ID: nht94-4.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 24, 1994

FROM: Bryan J Williams -- Director, International Operations, Red Spot Paint And Varnish Co., Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office Of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: REF: Request For Written Interpretation / FMVSS108 and AAMVA Listing

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO BRYAN J. WILLIAMS (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co. Inc. is a manufacturer of specialty coatings for plastics. Our major market is for automotive applications; one of which is UV Curable SRC coatings for polycarbonate headlamp lenses. These products (specifically UVT200) pro vide abrasion resistance properties as well as protecting the plastic lens from the deleterious effects of outdoor exposure.

UVT200 has approvals from Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Chrysler Corporation for application on polycarbonate headlamp lenses to Specifications ESB-M80J-3A, MG5060 and MS-PP5-5 respectively. The coating was approved following the completion of 3 year Florida and Arizona weathering; measurements indicating the coating's conformity to the standards of SAEJ576(c) [1970] ref: chromaticity, haze, luminous transmittance and appearance were performed by the Red Spot Test Laboratory (which has "Self C ertifying" status from these US automakers.) The coating is currently being used in production at finishers for all three of these OEMs; there have been no questions about the "acceptability" of this coating on polycarbonate from any US State or Territor y.

I have received several requests from overseas headlamp manufacturers (potential users of UVT200) with respect to the fact that UVT200 does not appear on the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) "Listing of Acceptable Plastics for Optical Lenses and Reflectors Used on Motor Vehicles."

The question for which written interpretation is requested is as follows:

Must a coating for plastic (polycarbonate) headlamp lenses appear on the AAMVA "Listing . . ." in order to meet the requirements of FMVSS108?

The perception exists among overseas headlamp manufacturers that AAMVA Listing of a coating is required by Federal Law . . . that appearance on this list is a prerequisite for the certification to FMVSS108 standards.

Your written comments clarifying the status of AAMVA (and their "Listing . . ." publication) and its relationship to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are requested.

Please respond via facsimile to (812) 467-2388 to my attention.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and I shall await your response. If you have questions or find issues which require further clarification, please contact me directly: Bryan J Williams

Director, International Operations

Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co. Inc.

1111 East Louisiana Street

Evansville IN 47711

P: (812) 428-9192

F: (812) 467-2388

ID: nht94-4.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1994

FROM: Ken Daining -- Supervisor, Vehicle Test and Development, ITT Automotive

TO: Marvin Shaw -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO KEN DAINING (REDBOOK (2)); STD. 105

TEXT: I received your name through a recent phone conversation with Mr. George Soodoo. I work for ITT Automotive as the supervisor of the Chrysler vehicle ABS/TCS test and development department. I am interested in obtaining information relating to any existi ng (or future) legislation on the legalities of an ABS on/off switch. Currently, Chrysler Jeep owners which enjoy serious off-road driving, disengage their ABS because of the perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations. One proposal being kicked around is the possibility of automatically disengaging ABS function through the shifting of the vehicle into the 4WD-LO configuration (as most serious off-roaders do today). Any information you can provide will be very helpful. Thank you for your time and cooperation.

ID: nht94-4.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 24, 1994

FROM: Mariano Garcia -- Ricca & Whitmire

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Whether or not the D.O.T. regulates the manufacturing or certification of Kawasaki "Mule" KAF 450-B1

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Mariano Garcia (A43; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern:

This is to request a brief statement regarding whether or not the above referenced vehicle is covered by D.O.T. Regulations. I attach a brochure for your reference. This vehicle is primarily used as an "off-road" light utility vehicle.

Therefore, please state if any regulations apply. I sincerely appreciate your help and response.

Sincerely

Enclosure:

Mule 1000/2510 brochure.

(Text omitted. See original document.)

ID: nht94-4.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 25, 1994

FROM: Matt Decker -- Project Engineer, Wenger Corporation

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Petition for Exemption of FMVSS 108 (Section only with reference to the addition of trailer conspicuity)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/16/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MATT DECKER (A42; STD. 108; PART 555)

TEXT: The Wenger Corporation of Owatonna, Minnesota, U.S.A. is petitioning for exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment as it relates to the conspicuity treatment in S5.7 (effective date December 1, 1993).

The Wenger Corporation manufactures and sells a complete line of music education and performance equipment. Wenger Showmobiles, mobile performance stages in trailer form, are offered and sold primarily to city municipalities such as Park and Recreation Departments throughout the United States. As you can see from the enclosed advertising literature, aesthetics is of major concern to our customers. The addition of the conspicuity striping is unacceptable for many of our potential customers because of how it would impact their graphics on the sides and rear of the product.

The annual sales volume for this particular product is approximately 20 (twenty). The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) is 13500 lbs. Average annual mileage after delivery of this product ranges from a low of 25 miles to a high of 500 miles. Our cust omers generally store this product within their city yards. This product is typically towed by a 1-1/2 ton pick-up truck or city truck to the performance site which is normally within the city limits. The performance sites can vary from a closed off st reet to the middle of a city park.

In summary the Wenger Showmobile product is a low mileage vehicle that is generally parked off-road at night, either on private city property or city parks. Exterior appearance (graphics) is very important to owners of this product. With utmost importa nce it is Wenger Corporation's opinion that exemption from the conspicuity requirement would not have an adverse effect upon safety with regards to the Showmobile product.

Please review the information included with this petition and offer your ruling as soon as possible. If there are any questions relating to this petition please direct them by telephone or in writing to:

The Wenger Corporation

Attention: Matt Decker

555 Park Drive Owatonna, MN 55060

Telephone: (507) 455-4100 Ext. 174

ID: nht94-4.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Platt, Debra, (Florida)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 8/29/94 Letter From Debra Platt To NHTSA Office Of Chief Council (OCC 10334)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 29, 1994, in which you inquire whether a child "partially sitting on a bus seat [is] provided crash protection of Standard 222." You explain that you were referring to a third child sitting on the edge of a bus seat nearest the aisle. The child can only face the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward, because the bench seat is overcrowded.

Some background information would be helpful in responding to your question. 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966) provides this agency the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each new vehicle or item of equipment that is sold to the consumer must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on its date of manufacture. However, once the vehicle or equipment is sold, the use of that product becomes a matter of State jurisdiction. NHTSA has no authority to regulate the operation of used vehicles or items of equipment.

With respect to school buses, it has been shown that school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in America (see enclosed School Bus Safety Report, May 1993). Every year, approximately 380,000 public school buses travel approx imately 3.8 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school related activities. Occupant deaths per vehicle mile travelled in school buses are about one-fourth those in passenger cars. Crash protection in large school buses , those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds and which typically seat 16 or more, is provided by "compartmentalization." That concept requires strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed and evenly-spaced seats for school b us occupant protection. Compartmentalization has been shown to be effective by independent studies of the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences. Small school buses, on the other hand, those with a GVWR of 10,000 poun ds or less and which typically seat fewer than 16 occupants, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions.

Turning to your inquiry, this agency agrees it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, facing the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward. To get the full benefit of compartmentalization, the child occupant should f ace forward to be cushioned and contained between the strong, well-padded seat backs on the school bus. Thus, Standard 222 requires school bus passenger seats to be forward-facing (paragraph S5.1). When a child is sitting on the edge of the bus seat, a s you described, it would seem that either the school bus is overloaded or the passengers are seating themselves improperly, indicating a possible lack of adequate supervision. This agency is seriously concerned about such conditions, but as pointed out above, once a vehicle is sold to the first retail customer, the use of that vehicle becomes the responsibility of the State.

Since the States regulate the use of school buses, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Governor's highway safety representative for Florida is:

Mr. Frank Carlile

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

605 Suwanne St., MS-57

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Telephone: (904) 922-5820

I am also enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued jointly by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration and provides recommendations to the states on the operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Although these recommendations are not mandatory, they might be helpful in your discussions with school officials.

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

ID: nht94-4.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gupta, Rishi -- Autolite (India) Limited

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 8/29/94 Letter From Rishi Gupta to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 10324)

TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX of August 29, 1994, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. For future reference, requests for interpretations of U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety regulations should be addressed to the Office of Chief Counsel.

You have asked whether the size and types of aiming pads you propose to place on headlamps manufactured by Autolite conform to DOT specifications. You describe these headlamps as "a 7" round and a 200 x 142 mm rectangular replaceable halogen sealed beam s [which] use a replaceable halogen bulb (HB2)." You enclosed diagrams showing "aiming pad's position as per SAE J1383 - 1992" (Figures 1 and 3), and in the manner you wish to place them on the Autolite lamps (Figures 2 and 4). We understand that these replaceable bulb headlamps are intended to be sold as replacements for sealed beam headlamps of the same dimensions.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the DOT specification that applies to Autolite's headlamps. The aimability performance requirements for non-sealed beam headlamps are found in S7.8. of Standard No. 108. S7.8 allows any aiming pad pattern that will fit on the headlamp and that will allow any one of the available aiming adapters described in SAE J602 to be used on the headlamp.

Specifically, S7.8.1 in pertinent part allows non-sealed beam headlamps to be equipped with aiming pads to be used with the photometric procedures of SAE J1383 APR85 (not "1992" as you wrote) when being tested for photometric compliance, and to serve for the aiming reference when the lamp is installed on a motor vehicle. S7.8.5 allows an installed headlamp system to be aimable with an externally applied aiming device. Under S7.8.5.1, this aiming device shall be the equipment specified in SAE Standard J602 OCT80 Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units.

You write that the aiming pad sizes and types you wish to use are identical to those on headlamps sold by Hella, and that ETL Testing Laboratories has told you that the aiming pad positions and types meet DOT specifications. This indicates that Autolite 's headlamps would be mechanically aimable with SAE J602 equipment, and therefore permissible as meeting Standard No. 108. We recommend that Autolite verify mechanical aimability with SAE J602 equipment before certifying compliance with Standard No. 108 .

Our engineering staff has reviewed your letter and asks that we point out the following errors in Autolite's Figures Nos. 2 and 4. Under both Figures, there is a reference to "HB-2 (H4 P43t)." The HB2 light source is not the same as the H4 P43t light so urce. The HB2 is a light source permitted by Standard No. 108 while the H4 P43t is not permitted by the Standard for motor vehicles. Under the drawing, the dimension "68.5" should be "68.58 +/- 0.51" (see Figure 4-4 of Standard No. 108). The dimensions of "32" and "52.0" must be the sum of two dimension "A"s from Figure 4-4, thus the sum is 42.16 +/- 0.25 + 42.16 +/- 0.25 = 84.32 +/- 0.50, not 84 as nominally calculated. Finally, with respect to Figure 4 only, because this lamp is intended to replace a 200 x 142 mm sealed beam lamp, the position of the aiming pads are not, but should be identical to the 200 x 142 mm sealed beam to facilitate mechanical aim when only one headlamp is replaced.

ID: nht94-4.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas L. Wright -- Coordinator, Technical Support New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7/15/94 FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO ROBERT HELLMUTH

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1994, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency requesting an opinion whether brush guards offered as accessories for Range Rovers and installed in front of headlamp units are in violation of Standard No. 108.

Our letter is based upon the configurations of "brush bars" depicted as accessory equipment in a 1994 Range Rover brochure. The brochure notes that brush bars "may be illegal for on-road use in some states. Please check local regulations before purchas e, installation, or use." We note that this advisory applies to the rear lamp guards as well. The purpose of the brush bar is to offer protection to the grille, radiator, and front and rear lamps, and it does so by incorporating three slender horizontal bars in front of the lenses of the front and rear lamps.

Paragraph S7.8.5 of Standard No. 108 states that headlamps when activated "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens." The lamp guard portion of the brush bar is the type of "other f eature . . . in front of the lens" that is prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a Range Rover could not be displayed for sale and sold with a brush bar installed unless the lamp guards had been removed. This should present no proble m as, according to the brochure, the "lamp protectors are easily removable for cleaning and maintenance." In our view, the proper time for installation of the lamp protectors is when the vehicle begins to be used off-road.

Although there is no similar direct prohibition in Standard No. 108 applicable to other vehicle lamps, the parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps are required to conform with the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lamp guards are in place. This is based upon two paragraphs of the standard. S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps from meeting the required photometric output. S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of supplementary motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment.

The guards are designed for maintenance by the owner, and their installation by the owner after purchase of the Range Rover would not be in violation of Federal law, even if installed for on-road use. Operation of the Range Rover is subject only to Stat e law, and a State may forbid on-road use of a Range Rover with the lamp guards installed if it so chooses.

ID: nht93-7.24

DATE: October 14, 1993

FROM: Amantha L. Barbee -- Sales Coordinator, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to Amantha L. Barbee (A41; Std. 102; Part 571), letter dated 1/26/93 from John Womack to Paul David Wellstone, letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chuck Anderson, and letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow

TEXT:

I am writing you in search of information pertaining to the van versus school bus issue. I am the Head Start Sales Coordinator for Thomas Built Buses, Inc. I have found many Head Start Agencies to be using vans to transport students to and from the program. When I have asked the directors of the agencies why they are not using FMVSS as a guide for transportation. The answer across the board is, "because we have not been told otherwise."

If I understand the ruling correctly, this practice should be illegal. I am asking your help in clarifying this issue for me. If indeed this is unlawful, what can be done within the organization to rectify the situation?

I would appreciate any assistance you could offer. I can be reached at the above address or at (919) 841-5794.

ID: nht93-7.25

DATE: October 15, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/93 from Michael F. Hecker to John Womack (OCC-8882)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning our June 29, 1993, letter to your associate, Mr. Michael Dunn, about the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R-Bar). The R-Bar, an item of motor vehicle equipment, is a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses to fold down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seats. You have further questions about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA regulations, as applied to R-Bars.

In our letter to Mr. Dunn, we addressed several statements that we believed were potentially misleading that Micho made to school officials. These statements include, among other things, that NHTSA has "approved" R-Bars and that R-Bars are certified as complying with Federal safety standards. We noted that, while Micho indicated that it would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars, we sought assurances that Micho would not continue to represent that it can "certify" the compliance of R-Bars.

You ask for clarification of that letter. You state that there "appears to be some confusion" resulting from past correspondence with this agency regarding certification of compliance with applicable FMVSSs. You believe, based on previous correspondence, that the R-Bar must comply with FMVSSs that apply to the school bus seat and "the general safety of school buses," such as school bus exits and flammability resistance. Accordingly, you believe that Micho can properly "certify" the R-Bar to these school bus FMVSSs.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our requirements. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system whereby the manufacturer of the vehicle or item of equipment is responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence of the manufacturer.

Because of the self-certification system established by law, NHTSA can neither approve, disapprove, endorse, nor offer assurances of compliance for any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification of the product. Rather, this agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing a vehicle or item of equipment in the retail market and conducting the compliance tests specified in the pertinent standards. The

agency also investigates safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of its product and remedying the problem free of charge. The recall responsibility for noncomplying or defective vehicles is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a product is installed on a new vehicle by that vehicle manufacturer.

As stated in our previous letters to your company, there are no FMVSSs specifically applicable to R-Bars. Our school bus FMVSSs apply to whole vehicles, rather than to individual items of school bus equipment. If R- Bars are installed as original equipment on a new school bus, the vehicle manufacturer is required by the Safety Act to certify that, with the devices installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.222); Standard 217, Bus Window retention and Release (S571.217); Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (S571.302); and, with regard to small school buses, the pertinent provisions of Standard 208, occupant Crash Protection (S571.208). 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. S1403, and 49 CFR Part 567. Because these FMVSSs apply to the vehicle there are no standards to which Micho can, or must, certify compliance.

If the R-Bars are added to a previously-certified new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person who so modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" of a previously certified new vehicle. As an alterer, the person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR S567.7.

The vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs an R-Bar may, in order to meet its duty to exercise due care, in part rely on information from you concerning the R-Bar's performance characteristics, to the extent such reliance is reasonable. Since compliance with Standard 222 appears to be a significant concern with respect to the installation of R-Bars, you might wish to test a bus or buses equipped with an R-Bar, using the test procedures set out in Standard 222. The results of such tests might be useful to a school bus manufacturer in determining whether it could certify a school bus equipped with R-Bars as complying with standard 222.

If R-Bars were installed on a used school bus, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would be required to ensure that by installing the R-Bars, the installer did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A). In this case, the installer would be responsible for ensuring that the R-Bars did not cause the school bus to fail to comply with any safety standards, including but not limited to the standards enumerated above.

This agency has addressed various compliance issues and other safety concerns applicable to R-Bars and similar devices on a number of occasions in the past. As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated

February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard 208.

You asked for our comments on two statements you intend to make to your customers. The first statement is that there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to R-Bars. As discussed above, that statement is correct. The second statement is that, when properly installed, R-Bars will not violate any standard or regulation or render inoperative any safety feature on a school bus. NHTSA lacks information on which to assess the accuracy of that statement. However, it appears unlikely that you could provide such assurances for school buses in general, since the question of whether adding R-Bars would result in a school bus no longer complying with safety standards is likely to depend, at least in part, on factors specific to a particular school bus, such as the seats, floor, etc. Accordingly, absent data to substantiate this statement for all bus configurations and potential installation procedures, we believe that it would not be proper for you to make such a statement.

I hope this resolves the issues raised in your letter.

ID: nht93-7.26

DATE: October 18, 1993

FROM: J. C. DeLaney -- Manager, Technical Programs, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for FMVSS 123 Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to J. C. DeLaney (A41; Std. 123)

TEXT:

The Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) is a nonprofit national trade association representing manufacturers and distributors of motorcycles, motorcycle parts and accessories, and members of allied trades.

On behalf of its membership, MIC requests an interpretation of FMVSS 123 as it relates to motorcycle side stand retraction.

FMVSS 123, S5.2.4, states that "a stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward.", but makes no reference to any compliance test criteria or procedure.

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has published two recommended procedures related to side stand retraction testing - SAE J1578 "Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Test Procedure"; and SAE J1579 "Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Performance Requirements." A third SAE Recommended Practice, J1846, establishes characteristics for the test surface used for testing in accordance with J1578 and J1579. Copies of these SAE documents are enclosed.

MIC's question is: Does a motorcycle side stand comply with FMVSS 123 if it passes the SAE J1578 test procedure?

MIC would appreciate your earliest possible response to the above request. Please contact me if there are any questions or if additional information is required.