectors were measured.

We explained that this design was not a permissible configuration under Standard No. 108. We stated that the text and setup for testing set forth in SAE J594f clearly indicate that the requirements of this standard apply to a single reflex reflector, and may not be met using a combination of separate reflex reflectors.

In requesting reconsideration, you state that our interpretation is potentially inconsistent with a prior interpretation of Standard No. 108, sent to Mr. Bataini of DBM Reflex Enterprises on July 19, 2000. In that interpretation, we addressed a configuration where side mounted reflective devices were incorporated into a headlamp housing and visible from the side when light is reflected from them. We stated that the relevant question was "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same housing." We concluded that the answer is yes, provided that when assembled they meet the requirements of SAE Standard J594f.

You suggest that the standard should be interpreted to "permit a reflex reflector to consist of two (or more) reflective devices molded separately and installed on a single, rigid part of the vehicle (such as the fender or bumper) as long as the devices are mounted closely enough together that they meet the test requirements of SAE J594f." You noted that SAE J594f allows reflex reflectors to "have any linear or area dimensions," as long as the photometric performance is met with a specified maximum projected area contained within a 10 inch diameter circle.

We are pleased to clarify Standard No. 108s requirements for reflex reflectors. After considering your letter, it continues to be our opinion that for each reflex reflector required by the standard, all of the standards requirements for that reflex reflector must be met by a single reflex reflector.

We interpret the word "reflector" to refer to a single reflector, that must fully comply on its own. In other situations where Standard No. 108 allows the requirements for an item of lighting equipment to be satisfied by more than one item, it explicitly says so. See, e.g., section 3.1 of SAE J585e (tail lamps), section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J586 (stop lamps), and section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 (turn signal lamps). (These SAE recommended practices are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.)

We do not believe there is any inconsistency between our letters to Mr. Babcock and Mr. Bataini. In our letter to Mr. Bataini, we addressed the issue of "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same [headlamp] housing."(Emphasis added.) We were not addressing the issue of multiple reflectors.

We note that Standard No. 108 does not specify that all of the reflective elements of a reflex reflector need to be contiguous. Our view when we issued the letter to Mr. Bataini was that whether the reflective elements of the reflex reflector were molded to each other and then mounted on a headlamp housing, or instead separately mounted on the headlamp housing, the finished product was a single item (both a single reflector and a combination lamp). By contrast, multiple unconnected reflective devices installed on the vehicles fender or bumper would not constitute a single reflector.

Finally, we note that the use of multiple reflectors in place of a required single reflector would not only raise testing issues but also concerns related to replacement of broken reflectors. Standard No. 108 specifies requirements only for single reflectors. If a vehicle manufacturer used multiple reflectors in place of a single reflector, there would be no way of knowing the apportioned contribution of each of the separate reflectors. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for an aftermarket manufacturer to supply parts that have the same reflectivity as the original parts, and there would be certification problems for these manufacturers. Therefore, if one of the separate reflectors became broken and the vehicle owner replaced it (but not all of the reflectors), the vehicle might not provide the minimum required performance in this area.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/14/04

ID: 8868

Mr. Tom Delapp
Executive Coach Builders, Inc.
One Executive Boulevard
Springfield, MO 65802

Dear Mr. Delapp:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, "Door locks and door retention components," as it pertains to the locking mechanism of a so-called "5th" door installed on your limousines. I apologize for the delay in responding. We conclude that the locking mechanism on the 5th door is not prohibited by Standard 206.

Based on your letter and a conversation with David Elias of my office, I understand that you have replaced the extra panel on the right side of a 1993 Lincoln Town Car based limousine with a passenger door (i.e., the 5th door). The door consists completely of the original equipment manufacturer's materials and hinges. The 5th door is a supplementary door, and does not replace or effect in any way the two side rear doors with which your vehicles are normally equipped.

When the 5th door is closed, its locking mechanism engages automatically, and the door cannot be opened from the inside or the outside. A solenoid locking mechanism that unlocks the 5th door is located inside the vehicle in a "privacy panel" behind the driver's seat. For the driver to unlock the 5th door, the car must be stopped and the driver must then get out of the car and reach through a window into the area behind the driver's seat. The locking mechanism cannot be reached by the driver while seated in the driver's seat, and cannot be reached by the passengers in the rear seats. The 5th door cannot be accidentally opened; unless the locking mechanism has been actively disengaged, the door remains locked. Disengaging the locking mechanism for the 5th door allows the driver to open the door from the outside, although passengers could push the door open from the inside, as well.

There are two pertinent requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to your situation. First, S4.1.3 (Door Locks) states that:

Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

In two prior letters, to Mr. Charles Murphy on May 10, 1974, and to Mr. Gary Hackett on April 11, 1988, the agency interpreted S4.1.3 to mean that the locking mechanism must also be operable from within the vehicle.

The first question to be addressed is whether the 5th door meets the requirement of S4.1.3. We believe the answer is yes, the door is equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle that is operable from within the vehicle. The operating means for the locking mechanism is in the interior of the vehicle in that the locking mechanism engages automatically when the 5th door is closed. While the means to disengage the operating mechanism is not accessible to occupants in the vehicle, Standard 206 does not require the locking mechanism to be capable of being disengaged by an occupant. This is because the purpose of the standard is to minimize the chance that occupants of the vehicle will be ejected in a collision. Thus, the thrust of the standard is to ensure that occupants are retained within the vehicle, such as by requiring doors to have door locks that occupants are capable of locking.

The second pertinent requirement is S4.1.3.2 (Side Rear Door Locks), which states that:

... when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The 5th door appears to comply with S4.1.3.2, in that it cannot be opened from the outside or inside when the locking mechanism is engaged.

In a letter to Ms. C.D. Black, dated April 10, 1987, the agency interpreted a question on child safety locks that is relevant to your situation. The child safety lock operated as a "secondary locking system" that, when activated, rendered the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. (It had no effect on the outside door handle.) As we stated in that letter, our conclusion was that Standard 206 permitted the child safety lock because the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems that interfere with the engagement, but not with the disengagement, of the primary locking system. In that letter, we wrote:

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of... S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. Since we have determined that... S4.1.3.2 do[es] not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206 d:3/29/94

ID: nht75-1.8

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 10, 1975 N40-30 (FWS)

Warren M. Heath, Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacremento, California 95804

Dear Commander Heath:

This is a further reply to your letter dated January 21, 1975, asking several questions regarding Standard No. 205, "Glazing materials." We have attempted to incorporate the substance of your questions in our various answers.

1. Prime Glazing Material Manufacturer. A company that buys and then bends or otherwise forms flat plastic glazing material into a motorcycle windshield is not a prime glazing material manufacturer, nor is a company which blows or stretches flat plastic glazing material that is purchased from another company. Prime glazing material manufacturers are only those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. In neither of the examples you pose is the material fabricated, laminated, or tempered by the company in question.

2. Marking Requirements. In the amendment to Standard No. 205 published November 11, 1972, (37 FR 24035), it was our intention to limit the use of the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code number to the prime glazing material manufacturer. Persons who cut glazing fabricated by others should not under Standard No. 205 utilize the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol. Our purpose in structuring the marking requirements this way was to enable us to determine, for purposes of attributing responsibility for conformity, which glazing in a motor vehicle had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle, and which glazing had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation.

(a) You are correct in your interpretation that the DOT symbol and the code number are applied by a prime glazing material manufacturer in addition to the manufacturer's trademark. It was our expectation that the prime manufacturer would furnish his customers with a heat stamp of the markings required by Section 6 of ANS Z26, without the DOT symbol and code number, by which the manufacturer cutting or otherwise shaping the material would mark those pieces he cut or shaped.

(b) Glazing produced by a prime glazing material manufacturer that is not designed for use in a specific vehicle should not contain the DOT symbol or the manufacturer's code number.

(c) The NHTSA has assigned numbers only to prime glazing material manufacturers. We have not inquired, however, whether the company is in fact producing glazing materials for use in specific vehicle applications.

(d) As stated previously, a company which does not manufacture its glazing but which cuts glazing from larger pieces purchased from the producer of the material should not be using the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol.

(e) You are correct in your conclusion that the marking requirements of the standard do not apply to dealers. However any person (including a dealer) who sells glazing (separately or in a new vehicle) which is improperly marked may be violating Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

3. General Requirements.

(a) Standard No. 205 does presently prohibit dealers from using the prime glazing material manufacturer's code number. If you are aware of instances where this requirement is not being followed, please forward to us the particulars of the cases in question and we will take appropriate action.

(b) Manufacturers who purchase glazing in large sheets and then cut it to fit window frames are not prime manufacturers and may not use the DOT symbol or manufacturer's code number. You are therefore not correct in your statement that a manufacturer of a window assembly may use the prime manufacturer's number even when the window manufactured is for a special application.

(c) The model number of glazing used in motorcycle windshields should be that which is assigned to it by the prime glazing material manufacturer in the glazing's original thickness. ANS Z26 calls for testing plastic glazing materials in substantially flat specimens, and not in molded specimens. However, the Federal standard does not require testing. Manufacturers are required only to use due care in the manufacture of their products. A person "reforming" the plastic does not thereby become a prime glazing material manufacturer.

(d) The markings which should appear on plastic bubbles on minivans should be those of the prime manufacturer (not the DOT symbol or code number) of the glazing material and not those of the person who reshapes the glazing.

(e) A material marked AS4 that was used as a motorcycle windshield would technically fail to conform to the standard as the standard does not provide for the use of AS4 materials in motorcycle windshields. However, if the material also conformed to the requirements of AS6 (which is permitted to be used in motorcycle windshields), the nonconformity would not be considered significant.

(f) Our basic approach has been that the standard applies to the vehicle locations specified in ANS Z26, and to any glazing (glass or plastics) used in those locations. However, opaque plastic materials which are clearly structural materials do not fall within the ambit of Standard No. 205.

(g) Standard No. 205 presently limits the use of plastic glazing materials in buses to readily removable windows, which include push-out windows. Plastic materials may not be used in buses in fixed quarter panels or sliding windows that are not readily removable.

We believe our reasons to be valid for limiting the use of the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code number to glazing manufactured by prime manufacturers for use in a specific vehicle location. However, we would certainly be willing to consider steps you might suggest to facilitate State inspections that are consistent with the purposes of the labeling requirements presently in effect. Such a suggestion should be in the form of a petition to amend Standard No. 205 and should be specific.

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-1.21

DATE: 03/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vehtek Marketing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 3, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Michael J. Klein Vice President Vehtek Marketing Inc. 2795 Townline Road Alden, New York 14004

Dear Mr. Klein:

This responds to your February 12, 1981, letter requesting information concerning any Federal requirements that would be applicable to a water injection system used to increase the efficiency of vehicle fuel systems. Your company's water injection system is sold as aftermarket equipment which is attached to a vehicle's carburetor to increase gas mileage.

For your information, I am enclosing a synopsis of agency interpretations which sets forth the general Federal implications of installing auxiliary fuel tanks in vehicles or of converting vehicle fuel systems. This information explains in detail the responsibilities of a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1979 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), in relation to a vehicle's fuel system. Although your product is not an auxiliary gas tank and does not require a conversion of the fuel system, the stated principles are applicable to your product since it is motor vehicle equipment. Following is a summary of the most pertinent aspects of that material as it relates directly to your water injection system.

Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, is applicable only to completed new vehicles and would, therefore, not be directly applicable to your motor vehicle equipment. It may be indirectly applicable, however. The standard specifies performance requirements for fuel systems by limiting the amount of fuel leakage which may occur after a barrier impact crash test of the vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any of these persons would be prohibited from installing your product on a vehicle fuel system if that installation would cause the vehicle to no longer be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. Since your letter indicates that the water injection system is not directly attached to a vehicle's fuel system, it is not likely that installation of the product would render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. However, your company will have to determine whether in fact the installation would affect compliance. I have enclosed a copy of Safety Standard No. 301 for your information.

Under 49 CFR Part 579, your water injection system would be considered "motor vehicle replacement equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in performance, construction components, or materials of motor vehicle replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Vehicle Safety Act, any manufacturer who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect in its motor vehicle equipment is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Therefore, it is your responsibility to determine that your water injection system contains no safety-related defects. For example, if your system would cause a vehicle's engine to stall, this could be considered a safety defect by the agency.

In closing, I would state that you do not need any prior approval from the agency before marketing your product. All the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act are placed directly on the manufacturer. I hope you will find this information helpful. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 12, 1981

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th. Street - South-West Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As per my telephone conversation Wednesday, February 11th, 1981, with Steven Wood, I am writing concerning a water injection system we manufacture for automotive use. We recently had some experience with State of New York owned vehicles where we were told that we need D.O.T. approval in order to be legal.

After two days of long distance telephone calls I reached your office. I was told that our situation may involve standard 301, and to mention that to you. Also let me state that we do not tap into the gasoline system or its passage.

Our system is relatively simple in operation. It was patented in 1973 (patent number 3778039) by its inventor, Al Dore, who worked with venter injection since the 1930's. We insert into the boost venturi of the carburetor a brass tube through which the water is drawn in - in much the same way as the gasoline is drawn in - the greater the engine speed, the greater the amount of water. We have a water reservoir mounted in the vehicles engine compartment which when low on water activates a water pump which draws water from a five gallon (D.O.T. 2E rated) container which is mounted, at the customers discretion, in a remote location. I have enclosed a brochure which depicts the system as I have described it. I would like to add that by design no water is drawn into the engine at speeds of below approximately 1500 RPM, as a safety precaution. The system is much more sophisticated than I describe, but for purposes of explanation that is how it works. It uses water at about the rate of one gallon of water to twenty gallons of gasoline.

We have several testimonial letters attesting to considerable mileage increase; above 10%. Most of these average 30%. We give a written money back guarantee of a minimum of a 10% increase in gas mileage! No other water injection manufacturer gives a similar warranty, and there are approximately forty-two other units on the market today. We know our unit works and we're proud to be manufacturing an American made energy saving device. I would appreciate your written comments at your earliest convenience so we may pursue government owned vehicles with the confidence of being legal. I would like to extend my appreciation for your time and efforts.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Klein, Vice President

MJK/JR