ID: Maxon9759

S.Lafferty, Manager, Engineering
Maxon
16205 Distribution Way
Cerritos, CA 90703

Dear Mr.Lafferty:

This responds to your letter in which you raised several questions regarding Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No.403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles.Your letter raised issues with the control illumination, attachment hardware, and interlock requirements of the standard.I have addressed each issue below.

By way of background, the agency established FMVSS Nos.403 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle.FMVSS No.403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles.The agency also established the companion standard FMVSS No.404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, which specifies requirements for vehicles equipped with platform lifts.

Illumination of Lift Controls

S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No.403 requires that platform lift controls on a public use lift must be illuminated according S5.3 of FMVSS No.101, Controls and displays.In part FMVSS No.101 requires that the illumination of controls must be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.The low level of illumination is to minimize the impact of the illumination on a drivers night vision.

In your letter, you stated that the controls on the lifts manufactured by your company, Maxon, are not located in the driver compartment.As such, you stated that there is no need for a dual level of illumination as specified in FMVSS No.101.

The illumination requirement in FMVSS No.403 is applicable to all controls, regardless of location.An amendment to this requirement would have to be accomplished through the agencys rulemaking procedure.

Attachment Hardware

S6.3.1 of FMVSS No.403 requires that a lift manufacturer provide all of the attachment hardware necessary to install a lift on a vehicle.In your letter you stated that some installations may require longer bolts than that provided or that bolts may be lost during installation.You asked if Maxon would be permitted to specify attachment hardware by "grade, size, plating etc and allow substitute hardware" in those instances.

S6.13.1 requires a lift manufacturer to specify, either by make and model or by design elements, the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed.The attachment hardware provided must permit the installation of a lift on these vehicles.If a vehicle is listed under S6.13.1 that requires a longer bolt, then a longer bolt must be provided.

With regard to hardware lost during the installation process, we recognize that lift installers may need to obtain replacement hardware.Nothing in the standard prohibits a lift manufacturer from providing the hardware specifications in conjunction with the actual hardware.

Interlock requirements

Your letter correctly states that under S6.10.2.2 of FMVSS No.403, an interlock must prevent operation of a platform lift from a stowed position until forward and rearward motion of a vehicle is inhibited.You then asked what is required if during lift operation there is a failure of the interlock: should lift operation cease or continue in the event of such a failure?

FMVSS No.403 does not specify how a lift must operate in the event of an interlock failure.Therefore, it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine an appropriate default status.

I hope you find this helpful.If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr.Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.2/2/05

ID: 86-6.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Tim O. Edwards -- Safety Specialist, Kansas Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Personnel Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Tim O. Edwards Safety Specialist Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Personnel Services 7th Floor, State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66612

I am writing in response to your recent inquiry concerning interior over-head luggage racks on school buses. Your first question seeks this Agency's opinion on whether interior luggage racks on school buses should be considered "projections likely to cause injury" under the National Minimum Schoolbus Standards. These standards are recommendations by the National Conference on School Transportation (NCST), and are not developed by NHTSA. Requests for interpretation of these Standards should be mailed to the Interpretation Committee, addressed to :

Mr. Norman Loper Coordinator of Pupil Transportation Alabama Department of Education 304 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130

Requests for modification to these Standards and development of new Standards should be directed to the chairman of the Interim Committee, addressed to:

Mr. Bill G. Loshbough Asst. State Supt. for Transportation Dept. of Education Education Bldg. Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786

In response to your second question, there are no federal standards or regulations which specifically address the issue of over-head luggage racks on school buses. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) S571.222 addresses the issue of school bus passenger seating and crash protection. Specifically, S5.3.1 of that standard establishes the head protection zones. As defined in S5.3.1.1, that zone extends up to a horizontal plane 40 inches above the seating reference point. If the luggage rack were to be, located within the head protection zone, the rack would have to meet the head form impact requirement in S5.3.1.2 and the head form force distribution requirement in S5.3.1.3.

Please feel free to contact this office if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief counsel

Didre Hom, Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D.C.

Dear Ms. Hom:

In August of this year an inspection was made of a school bus in Caney, Kansas. The Highway Patrol Officer making the inspection determined that the interior over-head luggage racks found on the bus few within the National Minimum (Interior) Standards adopted by Kansas as "a projection likely to cause injury".

This has raised the question of how to handle similar luggage racks on other buses. We would request your agencies opinion on the following questions:

1. Is an interior luggage rack "a projection likely to cause injury?

2. Are there any federal standards, regulations, etc., which would specifically address this problem?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please address your response to:

Kansas Department of Transportation ATTN: Tim O. Edwards, Safety Specialist Bureau of Personnel Services 7th Floor, State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66612

Sincerely

CONNIE HAFENSTINE, CHIEF BUREAU OF PERSONNEL SERVICES

TIM O. EDWARDS SAFETY SPECIALIST II

ID: nht79-2.17

DATE: 03/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mar 19 1979

Mr. J. B. H. Knight Chief Car Safety Engineer Rolls-Royce Motors Crewe Chesire CW1 3PL England

Dear Mr. Knight:

This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, and January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, Controls and Displays. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must be rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls-Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.

2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirement for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.

(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.

3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibiiity requirements of 101-80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a "few" inches, we mean up to approximately thee inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the acency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.

4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMCSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

NOA-30:KDeMeter:pfp:3/5/79 cc: NOA-30 Subj/Chvon NOA-30 Ms. DeMeter NRMS-11 Interps: Std. 101-80 Redbook: (3) CC

ID: nht81-1.9

DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1981

FROM: J. KAWANO -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE-TOYOTA

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BURKARD, EBNER, AND TEVES, OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, MAY 24, 1974 LETTER FROM TEVES TO GREGORY, AND MAY 27, 1988 LETTER FROM TEVES TO JONES

TEXT: Toyota is currently considering a new type of brake reservoir, as shown in Fig. 1, in accordance with your letter enclosed herewith as Attachment #1.

We request clarification of our interpretation of @5.4.2 & 5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 105-75, concerning this type of brake reservoir.

S5.4.2 reads as follows:

Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or for other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard. Reservoirs shall have completely separate compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston.

As far as our new type of brake reservoir is concerned, we recognize that if the following three conditions were satisfied, these reservoirs would conform to S5.4.2. Is this interpretation correct?

i) W + X + Y > C + D + E *

ii) X > A

iii) Y > B

* (Note: A vehicle equipped with this type of reservoir can be expressed as W+X+Y>C+D, since E is equivalent to zero.)

W; common capacity for fluid of front brake, rear brake & clutch as hatching part in Fig. 1

X; a compartment capacity for front brake fluid Y; a compartment capacity for rear brake fluid

A; volume displaced by front master cylinder during a full stroke of position

B; volume displaced by rear master cylinder during a full stroke of position

C; front capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

D; rear capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

E; clutch capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

In accordance with the aforementioned interpretation, we recognize that if the warning level is not less than the level of 1/4 (W+X+Y), S5.3.1 would be satisfied. This "W" is the same volume as the "W" in expression i) of inequality. Is this interpretation correct? The main point in question is whether the "W" in expression i) of inequality can be considered the capacity in a case where the overall compartment system -- clutch included -- has not failed. We illustrate such a case in te hatching segment of Fig. 1.

We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience. If you should have any comments or questions, please contact Mr. M. Mori, a member of my staff, who can be reached at: (201) 865-2019. Thank you.

Enclosure.

Fig. 1. Warning level.

ID: aiam5054

Dear Mr. Lawrence: This responds to your March 5, 1992 letter to th Administrator on the subject 'Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS 108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements.' In that letter, Volvo GM petitioned 'for the revocation of the 'Figure 2' requirements published in the December 12, 1991, Register. . . .' However, the notice published on that date (56 FR 64733) was not an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Instead, it was only a denial of a petition for rulemaking to allow tail lamps on vehicles 80 inches or wider to be mounted at locations up to 24 inches forward of the extreme rear of the vehicle, and to allow turn signal and stop lamps to be mounted up to 60 inches forward of the rear instead of 'on the rear' as required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 expresses the general requirement that lamps be located so as to meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE standard. Figure 2 was included in the notice to illustrate the agency's interpretation of the visibility requirements for stop, tail, and turn signal lamps set forth in specific SAE vehicle lighting standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. A copy of that figure is enclosed. However, Figure 2 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108 itself. Since Figure 2 is not part of Standard No. 108, a petition for rulemaking is not the appropriate way to address the problem you have raised. Accordingly, we are treating your letter as a request to change our interpretation of the SAE's specifications. As explained below, the agency is adopting a new interpretation that is consistent with your concerns and arguments. The rationale for the agency's denial of the petition was that the amendments requested would adversely affect the ability of the lamps to meet the SAE specifications incorporated into Standard No. 108 that the lamps on both sides of a vehicle's rear end be simultaneously visible from any angle between and including 45-degree angles to the rear left and right of the vehicle. As noted above, Figure 2 pictorially represents NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE's uniform geometric visibility requirements. Using the SAE standard for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles as an example, NHTSA provided the following quotation from J1395: 'Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp. * * * To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex of at least 13 sq. cm. measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' Since the SAE measurement of photometry is made at a distance of 3 meters from the lamp, NHTSA also stated that compliance with the visibility requirements is to be determined at a distance of 3 meters. NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE language quoted above, which Figure 2 illustrates, and which you have found objectionable, was: 'Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters.' You state that the term 'simultaneously visible' does not appear in the SAE specifications. You also argue that the 3 meter requirement has no connection to the 45-degree installation visibility. These issues have also been raised with us by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), which met with us to express its views, not only on turn signal lamps, but stop and tail lamps as well, and by Ford Motor Company, and Freightliner, Corp. in several telephone calls. We are furnishing copies of this response to these three parties, as well as to the original petitioner, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA). First of all, let me assure you that NHTSA had no intention of imposing any new requirements upon industry in its interpretation reflected in Figure 2, and that the reaction of industry to this interpretation came as a surprise to us. Although your letter concerns only the turn signal specifications for wide vehicles, we have reviewed this matter with respect to tail lamps and stop lamps as well, given the concern of other industry members. Our review has led us to place added weight on the fact that the SAE visibility requirements are not consistently expressed from SAE standard to SAE standard. This difference in expression particularly calls into question our interpretation regarding turn signals. This same difference has led MVMA to apply one interpretation to turn signals, and another to stop and tail lamps. We shall discuss these two interpretations separately, and compare them with NHTSA's single, across-the-board interpretation. Under NHTSA's interpretation, the minimum specified lens area of a left stop, turn signal, or tail lamp, as seen at 45 degrees to the left of that lamp, must also be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp, and at all degrees in between (and vice versa) when viewed at a 3-meter radius from the rear. As suggested above, MVMA does not believe that an across-the-board interpretation is appropriate, given the different expression of the turn signal specification for vehicles in J1395 and J588. SAE J1395 provides that visibility is 'from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp.' (Emphasis added.) The first underlined passage suggests that the viewing angle is a left 45 deg. angle, using a line parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis as the frame of reference for that angle, and that this viewing angle relates to the left signal lamp only. The passage says that the angle is 45 deg. to the left 'for' the left lamp, and not 45 deg. to the left of that lamp. The second underlined passage indicates a similar limitation on the applicability of the language regarding the 45 deg. angle to the right. Even more specific is the corresponding requirement in SAE J588 NOV84, Standard No. 108's specification for turn signals on vehicles less than 80 inches wide. It provides: 'signals from lamps mounted on the left side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the left and signals from lamps mounted on the right side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the right.' For both wide and narrow vehicles, MVMA interprets the 45 degree left visibility requirement as applying only to the outboard side of the left turn signal lamp, and a 45 degree right visibility requirement only to the outboard side of the right turn signal lamp. NHTSA agrees that MVMA's interpretation regarding turn signal lamps is more fully consistent than NHTSA's interpretation with the language of these SAE standards. Adopting this interpretation moots the question of the particular distance at which visibility is to be determined. However, the fact that the SAE standard did not specify a measurement distance tends to strengthen the case for the MVMA interpretation since its interpretation obviates the need for a measurement distance, while the former NHTSA interpretation necessitated one. The MVMA and TTMA interpretations of the stop and tail lamp requirements are less clearly superior to NHTSA's in their faithfulness to the language of the SAE standards. Indeed, whether any of the competing interpretations is superior in this regard is harder to assess because the language regarding these lamps is more ambiguous. The SAE specifications for stop and tail lamps, incorporated in Standard No. 108, are respectively J586 FEB84 (narrow vehicles) and J1398 MAY85 (wide vehicles), and J585e Sept. 1977. Under all three of these SAE standards, 'signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle', which is specified as 'of 45 deg. to the left and to 45 deg. to the right' (J586), 'of 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right' (J1398), and 'from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right' (J585e). TTMA and MVMA restrict the left-right 45 degree visibility requirement to the individual lamp in a horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 1 of the December 1991 notice. Under this interpretation, the minimum specified lens area that is seen at 45 degrees to the left on the left lamp must be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the left lamp, but need not be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp (and vice versa). In MVMA's view, there was never an intent by the SAE to expect that the minimum lens area of both lamps would be visible from both sides of the vehicle. MVMA also argued that there was no justification to use the photometric measuring distance of 3 meters to determine visibility. Some aspects of the SAE standards regarding stop and tail lamps seem to favor the MVMA/TTMA interpretation, while others favor the NHTSA interpretation. For example, if these SAE standards are interpreted in light of the interpretation given above to the SAE turn signal requirements, then those stop and tail lamp standards will be interpreted as specifying angles of visibility whose frame of reference is each individual lamp instead of the vehicle as a whole. As in the case of the turn signal requirement, the absence of a specified measurement distance for stop and tail lamp visibility tends to support an interpretation that does not depend on such a distance being specified. On the other hand, the absence of any language, like that found in J1395, relating the angle or angles of visibility to any individual lamp, suggests a single continuous horizontal angle spanning the entire rear of a vehicle. NHTSA has decided to adopt the TTMA/MVMA interpretation of the stop and tail lamp visibility requirements. We have said that NHTSA did not intend to impose new burdens on industry by its interpretation, and there appears to be no present safety justification to do so. The existing level of rear lighting safety on the nation's roads is that which is represented by industry's interpretation of the SAE visibility requirements. Thus, there would be no derogation of the existing level of safety by concurring with an industry interpretation. Further, given the lack of clear support for either of the competing interpretations, any attempt by NHTSA to apply its former interpretation to enforce these requirements in a court of law could be very problematic. This letter will serve as notice to the industry that the agency will follow the interpretations stated herein in its future enforcement activities. The SAE visibility materials do not specify any measurement distance. Therefore, to carry the new interpretation to its proper conclusion, NHTSA is no longer specifying a measurement distance of 3 meters to judge compliance with the visibility requirements. Industry and NHTSA are both in agreement, however, that, wherever located, any of these lamps are required by S5.3.1.1 to continue to meet its photometric output at any applicable group of test points, unless excepted by the subsequent conditions of that paragraph. Finally, you comment that Table II 'does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers'. We do not understand your remark since Table II clearly specifies that turn signal lamps be located on the rear of all vehicles to which the Table applies, and not trailers alone. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association Ford Motor Company Freightliner Corp.;

ID: aiam2587

Dear Mr. Decker: This responds to your March 30, 1977, letter asking whether th rebuilding of a motor vehicle with all new running gear and an old body constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle requiring compliance with Federal regulations.; In the rebuilding operation you describe, you retain the old body tan structure while replacing the entire running gear assembly. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined by regulation in 49 CFR 571.7(f) that the rebuilding of a motor vehicle using old running gear with a new body does not constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The vehicle will be considered newly manufactured unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly is not new and was taken from an existing trailer whose identity is continued with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. In addition, the trailer must be owned or leased by the same party both before and after the remanufacture. Since the running gear with which you plan to equip your vehicle is new, your operation constitutes the new manufacture of a vehicle.; You ask secondly what portion of the running gear can be replaced a normal repairs without such replacement being considered the manufacture of a new vehicle. You may replace any part of the running gear assembly that breaks or malfunctions during operation of the motor vehicle. The NHTSA would consider this to be normal maintenance of the vehicle, not subject to the requirements applicable to vehicle manufacture.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2175

Dear Mr. Coughlin: This is in response to your letter of December 10, 1975, regarding th applicability of existing Federal regulations to the manufacture of 'Helmate.'; At the present time, there is no regulation pertaining directly to th type of helmet accessory your corporation produces. The general regulation concerning motorcycle helmets is 49 CFR S 571.218, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*. This standard establishes minimum performance requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.; If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business were to install 'Helmates' on helmets, the helmets would have to remain in conformity with the requirements of Standard 218. However, persons other than manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may modify products, after purchase by a user, without regard to the requirements of a Federal safety regulation. Thus, if 'Helmate' is mounted on the helmet by an ordinary consumer, safety Standard 218 is inapplicable.; There is some question as to whether motorcycle helmets will still mee the performance requirements of Standard 218, after the 3/8 inch hole required to mount the 'Helmate' is drilled. If it becomes apparent that installing 'Helmate' type helmet accessories causes the performance level of helmets to drop below the requirements of Standard 218, the NHTSA might find it necessary to enact regulations to rectify the situation. Our main concern is to assure that motorcycle helmets afford riders the protection and safety needed.; If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0559

Dear Mr. Preziosi: In your letter of December 22, 1971 to Lawrence R. Schneider you as for a clarification of the relationship between 49 CFR Part 566 - *Manufacturer Identification*, and 49 CFR S 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. Specifically you ask whether identifying information is required for miniature bulbs.; Standard No. 108 establishes performance requirements for items o motor vehicle lighting equipment, and incorporates by reference certain SAE standards that specify requirements lamps must meet in laboratory tests when assembled. The SAE standard that applies to bulbs, J573d, *Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units*, is not incorporated by reference, and Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the output of bulbs furnished with a lamp assembly. When a lamp is tested for conformity, the production bulb is removed and a calibrated bulb substituted, in accordance with Paragraph C of SAE Standard J575d, *Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components*, the test bulb is to be 'representative of standard bulbs in regular production' and must be 'selected for accuracy in accordance with specifications listed in . . . SAE J573.'; In summary, Standard No. 108 does not specify performance requirement for lamp bulbs, and production bulbs are not used in lamp testing. Therefore, Standard No. 108 does not apply to bulbs and bulb manufacturers are not required to certify conformance to Federal standards, or to submit information pursuant to the *Manufacturer Identification* regulations.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2174

Dear Mr. Coughlin: This is in response to your letter of December 10, 1975, regarding th applicability of existing Federal regulations to the manufacture of 'Helmate.'; At the present time, there is no regulation pertaining directly to th type of helmet accessory your corporation produces. The general regulation concerning motorcycle helmets is 49 CFR S 571.218, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*. This standard establishes minimum performance requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.; If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business were to install 'Helmates' on helmets, the helmets would have to remain in conformity with the requirements of Standard 218. However, persons other than manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may modify products, after purchase by a user, without regard to the requirements of a Federal safety regulation. Thus, if 'Helmate' is mounted on the helmet by an ordinary consumer, safety Standard 218 is inapplicable.; There is some question as to whether motorcycle helmets will still mee the performance requirements of Standard 218, after the 3/8 inch hole required to mount the 'Helmate' is drilled. If it becomes apparent that installing 'Helmate' type helmet accessories causes the performance level of helmets to drop below the requirements of Standard 218, the NHTSA might find it necessary to enact regulations to rectify the situation. Our main concern is to assure that motorcycle helmets afford riders the protection and safety needed.; If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3585

Dear Mr. Gustafson: This responds to your letter of June 28, 1982, asking abou requirements applicable to child restraints sold in the United States as well as any necessary permits or licenses. You also asked about any U.S. testing organizations, procedures or standards for child restraints.; All child restraints sold in the U.S. must conform with the minimu performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. The standard also sets out the test procedures that are used to measure the performance of child restraints. There are no other performance requirements or test procedures applicable to child restraints. I am enclosing a copy of the standard.; You are not required to obtain a permit or license from this agenc prior to selling a child restraint in the U.S., nor are you required to obtain approval from any U.S. testing organization. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are required by Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*, of our regulation to submit certain identifying information to the agency. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566.; In addition, you would be required by the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1392 *et seq*.) to certify that your child restraint complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under the Act, you would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign for any safety-related defect in your product. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, which defines your responsibilities as a manufacturer.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel