ID: 22837ogm

Mr. James Arnold
MAC Trailer Manufacturing Inc.
14599 Commerce Street
Alliance, OH 44601

Dear Mr. Arnold:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You indicate that your company manufactures truck trailers for highway use. Your letter further indicates that a number of your dealers have asked that your company produce trailers equipped with a certain item of equipment to satisfy the antilock brake systems (ABS) requirements of FMVSS No. 121. The device in question, marketed by its manufacturer Air Brake Systems, Inc. (ABS, Inc.) as the MSQR-5000, is described in promotional material from ABS, Inc. as a "Differential Pressure Regulator Quick Release Valve." You have also attached a document from ABS, Inc. that contains a number of representations relating to the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 and concludes as follows:

Air Brake Systems Inc. hereby certifies that the MSQR-5000^TM anti-lock brake system fully satisfies the definition of anti-lock brakes as required by 49 CFR 571.121 and exceeds the performance requirements of 49 CFR 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii). (Warning light excluded thereto.) ABS Brakes, Inc. Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 USA

Based on the aforementioned materials, you ask if a trailer equipped with the MSQR-5000 "system" installed as means of meeting ABS requirements would meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 121.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. With certain exceptions related to special configurations, FMVSS No. 121 applies to vehicles - trucks, buses, and trailers - with air brake systems.

As an equipment manufacturer, ABS, Inc., is not required to certify compliance of its product to FMVSS No. 121, but any vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that its vehicle complies with all the requirements of FMVSS No. 121. It is not uncommon for a vehicle manufacturer to request information from an equipment manufacturer. However, the responsibility for compliance with FMVSS No. 121 and for certification of compliance rests with the vehicle manufacturer. As we have stated before, it is our opinion that reliance by a vehicle manufacturer solely on "certification of compliance" provided by an equipment manufacturer, without more, is not legally sufficient. Moreover, should it be determined that a vehicle does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect, the recall and remedy obligations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would fall upon the vehicle manufacturer and not the equipment manufacturer which supplied particular equipment. See 49 CFR Part 579. Possible liability in tort under state law could fall upon both the vehicle manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer. A private attorney could advise you about this possibility.

The following represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter, the attachments provided with your letter and agency review of other data obtained from ABS, Inc.

In marketing and selling the MSQR-5000, ABS, Inc., has represented, in advertisements, promotional materials and in direct contact with potential customers, that the MSQR-5000 is an ABS whose installation in a vehicle will result in the vehicle meeting the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121). The configuration of the MSQR-5000 and the fact that the device has no electrical or electronic components has apparently led some potential customers of ABS, Inc. to ask NHTSA if the MSQR-5000 is a device which, if installed on a vehicle, would allow that vehicle to meet the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121. As discussed below, based on a review of the promotional materials describing the device and the principles involved in its operation, it is NHTSA's view that the installation of the MSQR-5000 alone would not allow a vehicle to meet FMVSS No. 121's ABS requirement.

Among other things, FMVSS No. 121 requires that trailers (S5.2.3) and trucks (S5.1.6) be equipped with an ABS. For the purposes of FMVSS No. 121, ABS is defined in S4 of the standard as follows:

Antilock brake system or ABS means a portion of a service brake system that automatically controls the degree of rotational wheel slip during braking by:

(1) Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels;

(2) Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular rotation to one or more controlling devices which interpret those signals and generate responsive controlling output signals; and

(3) Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more modulators which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those signals.

In addition, in order to ensure that vehicle owners and operators have knowledge of the status of an ABS system installed on a truck, truck tractor or trailer, FMVSS No. 121 also contains extensive and detailed requirements for malfunction indicators that illuminate a light when the ABS is not working properly. These requirements, found in S5.1.6.2, S5.1.6.3 and S5.2.3.2, specify that a truck, truck tractor or trailer must have an electrical circuit that is capable of signaling a malfunction in the vehicle's antilock brake system, and must have the means for connection of this antilock brake system malfunction signal circuit to a trailer or towing vehicle. Such a signal must be present whenever there is a malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of response or control signals in the antilock brake system. The signal must remain present as long as the malfunction exists, whenever power is supplied to the antilock brake system, and each message about the existence of such a malfunction must be stored in the antilock brake system whenever power is no longer supplied to it.

The ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 were incorporated into the standard by a final rule published in the Federal Register on March 10, 1995 (60 FR 13216). In the preamble to that final rule, the agency noted that 10 to 15 percent of heavy combination vehicle crashes involved braking induced instability or loss of control. These crashes resulted in significant property damage, injury and loss of life. In order to address the safety consequences of braking related instability, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 121 to require effective antilock braking systems.

One of the primary considerations in developing the new requirements was what, at a minimum, an antilock braking system must do in order to prevent or reduce crashes. The agency determined that due to the wide range of surfaces a vehicle may encounter in normal use, an effective ABS system must have the ability to determine if and when a braked wheel is momentarily locked as it passes from high to low traction conditions. Because of such varying conditions, the agency determined that any effective ABS must be a "closed loop" system - i.e., a system that continuously monitors the rate of wheel rotation, adjusts that wheel rotation when needed and reacts to ongoing changes in rotation caused by the operation of the system, changing road surfaces or both (60 FR 13217). Similarly, NHTSA determined that warning light requirements that established a minimum level of safety were also important for reducing crashes, deaths and injuries. The warning light requirements would inform operators of an ABS malfunction and both facilitate and encourage repairs of faulty ABS systems (60 FR 13244).

The MSQR-5000 appears to lack one or more features that an ABS must have to meet FMVSS No. 121. Based on literature provided to us, the MSQR-5000 does not seem to have any means of automatically controlling wheel slip during braking by sensing, analyzing, and modulating the rate of angular rotation of a wheel or wheels. The components identified and described in the MSQR-5000 promotional materials do not have a means for measuring wheel rotation, recognizing wheel lockup, controlling or modulating brake pressure to a locked wheel, or preventing one or more wheels from locking if a driver applies maximum brake pressure to the system. Therefore, standing alone, the MSQR-5000 does not satisfy the definition of ABS as set forth in FMVSS No. 121.

In addition, the MSQR-5000 also appears to lack any provision for illuminating a warning light providing notification of an ABS malfunction. In fact, the materials distributed by ABS, Inc., including the "Certification of Compliance, "indicate that the company believes that the ABS warning light requirements of FMVSS No. 121 are "excluded"by virtue of a decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit in the case of Washington v. Department of Transportation, 84 F.3d 1222 (1996).

The Washington case involved a challenge to the validity of FMVSS No. 121's ABS requirements on two grounds - that the requirements conflicted with existing Federal Highway Administration regulations governing motor carriers and that NHTSA exceeded its authority in issuing the rule by establishing that an ABS must have certain characteristics. Mr. Washington argued that the requirement that an ABS have certain minimum characteristics unduly restrained design choices. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NHTSA in regard to both of these claims. Moreover, while the Court's decision discussed the fact that manufacturers may apply for an exemption from an existing standard or petition the agency to modify an existing standard, the decision did not provide for any such exemption or "exclusion"for ABS, Inc., or any other manufacturer. The claims now made by ABS, Inc. - that the ABS warning light requirements of FMVSS No. 121 were "excluded,"or that ABS, Inc. is exempt from meeting this requirement - are incorrect. Similarly, any assertion that the Court of Appeals found that FMVSS No. 121 unduly restricted design choices is in error.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref.121
d.6/4/01

Addendum: 09/26/01

At the request of Air Brake Systems, Inc. ("ABS, Inc."), the opinions stated in the foregoing letter are under further consideration by the agency, based, in part, on additional materials that ABS, Inc. has provided, or may submit, to the agency in the near future. The agency is now undertaking further review, after which NHTSA will, if appropriate, issue a revised interpretation to MAC Trailer.

ID: 005738rbm

Mr. Paul Schockmel
Marketing Manager
International Electronics and Engineering S.A.
Zone Industrielle Findel
2b, route de Treves
L-2632 Luxembourg

Dear Mr. Schmockmel:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-size adults. The requirements in S19, S21, and S23 are designed to minimize the risk that air bags pose to infants and small children. S19 provides manufacturers with two different options for complying with the standard (low risk deployment or automatic suppression), while S21 and S23 provide three options (low risk deployment, automatic suppression, or dynamic automatic suppression). Your questions are related to the interplay between the infant low risk deployment option and the infant automatic suppression option, particularly in light of the absence of a dynamic automatic suppression option for infants. I am pleased to provide a response.

You first request an interpretation of the requirement set forth in S19, and the test procedure provided in S20.4, relating to the low risk deployment option for infants. Specifically, you ask whether a system that is certified to the low risk deployment option for infants can suppress the air bag when the applicable child restraint is in the rear-facing mode, and either suppress or deploy when the restraint is placed in the forward-facing mode. The answer to the first part of this question is no. Under the low risk deployment option, one or more stages of the air bag must deploy when the restraint is rear-facing. The answer to the second part of your question is yes. If a system is certified to the low risk deployment option for infants, we will deploy the air bag as specified in S20.4. Thus, injury measurements are only recorded when the child restraint is in the rear-facing mode.

The requirements for the infant low risk deployment option are found at S19.3, which states that "each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when the passenger air bag is deployed in accordance with the procedures specified in S20.4." The low risk deployment option is designed to address injuries that can result when an infant is very close to the air bag.

S20.4 specifies several conditions for testing the deploying air bag. First, the manufacturer must assure compliance to S19.3 using any child restraint listed in subparts B and C of Appendix A to the standard. For purposes of S19.3, the air bag is only tested with the child restraints in their rear-facing condition. Under the specified test conditions, the vehicle seat is moved as far forward as possible, while avoiding contact with the vehicle interior. This is done to ensure that the dummy's head is placed as close to the deploying air bag as possible. The air bag is only tested with the child restraint in a belted condition.

The air bag is deployed at whatever level of force and combination of stages that would deploy in any rigid barrier crash up to 64 km/h (40 mph) when a test dummy is positioned in a restraint as specified in the test procedure, except that the vehicle seat may be at any seat track position. This level is determined by running an indicant test, as described in S20.4.9, at impact speeds up to 40 mph with a dummy-occupied restraint installed in the passenger seat.

When NHTSA runs a compliance test on a vehicle certified to S19.3, it will only deploy the air bag at the level and, if equipped with a multi-stage inflator, with the combination of stages, that would deploy in the specified indicant test. Manufacturers may not use suppression technology to ensure that there will be no air bag deployment in the indicant test if they are certifying to the low risk deployment option.

Your second question relates to the absence of a dynamic automatic suppression option in S19. Specifically, you ask whether a manufacturer may use a system whereby the air bag is suppressed in all but the forward-facing mode, where a benign deployment strategy would be used. This option is not currently allowed under S19. This is because such a system would not meet either the low risk deployment option or the automatic suppression option. Should the agency add a third, dynamic suppression option to S19, such a compliance strategy would be allowed as long as all the criteria of that option were met in full.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.10/7/03

ID: 08_003235--sa--08 June 24

ID: 86-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Brenda Hartman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you are considering. In your letter, you asked the agency not to disclose your idea for this product. In a phone conversation of April 28, 1986, with Stephen Oesch of my staff, you waived your request for complete nondisclosure and agreed to the disclosure of a generic description of your product. As you requested, we will not disclose the specific details of your product or the sketches you enclosed with your letter.

Your product is designed to reduce the possibility that a young child could unbuckle a vehicle safety belt. The product would enclose the buckle of the safety belt, so that it is difficult for a child to operate the buckle release.

We have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains our reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. 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 other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy 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 has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

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)

In addition, use of your product can be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One requirement of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is that the pushbutton release for a safety belt must have a a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business could be prohibited since it apparently would substantially reduce the minimum area available for applying the release force to the safety belt pushbutton. In addition, Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that the safety belt no longer meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person could be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

THIS IS A PROPIATARY IDEA, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE.

February 27, 1986

Erika Jones Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

RE: Inquiry of safety standards.

Dear Miss Jones,

I am submitting to you my idea. I would like to know if there are any safety standards which may prohibit me from proceeding with such a product.

I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and would like a response at your earliest convience.

Sincerely,

Brenda Hartman 8617 CRESTON PINCKNEY, MI 48169 (313) 878-2413

ID: 2658o

Mr. Gary W. Rossow
Director, Government Technical Affairs
Freightliner Corporation
Charlotte Technical Center
9844 Southern Pine Boulevard
P.O. Box 7562
Charlotte, NC 282l7

Dear Mr. Rossow:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems. You asked whether a proposed design would meet the requirements of S5.l.2. Your question is responded to below.

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

Under section S5.l.2, trucks and buses are required to have the following equipment:

"Reservoirs. One or more service reservoir systems, from which air is delivered to the brake chambers, and either an automatic condensate drain valve for each service reservoir or a supply reservoir between the service reservoir system and the source of air pressure.

You stated that some of your existing air braked trucks utilize a supply reservoir or wet tank between the service reservoir system and the air compressor without using automatic condensate drain valves on the service reservoirs. You noted that the supply reservoir functions as a means of removing excess water vapor from the air supply to avoid water contamination of the braking system and works on thermodynamic principles whereby water condenses to a liquid as the hot compressed air cools.

Your proposed design would utilize an air dryer between the service reservoir system and the air compressor. According to your letter, the air dryer serves the same function as the supply reservoir in your existing system but works on a different principle. You stated that the moist, compressed air passes through a filter media contained in a small canister sized reservoir. The material, a desiccant, has a high chemical affinity for water. The water absorbs on the desiccant and is later purged by stored dry air. The air dryer would have an integral automatic condensate drain valve.

Since your proposed design would not include an automatic condensate drain valve for each service reservoir, the issue raised by your letter is whether it complies with S5.l.2's option for "a supply reservoir between the service reservoir system and the source of air pressure." You stated that you believe the air dryer with automatic condensate drain is the functional equivalent of the more generally accepted embodiment of a supply reservoir in the context of S5.l.2. You also noted that Standard No. l2l does not specify a separate volume for the supply reservoir, although it does require in S5.l.2.l that the combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs be at least l2 times the total service brake chamber volume. You suggested that if the volume of the service reservoirs is l2 times the volume of the service brake chambers, it would appear that there is no requirement for a specific volume in the supply reservoir.

While Standard No. l2l does not include a definition for "supply reservoir," the term is one that is commonly understood. For example, you indicated in your letter that some of your current brake system designs utilize the "more generally accepted embodiment of a supply reservoir."

In considering whether a particular item of equipment can be considered a "supply reservoir," we believe that effect must be given to both "supply" and "reservoir." The dictionary defines "reservoir" as "a receptacle or chamber for holding a liquid or fluid, as oil or gas." The word "supply" is defined as "to furnish or provide." Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines "air reservoir" as "(a) storage container for compressed air." SAE Recommended Practice J656g, "Automotive Brake Definitions and Nomenclature."

Thus, in order to qualify as a "supply reservoir," an item of equipment must hold or store air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system. The information provided with your letter does not provide sufficient information to determine whether your air dryer qualifies as a "supply reservoir." In particular, the information does not indicate whether the air dryer holds other than a de minimis amount of air. While your letter is correct that there is no requirement for a specific volume in the supply reservoir if the volume of the service reservoirs is l2 times the volume of the service brake chambers, an air dryer with a de minimis volume could not be considered to hold or store air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system. On the other hand, if a supply reservoir provides an air cleaning function as well as holding or storing air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system, it would still be a supply reservoir.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ NCC-20:EGlancy:mar:2/2/88:Wang l959o:62992:OCC 926 CONCURRENCE: NRM-0l, NEF-0l cc: NRM-0l, NEF-0l Redbook, Std. l2l Interps, Std. l2l

ID: 2672o

Mr. Gary W. Rossow
Director, Government Technical Affairs
Freightliner Corporation
Charlotte Technical Center
9844 Southern Pine Boulevard
P.O. Box 7562
Charlotte, NC 282l7

Dear Mr. Rossow:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems. You asked whether a proposed design would meet the requirements of S5.l.2. Your question is responded to below.

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

Under section S5.l.2, trucks and buses are required to have the following equipment:

"Reservoirs. One or more service reservoir systems, from which air is delivered to the brake chambers, and either an automatic condensate drain valve for each service reservoir or a supply reservoir between the service reservoir system and the source of air pressure.

You stated that some of your existing air braked trucks utilize a supply reservoir or wet tank between the service reservoir system and the air compressor without using automatic condensate drain valves on the service reservoirs. You noted that the supply reservoir functions as a means of removing excess water vapor from the air supply to avoid water contamination of the braking system and works on thermodynamic principles whereby water condenses to a liquid as the hot compressed air cools.

Your proposed design would utilize an air dryer between the service reservoir system and the air compressor. According to your letter, the air dryer serves the same function as the supply reservoir in your existing system but works on a different principle. You stated that the moist, compressed air passes through a filter media contained in a small canister sized reservoir. The material, a desiccant, has a high chemical affinity for water. The water absorbs on the desiccant and is later purged by stored dry air. The air dryer would have an integral automatic condensate drain valve.

Since your proposed design would not include an automatic condensate drain valve for each service reservoir, the issue raised by your letter is whether it complies with S5.l.2's option for "a supply reservoir between the service reservoir system and the source of air pressure." You stated that you believe the air dryer with automatic condensate drain is the functional equivalent of the more generally accepted embodiment of a supply reservoir in the context of S5.l.2. You also noted that Standard No. l2l does not specify a separate volume for the supply reservoir, although it does require in S5.l.2.l that the combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs be at least l2 times the total service brake chamber volume. You suggested that if the volume of the service reservoirs is l2 times the volume of the service brake chambers, it would appear that there is no requirement for a specific volume in the supply reservoir.

While Standard No. l2l does not include a definition for "supply reservoir," the term is one that is commonly understood. For example, you indicated in your letter that some of your current brake system designs utilize the "more generally accepted embodiment of a supply reservoir."

In considering whether a particular item of equipment can be considered a "supply reservoir," we believe that effect must be given to both "supply" and "reservoir." The dictionary defines "reservoir" as "a receptacle or chamber for holding a liquid or fluid, as oil or gas." The word "supply" is defined as "to furnish or provide." Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines "air reservoir" as "(a) storage container for compressed air." SAE Recommended Practice J656g, "Automotive Brake Definitions and Nomenclature."

Thus, in order to qualify as a "supply reservoir," an item of equipment must hold or store air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system. The information provided with your letter does not provide sufficient information to determine whether your air dryer qualifies as a "supply reservoir." In particular, the information does not indicate whether the air dryer holds other than a de minimis amount of air. While your letter is correct that there is no requirement for a specific volume in the supply reservoir if the volume of the service reservoirs is l2 times the volume of the service brake chambers, an air dryer with a de minimis volume could not be considered to hold or store air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system. On the other hand, if a supply reservoir provides an air cleaning function as well as holding or storing air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system, it would still be a supply reservoir.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:121 d:2/18/88

ID: 24459.ztv

Mr. Steve Karcz
Helmetlight, Inc.
P.O. Box 190151
Anchorage, AK 99519

Dear Mr. Karcz:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 2002, with reference to your "Lead-Dog Helmet Light" intended for motorcycle operators.You asked whether there are "Federal issues" involved with it.

You related that the Helmet Light "is wired to the motorcycles existing headlight, taillight, and brake light wires," and then, "attached to the riders helmet with VELCRO." You stated further that "our headlight is wired into the high beam wire of the motorcycle and controlled by the high/low beam switch." When the Helmet Light is on, "our housing illuminates red creating a second, more visible taillight atop the helmet." Finally, "our brake light is wired to the motorcycles brake light wire and activated by the brake light switch. . . ." We note from your website that the light source is described as a "35 watt halogen spotlight."

I enclose a copy of an interpretation of this Office dated May 22, 1992, to Larry Nunn of Automotive Lighting Technologies regarding a similar invention. This letter will provide you with our views on the relationship to your invention of the laws that we administer. Our views remain the same today. However, the relevant statute was recodified in 1994. As a result, the statutory references in the 1992 letter have changed."Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4))" defining "motor vehicle equipment," is now 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7). "Section 108(a)(2)(A)" relating to post-sale vehicle modifications has become 49 U.S.C. 30122. Finally, "sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419)" concerning recall and remedy are now 49 U.S.C. 30117-30121.

In brief, Helmet Light is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Safety Act. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to motor vehicle equipment that is designed to be attached to a motorcycle helmet and connected with the wiring system of a motorcycle. We are concerned, however, about the potential effects of Helmet Light on compliance of the helmet to which it is attached, with FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, and of the motorcycle with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, when Helmet Light is connected with the wiring system.

Specifically, FMVSS No. 218 (S5.5) prohibits a motorcycle helmet from having a rigid projection on the outside of a helmet shell, except for "those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm)." We do not regard Helmet Light as an "essential accessory" within the meaning of the phrase. This means that a motorcycle helmet to which Helmet Light is attached would not comply with FMVSS No. 218. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), it is a violation to manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale a motorcycle helmet that fails to comply with FMVSS No. 218. This means that a helmet may not be sold with Helmet Light attached, or as part of the sale of a new helmet. Whether it is legal for a person to operate a motorcycle while wearing a helmet with Helmet Light attached is not a Federal question, but a question to be answered under the laws of each jurisdiction in which Helmet Light is used.

Individual items of lighting equipment on motor vehicles are required to meet specified minimum candela at certain specified test points. We would have a safety concern if connection of Helmet Light to the motorcycle lighting system in some manner reduced candela at any test point of any lamp below the minimum specified in the standard so that the motorcycle no longer complied with the specifications of FMVSS No. 108 when Helmet Light was operating.

We are also concerned about the potential glare effects of the use of Helmet Light, which you further describe as a "35 halogen watt spot lamp." You advise on your web site "NEVER point spot lamp at another persons eyes, you may temporarily affect their vision."This caution indicates that there is a distinct possibility of glare when a motorcyclist wearing a Helmet Light turns his or her head side to the side when approaching a crossroads or corner, or when the light is projected into the interior and exterior rearview mirrors of a vehicle ahead. Glare is a current issue of great public concern, and the agency has received several hundred letters relating to headlamps and daytime running lamps.

We would be especially concerned if the "35 halogen watt spot lamp" were distracting to the point that an oncoming driver would fail to notice the motorcycles front turn signals when they were operating. Lighting equipment other than that specified by FMVSS No. 108 is not permissible as original equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment such as turn signal lamps. Although Helmet Light is not an item of original motorcycle lighting equipment, it becomes part of the overall motorcycle lighting and conspicuity package when it is used and there are sound safety reasons that the same principle should apply, that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

However, there is no Federal prohibition on the sale of Helmet Light as a vehicle accessory independent of the sale of a motorcycle helmet. As noted above, State laws determine whether it is legal to operate a motorcycle while wearing a Helmet Light.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/23/02

ID: nht79-3.27

DATE: 04/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Valley Presbyterian Hospital

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 16, 1979 NOA-30

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President Valley Presbyterian Hospital 15107 Vanowen Street Van Nuys, California 91405

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1979, concerning the computerized anti-theft device developed by the BBJ partnership.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been developing over the past several years an upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, Theft Protection. I have enclosed a copy of the standard now in effect and our recent proposed amendment. You should be aware, however, that in response to comments this proposal may be modified prior to its issuance in final form.

The approach of the NHTSA in issuing motor vehicle safety standards is to establish minimum standards with which all manufacturers must comply. It is our hope that manufacturers will exceed these minimum standards in a way which offers the public greater protection, either throughout an entire vehicle line or by optional equipment which a purchaser may buy. Your device appears to fall in this latter category.

The NHTSA does not provide evaluations or approvals of inventions, and we would be unable to advise you whether a vehicle equipped with your device would comply with Standard No. 114 without a more complete description. Based on the information you have provided, however, your device does not appear to conflict with the Standard as currently established. Should you have any specific questions in this regard after reading the enclosed material, please call (202-426-1834) or write Frederic Schwartz, Jr. of my office who will be able to assist you further. You should also be aware that if your device is meant to be installed by the owner of a vehicle after the vehicle is sold by the dealer, the Standard would not apply.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 7, 1979

Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

I believe that, at times, the best way is the most direct. Cognizant of your long and dedicated search for improvement in traffic safety, I am encouraged to address one important aspect of that search - automobile theft and its concommitant social and economic impact.

Congress Henry Waxman was king enough to establish the initial contact. I would like now to follow up in some detail to evoke your evaluation.

BBJ, a California partnership in which I am involved, has developed an anti-theft device known as the CAT* (Computerized Anti-Theft) system. Briefly, it is our representation that the device will totally protect against theft of any automobile, except by towing even though the key be left in the ignition. This is accomplished by employing the most advanced micro-processor technology to control the automobile's electric system. Use of the vehicle is restricted to the owner and those to whom he may have made the special coding feature known. The owner may elect to activate the device or not; if he chooses "no activation", the car will perform in an entirely normal manner. When activated, however, the vehicle cannot be "wired around" tampered with or moved by any of the conventional methods used by professional or amateur thieves. It does, in effect, guarantee against all known methodologies of theft. This complete security system comes packaged in a unit the size of a hand-held digital calculator.

* Patent applied for

During the course of a telephone conversation last month with Mr. Carl Nash, he was kind enough to agree to send a copy of the 1981 anti-theft requirements with which the automobile industry must comply. While I have not yet received them, my understanding is that they deal largely with peripherical modification such as recessed door latches, steering wheel locks, hood latches and the like. While these undoubedly act as deterrents, they are not fool-proof. We believe that our device, which will permit the hood, trunk and doors to remain open with the key in the ignition, meets and surpasses the intent of the regulations -which is to prevent car theft.

Increasingly sophisticated systems are appearing, all ranging from $250 to $1,000 - well beyond the practical reach of most car owners. Our device, in production quantities, will have a manufacturing cost of $30.00 - $40.00 and a retail cost of about $100. Furthermore, all other systems of which we are aware can be "wired around" or otherwise thwarted; we stipulate that ours cannot.

It would be most helpful in introducing the "CAT" system as the ultimate solution to car theft to have your administration's evaluation as to whether the device does indeed meet the 1981 regulations as we believe.

Any guidance you might give will be warmly appreciated not only by BBJ, but by the tens of thousands who each year are subjected to the trauma and inconvenience - both physical and economic - of automobile theft.

Sincerely,

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President

HXJ:dds

ID: nht89-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SHUICHI WATANABE -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD. JAPAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3/27/89 FROM SHUICHI WATANABE OF STANLEY ELECTRIC CO OF JAPAN TO ERIKA JONES OF NHTSA RE: MEASUREMENT OF INCIDENT LIGHT ANGLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to measurement of the incident light angle prescribed by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You have submitted six Figures for our consideration and reply. I regret the delay in r esponding.

Paragraph 6.5 (not 5.3.3) of SAE Standard J587 OCT81 License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps) states:

"When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg. to the plane of the plate, this angle be ing measured from the edge of the light emitting surface of the device farthest from the surface of the plate (see Fig. 3)."

With respect to your Figure A, you comment that, in order to determine the farthest point on the light emitting surface, "only the distance '1' between license plate and a plane runs parallel to it should be considered and not by distance 'm' nor 'n'".

In examining Figure 3 of SAE J587, you will note that the incident angle is measured by a line that extends from the edge of the light emitting surface of the lamp that is the farthest from the most distant point on the plate that the light can be expect ed to reach, to that point. With respect to your Figure A, the line "n" that extends from the edge of the lamp "p" to the bottom of the plate replicates the line shown in Figure 3, and thus is the correct one, not the perpendicular line "1".

Similarly, with respect to Figure B, a round license plate lamp, a line must be drawn from the bottom of the plate (such as line "n" in Figure A) to the farthest light emitting surface surface of the lamp (as shown in Figure 3, not your Figure B) in orde r to illustrate the farthest point.

With respect to Figures C and D, you have asked: "But if the farthest point can exist so may on a line or a plane . . . how could it be determined? Should it be for instance, left end, right end or center of them?" Figure C appears to depict an elongate d lamp in which "p"s are depicted at the left end, right end, and center. In this instance, "P2" is the edge of the light farthest from the surface of the plate, as represented by corner "Q". Though "Po" represents an edge of the lamp, at no place on t he plate is it the point "farthest from the surface of the plate". Thus, the measurement from "Q" to the tangent of the light emitting surface near "P2" is the line to be used to measure the 8 degree minimum angle.

Figure D appears also to represent an elongated lamp but one in which the lens area is directed more towards the plate. In this Figure, "P" is the edge of the lamp that is farthest from the plate. But because of the configuration of the lamp, light fro m this point is interrupted by a part other than a lens and cannot shine directly upon the plate. Your points "P1", "P0", and "P2" appear to indicate the points on the lamp surface where such interruption ceases and light shines directly upon the plate. Therefore, it is our opinion that in this instance "P2" is the edge of the lamp farthest from the plate, as represented by corner "Q".

You have also asked the same question with respect to Figures E and F. These Figures represent lamp designs with two light sources. However, in Figure E, the two light sources appear incorporated in a single lamp, and the requirements of paragraph 6.5 still apply. Thus, a line from Q, tangent to the light emitting surface of the lens near the point "P3" (and not your line "Q-"P3"), is the correct reference for angle measurement. Figure F, however, depicts the light sources as compartmentalized, and thus may be regarded as a two-lamp device. Paragraph 6.6 of SAE J587 establishes the requirement for two or more license plate lamps. It states:

"When two or more lamps are used to illuminate the plate, the minimum 8 deg incident light angle shall apply only to that portion of the plate which the particular lamp is designed to illuminate. The incident light angle shall be measured in the same wa y as provided in paragraph 6.5."

Under these circumstances the light emitting edge of the lamp farthest from the surface of the plate is the furthest edge of the lamp illuminating that portion of the plate, here represented by "P2". Thus, the angle to be measured would be determined wi th reference to a tangent line to the light emitting surface near "P2", from corner "Q".

I hope that this has answered your questions.

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-5.18

DATE: August 8, 1991

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

TO: H. George Johannessen, P.E. -- Chairman, Seat Belt Technical Committee, Automotive Occupant Restraints Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-22-91 from H. George Johannessen, P.E. to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5858)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). More specifically, you asked about the meaning of the requirement in S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 that "...the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this provision.

You explained that some have asserted that a safety belt fails to comply with S4.1(b) if it actually moves off an occupant's pelvis during a crash. To reach such a conclusion, one must ignore the words "be designed to" and treat the requirement as though it read "...the pelvic restraint shall remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." Such a reading is plainly incorrect, because it reads the phrase "be designed to" out of the regulation.

You explained that you believe S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory phrase that is essentially meaningless. According to your letter, this language first appeared in a standard developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and was subsequently adopted verbatim in the safety belt standard issued by the Department of Commerce and in Standard No. 209. You asserted that the SAE committee that developed this language included it as a design goal only, since the committee members "were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal," and "were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field."

We cannot agree with your suggestion that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory design goal. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires each safety standard to meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that the standard be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. When NHTSA adopted Standard No. 209 as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency concluded that Standard No. 209, including S4.1(b), met all applicable statutory criteria.

It is true that there is no compliance test procedure specifically for S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. However, the meaning of that provision becomes clear when it is viewed in the context of the occupant protection requirements in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No.

210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and the rest of Standard No. 209. Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that vehicles be equipped with safety belts and that the lap belt portions of those belts adjust to fit persons ranging in size from a 6-year-old child to a 95th percentile adult male (See S7.1.1). Standard No. 209 requires that safety belts meet specified strength, durability, and other performance requirements. Standard No. 210 requires that the anchorage holding the safety belt in the vehicle meet stringent strength requirements, so that the belt will remain attached to the vehicle in a crash, and lap belt location requirements (S4.3.1), including a minimum lap belt mounting angle, to reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining, i.e., having the lap belt move off the pelvis. See the detailed discussion of the minimum lap belt mounting angle at 55 FR 17970, at 17974; April 30, 1990.

Viewed in this context, we believe that the requirement of S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 means that safety belts must be designed to be capable of being properly adjusted and positioned on the pelvis of occupants ranging from 6-year-old children to 95th percentile adult males. The belts must also be capable of remaining on the pelvis of such occupant during collision or roll-over. A belt system that was not capable of being positioned on the pelvis and remaining there during crashes would not comply with S4.1(b).

Given this meaning and purpose, we offer the following observations. First, the fact that a lap belt moved off the occupant's pelvis during a collision would NOT of itself show that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. Compliance with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is determined by the design of the safety belt system, not the performance of individual safety belts while in service. Second, the actual performance of a safety belt in a vehicle (e.g., a lap belt moving off the occupant's pelvis during a crash) COULD indicate that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. If the agency had information indicating that a particular belt design was not capable of being properly positioned on the pelvis or not capable of remaining on the occupant's pelvis when installed in particular vehicles in particular crash modes, the agency might well investigate whether that safety belt design complied with S4.1(b). However, NHTSA has no such information about any safety belt systems at this time.