ID: nht76-2.21

DATE: 04/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Limited

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1976, requesting information concerning steps which you, as a manufacturer of wheel equipment which will be offered for importation into the United States, must take in order to comply with all applicable National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations.

You should be aware of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR Part 573, Defect Reports. In addition, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, may be of interest to you. Copies of these rules and an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" are enclosed for your convenience.

Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made.

The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agent pursuant to the Act require that it include:

(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding on Dunlop Limited under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

(2) The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of Dunlop Limited;

(3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products of Dunlop Limited that do not bear its legal name;

(4) A provision that the designation of agent remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Dunlop Limited;

(5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

(6) The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

A copy of the procedural regulation for designation of agent is enclosed for your convenience.

ID: 07-001408as

ID: nht90-4.95

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 24, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stanley S. Zinner -- Greene & Zinner, P.C.

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 123

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-4-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from Stanley S. Zinner (OCC 5479); Also attached to letter dated 2-16-82 to Brian Gill from Frank Berndt (Std. 123); Also attached to letter dated 10-26-73 to Brian Gill from Richard B. Dyso n

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of December 4, 1990, requesting an interpretation of section S5.2.4 of 49 CFR 571.123 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays. Specifically, you wish an opinion "as to the meaning, purpo se, and intent" of that section.

Section S5.2.4 Stands states that "A stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward." As Taylor Vinson of this office explained to you, this requirement was one of the original provisions in Standard No. 123 when it became effective in 1974. However, unlike many other requirements in the standard, it was both proposed and adopted without any discussion of its meaning, purpose, and intent in the preambles to both these rulemaking actions other than the bare remark that the notices contained a requirement for stands. Furthermore, in the 16 years that the requirement has been in effect, the agency does not appear to have issued a single legal opinion relating to section S5.2.4.

However, the agency has issued two interpretations of section S5.2.5 which we believe are relevant to an understanding of S5.2.4. In pertinent part, S5.2.5 Footrests states that "Each footrest for a passenger other than an operator shall fold rearward a nd upward when not in use." In a letter of February 16, 1982, to American Honda Motor Co., Inc., with respect to a proposed footboard design, the then chief counsel commented that "We consider that the purpose of S5.2.5 is to prevent accidents caused by rigid footrests contacting the ground in a banking turn." In a letter of October 26, 1973, also to American Honda, the then Assistant Chief Counsel commented that S5.2.5 did not require automatic folding but only the direction in which the footrests sh all retract "so that if they are inadvertently left down when not in use they will fold rearward and upward should they hit an obstacle while the motorcycle is travelling forward." I enclose a copy of each of these letters for your information.

The meaning of S5.2.4 is, we believe, clear and unambiguous: if a stand is left down, it shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground (which includes the roadway) while the motorcycle is moving forward. Because both sections S5.2.4 and S5.2.5 require motorcycle equipment "to fold rearward and upward", we further believe that the purpose and intent of both sections are the same, and that S5.2.4 could be substituted for S5.2.5 in the sentences of the two letters quoted in the preceding paragra ph.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

ID: nht95-4.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui, -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Service of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/22/95 LETTER FROM SABURO INUI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to Toyota's August 22, 1995, letter regarding the test procedures in this agency's June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (60 FR 30006). You were concerned that the test procedure seems to say that the ser vice brake should be applied at two different steps during the test procedure, without specifying when the service brake should be released in between those two steps. You suggested a revised procedure that specifies a step for releasing the service bra ke, and asked if that procedure conforms with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) test requirement.

After reviewing the issues raised by your letter, we have concluded that a technical amendment should be issued to clarify the test procedure. We expect to issue such an amendment shortly.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui, -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Service of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/22/95 LETTER FROM SABURO INUI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to Toyota's August 22, 1995, letter regarding the test procedures in this agency's June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (60 FR 30006). You were concerned that the test procedure seems to say that the service brake should be applied at two different steps during the test procedure, without specifying when the service brake should be released in between those two steps. You suggested a revised procedure that specifies a step for releasing the service brake, and asked if that procedure conforms with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) test requirement.

After reviewing the issues raised by your letter, we have concluded that a technical amendment should be issued to clarify the test procedure. We expect to issue such an amendment shortly.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 11153-3

Mr. Saburo Inui, Vice President
Toyota Motor Corporate Services
of North America, Inc.
1850 M. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to Toyota's August 22, 1995, letter regarding the test procedures in this agency's June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (60 FR 30006). You were concerned that the test procedure seems to say that the service brake should be applied at two different steps during the test procedure, without specifying when the service brake should be released in between those two steps. You suggested a revised procedure that specifies a step for releasing the service brake, and asked if that procedure conforms with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) test requirement.

After reviewing the issues raised by your letter, we have concluded that a technical amendment should be issued to clarify the test procedure. We expect to issue such an amendment shortly.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:114 d:10/13/95

ID: nht90-4.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Gordon Bonvallet - Consulting Lighting, Engineer

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 108, Request for interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gordon Bonvallet (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This request for interpretation of ruling of FMVSS 108 is being made for HELLA KG, Lippstadt, Germany. Please direct any questions and the NHTSA response to the above address.

A design consideration for a future automotive vehicle headlamp system consists of four lamps, using gaseous discharge "integral beam" headlamps for the low beams and incandescent "replaceable bulb" (HB3) headlamps for the high beams. The gaseous discha rge lamp and the incandescent lamp on each side of the vehicle will be independent of each other but will share a common frame assembly. Each will be able to be replaced in part or completely without disturbing the other lamp.

The gaseous discharge lamp and ballast will be physically separated from each other but will be electrically connected with no means of disconnecting either component from the other. If either the lamp or ballast fails to operate, both components must b e replaced.

PHOTOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS: Although a combination gaseous discharge/incandescent system is not specifically addressed in FMVSS 108, it is our opinion that the Figure 15 photometric requirement would apply to both the low beam and the high beam lamps. Ple ase advise if this is correct.

AIMING REQUIREMENTS: At this time, it is anticipated that each individual lamp will have external aiming pads and therefore can be independently aimable. There is a possibility that an on-board aiming system of some type may be used. Are there any spec ial considerations that must be adhered to that are not specifically addressed in FMVSS 108?

It is our opinion that the above described system is allowable under FMVSS 108. We request that you review this concept and advise if you concur or if there are other factors that must be considered.

ID: nht94-1.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cheryl Graham -- District Manager, Northeast Region, ARI

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/10/93 from Cheryl Graham to Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA (OCC-9345)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

by way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole res traint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design in stalled on...a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design," then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by y our letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three-lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in p reventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe.

The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the tail lamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array.

We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the

permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its add ress is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

ID: 8810

Jerry G. Thorn, Esq.
General Counsel, OGC-040
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington, DC 20207

Dear Mr. Thorn:

This responds to your letter of June 22, 1993 requesting an interpretation of whether an aerosol brake cleaning product marketed under the Solder Seal/Gunk brand is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As explained in further detail below, this item is considered motor vehicle equipment.

As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ....

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the brake cleaning aerosol, it appears that the product would be an accessory under the Safety Act. This is based on the information provided in your letter and by Harleigh Ewell of your office to David Elias of mine in a July 23, 1993 telephone conversation. An advertisement you enclosed for the brake cleaning aerosol contains statements (e.g., "quickly dissolve and flush away brake fluid," and "helps to eliminate brake squeal and `chatter'") indicating that a substantial portion of the expected use of the product is related to maintaining motor vehicles. Also, according to Mr. Ewell, the product is sold in auto supply stores, which further indicates its intended use with motor vehicles. Second, based on the product's purpose as suggested by statements on the advertisement, (e.g., "cleans and evaporates almost instantly," "can be applied without disassembly of the unit," and "keep out of reach of children") and by the type of store that retails the product, it appears that the aerosol brake cleaner is intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias at the above address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:8/5/93

ID: 11610ZTV

Mr. Randy I. McClanahan
2323 Augusta, #5
Houston, Texas 77057

Dear Mr. McClanahan:

This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1996, on the subject "Deceleration Rate Signal Generator to Control the Operation of the Center High Mounted Brake Light of Vehicles."

Citing paragraph S5.5.10(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which requires hazard warning signal lamps to be wired to flash, you believe that "the center high mounted brake light, when controlled by our Brake Alert deceleration rate signal generator, is in fact a `hazard signal lamp'". In your opinion, "the installation of our Brake Alert does not alter the factory-installed center high mounted brake light fixture or the bulb(s) therein", and, therefore "not in violation of any Federal Regulations."

I am sorry to have to tell you that your Brake Alert device is not permitted under Federal regulations. The hazard warning signal lamps covered in S5.5.10(a) refer to a vehicle's four turn signal lamps flashing simultaneously. Brake Alert, by causing the center high-mounted stop lamp to flash, would not change the center lamp into a "hazard warning lamp" within the meaning of Standard No. 108. When activated by Brake Alert the center lamp would simply be a flashing stop lamp. Under S5.5.10(d) of Standard No. 108, stop lamps must be steady burning. This means that Brake Alert could not be installed as original equipment on a vehicle.

With respect to the aftermarket, Federal law prohibits modifications by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that "make inoperative"

Federally-required equipment, such as the center stop lamp. We regard causing the center lamp to flash as the equivalent of making it inoperative because it will be operating in a way that is not permitted for new vehicle equipment under Standard No. 108. Federal law, however, does not prohibit the vehicle's owner from adding Brake Alert if (s)he is capable of doing so. Even if installed by the vehicle owner, the legality of Brake Alert would be determinable under the laws of the states where it is operated. If you would like to know whether state laws would permit the use of Brake Alert, we suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of an earlier agency interpretation on the use of the center lamp as a flashing deceleration warning device (see page 2 of letter of June 3, 1990 to Norman H. Dankert).

If you have any further questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel H. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:4/2/96