ID: 13171.jeg

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Process Leader
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen
Mail Code 4F02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter concerning the recent air bag warning label rule (Docket 74-14; Notice 103). You asked whether it is permissible to place a reference to the owner's manual, such as "See owner's manual for further important safety information," on the side of the sun visor bearing the air bag alert label. As discussed below, the answer is no.

Section S4.5.1(b)(3) of Standard No. 208 sets forth the following limitation on providing additional information, beyond what is required by the standard, on the sun visor:

Except for the information on an air bag maintenance label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of this standard, no other information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the sun visor warning label is affixed. Except for the information in an air bag alert label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this standard, or in a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1), no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor.

Thus, on the warning label side of the visor, the only information, of any sort, that may appear is that specified for the warning label and for the air bag maintenance label. On the alert label side, the only information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts that may appear is that specified for the alert label.

We interpret the term "information" broadly and consider a reference statement such as "See owner's manual for further important safety information" or similar language, added to the alert label side of the visor, to be information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts and therefore precluded by section S4.5.1(b)(3). This conclusion follows from both the context in which this statement would be provided, and the purposes for providing the statement. We also note that the statement is essentially taken from the previous air bag warning label specified by Standard No. 208, which the agency expressly decided to eliminate.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:
1/31/97

ID: 13193.drn

Mr. Jir Misk
Chief, Type Approval Tests and Technical Regulations
SKODA, automobilov a.s.
Vslava Klementa 869
293 60 Mlad Boleslav
Cesk republika (Czech Republic)

Dear Mr. Misk:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Area "A" to be wiped on motor vehicle windshields, as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems, and 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. Your question is answered below.

Your letter states your understanding of two ways in which Area A is to be measured, and asks which of the two is correct:

1. Area 'A' as described in SAE J903 and MVSS 104, may enter into the windshield perimeter zone of 25 mm from the edge of daylight opening in which case the area "A" may be reduced to keep the 25 mm perimeter zone intact for the purpose of calculating the performance of wipers or,
2. Area 'A' as described in SAE J903 and MVSS 104, must always meet both of these requirements at the same time--
   
   1. specific angles 16 to 18
   2. remain (on the windshield) bounded by the perimeter zone of 25 mm from the edge of daylight opening (it can not intervene into the perimeter zone of 25 mm). Area 'A' can not be reduced.

Statement One is correct. Area A is that portion of the total area bounded by the angles in Tables I through IV of Standard No. 104 that is also within a perimeter 25 mm within the daylight opening of the windshield frame. It is not necessary that the windshield be large enough to contain the whole area bounded by the angles (of which 16 to 18 is the left border) as indicated by Statement Two.

S.4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 states the following:

Wiped area. When tested wet in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, and C of the windshield (established in accordance with S4.1.2.1) that (1) is specified in column 2 of the applicable table following subparagraph S4.1.2.1 and (2) is within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

Area A of the windshield is described at S3.1 of SAE Standard J903a. S3.1 states:

[Area A] ... has been established using the angles of Table 1 applied as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Fig. 1 (side view), the upper and lower boundary of the area is established by the intersection of two planes, tangent to the upper and lower sides of the eye range contour, with the windshield glazing surface. The planes are fixed by angles above and below the glazing surface reference line. Fig. 2 (plan view), the left and right boundaries of the area are established by the intersection of two planes tangent to the left and right sides of the eye range contour. The planes are fixed by angles to the left and right of the plan view reference line.

S3.1's description means that Area A is not a fixed, predetermined area for all windshields, but is an area that varies from windshield to windshield. The variables are the angle of measurement and the width of the car. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 adds another variable by describing Area A as within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

Furthermore, not all of Area A must be wiped. In Standard No. 104, Tables I, II, III, and IV all specify that after the test is conducted, a minimum of 80% of Area A must be wiped.

Please note that since Standard No. 103 references Standard No. 104 in specifying Area A as the applicable cleared area, the above description of Area A also applies to Standard No. 103.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:103#104
d:5/6/97

ID: 13208.ztv

Mr. Robert M. Currie
President
Fiber Light Concepts, Ltd.
1102 East Railroad Street
Long Beach, MS 39560

Dear Mr. Currie:

This responds to your letter of December 3, 1996, asking for "an interpretation of NHTSA statutes, regulations, and standards" that apply to your "new after market accessory lighting for all road motor vehicles." We are pleased to assist you.

The product folder you enclosed depicts the "lightrail", described as a "side light fiber optic cable, locked into a full length, heavy duty, aluminum extruded rail." It is intended "for pickup trucks, trailers, emergency, utility and commercial vehicles." It illuminates the side of vehicles at night. Its operation is described as follows: "LIGHTRAIL can be connected for yellow normally on, flash with your directionals, and turn red with your brake lights - or - red normally on and flash yellow/red with your directionals."

First of all, as an accessory for a motor vehicle, "LIGHTRAIL" is "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B). This means that its manufacturer must notify purchasers and remedy any safety related defect that may occur in its construction or performance.

NHTSA's Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment lighting, Standard No. 108, establishes after market specifications only for lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Thus, Standard No. 108 does not regulate "LIGHTRAIL" since this device is not required as original equipment on any motor vehicle.

The sole provision in Federal law that relates to "LIGHTRAIL" as an after market product is a prohibition contained in 49 U.S.C. 30122 against making safety devices and elements inoperative. Under this section, "a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable [Federal] motor vehicle safety standard. . ." In applying this prohibition to specific products, we first determine whether the product will prevent the regulated elevemnts of the vehicle from operating. Since "LIGHTRAIL" does not involve disconnection of lighting items, we next examine the effect of its performance on the performance of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment on motor vehicles. If the auxiliary lighting device is likely to detract from the purpose of a required lighting device, or create confusion, we regard that effect also as a "making inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition.

According to the product sheet, LIGHTRAIL has three modes of operation, steady-burning yellow or red in normal operation, steady-burning red when the stop lamps are applied, and flashing yellow/red when the turn signals are activated. The product literature you enclosed shows LIGHTRAIL installed and lit on the sides of two self-propelled vehicles (a pickup truck and a wrecker), and a trailer. Standard No. 108 requires that motor vehicles have side marker lamps at the front and rear. Because your device illuminates the sides of the vehicles, we consider it to be a supplementary side marker lamp. Side marker lamps are permitted to flash with the turn signal lamps and the operation of the device causes us no concern.

What does concern us, however, is LIGHTRAIL's color. The side marker lamps required for motor vehicles must be amber at the front (and midpoint if the overall length of the vehicle is at least 30 feet) and red at the rear. Thus, LIGHTRAILs installed on the side of the box of pickup trucks should be red, to harmonize with the color of the rear side marker, not amber, where they will conflict with the color of the rear side marker. For the same reason, LIGHTRAILs installed on trailers must be amber up to the midpoint of the trailer, and red to the rear of the midpoint.

The legality of the use of supplementary lighting devices such as LIGHTRAIL is, at bottom, a question of the laws of the individual states. We are unable to provide you with interpretations of these laws, and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in each state in which it is likely that LIGHTRAIL will be used.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office 9202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d:1/31/97

ID: 13241-2.pja

Mr. Frank Smidler
Director of Engineering
Wabash National Corporation
P.O. Box 6129
Lafayette, IN 47903

Dear Mr. Smidler:

This letter responds to your December 11, 1996, letter asking several questions about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's January 24, 1996, (61 FR 2004) rear impact protection (underride guard) standards. You asked about using an elastomeric bumper facade to meet the energy absorption requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223, Rear impact protection. The short answer to your questions is that the elastomeric material, by itself, cannot be used to meet the energy absorption requirements because the requirements call for plastic, not elastic, deformation of the guard. Your specific questions are answered below, in the order that you posed them.

Question 1: S5.2.2 Guard energy absorption states ". . . shall absorb by plastic deformation within the first 125 mm of deflection at least 5,650 J of energy . . .". Is energy absorption through elastic deformation acceptable? (Emphasis in original).

You urge us to interpret the standard to allow for elastic deformation for two reasons. First, you believe that a guard designed to absorb energy by "simple plastic deformation of steel" is more likely to be damaged by repetitive normal impacts of a vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 80,000 lb with loading docks, thus rendering it useless for the intended purpose of protecting colliding vehicles. Second, you state that elastomeric material would be easier to apply to trailers with low floor heights and other special applications where it is not possible to mount a bumper that hangs down and can pivot back on a long arm during impact.

The standard's required energy absorption cannot be met by elastic deformation of the guard. We interpret the language "by plastic deformation" in S5.2.2 to mean that the required energy absorption will be provided exclusively by plastic deformation. In other words, any energy that the guard returns to the force application device when the load is removed (i.e., the elastic component of the deformation) is subtracted from the total energy absorption for purposes of meeting the requirement. The typical energy absorption curve in Figure 2 (61 FR 2034) shows that the area under the force-deflection curve where the guard rebounds elastically from 125 mm of deflection to about 90 mm of deflection is not included in the shaded area (the shaded area represents the amount of energy absorption counted against the requirement in the standard). There is a discussion in the preamble to the final rule (61 FR 2011) of NHTSA's reasons for requiring plastic deformation.

Please note that the standard does not prohibit the use of elastomeric material as supplemental shock absorbers. The material might be useful in preventing shock-induced metal fatigue for certain guard designs. However, NHTSA believes that the strength requirements of the standard are sufficiently high that most guard designs would stand up to the stresses of normal use without significant degradation in performance.

Please also note that the standard is not prescriptive about guard design, as your letter implied. There is no requirement that "[s]imple plastic deformation of steel" provide the energy absorption. Other materials may provide the deformation, and the deformation may be as complex as desired. There is also no requirement that trailers with low floor heights or any other trailers have a "bumper that hangs down and can pivot back on a long arm during impact to absorb energy." The final rule specifically mentioned that vertical supports were not required (61 FR 2013). Even if the conventional vertical strut guard design would not work well for certain vehicles, other designs could be engineered for these vehicles without resorting to elastic materials.

Question 2: S6.6(c) states that when testing for energy absorption ". . . apply the force to the guard until displacement of the force application device has reached 125 mm." S5.2.2 states ". . . shall absorb by plastic deformation within the first 125 mm of deflection . . .". If our test bumper absorbs the required amount of energy at less than 125 mm of deflection (i.e., ". . . within the first 125 mm . . .") do we have to continue to test load to the full 125 mm of deflection? (Emphasis in original)

No. The test procedures in the standard describe how NHTSA will test guards for compliance with the standard's requirements, and are not binding upon guard manufacturers. They may certify their guards based on other kinds of testing or even engineering analysis, if these provide a reasonable basis for certification. If a guard can pass NHTSA's test after less than 125 mm of displacement, it would be reasonable to assume that it will pass the test if displacement was continued to the full 125 mm, because more displacement will only result in more energy absorption, up to a certain point.

Even if the guard appears to have absorbed the required amount of energy before the displacement has reached 125 mm, NHTSA will continue the test because S6.6(c) states "[i]f conducting a test . . . for . . . energy absorption . . . apply the force . . . until displacement . . . has reached 125 mm." NHTSA does this because it does not know how much elastic rebound the guard will exhibit once the load is removed, and the energy returned during the rebound will have to be subtracted when calculating the total energy absorbed.

Question 3: S6.6(b) states that "If conducting a strength test . . . the force is applied until the forces specified . . . has been exceeded, or until the displacement of the force application device has reached at least 125 mm, whichever occurs first." Is it correct to take this to mean that the strength requirements must be met at or before 125 mm of deflection? The ". . . at least. . . " is slightly confusing.

Your assumption is correct. The words "at least" do not imply that NHTSA will continue to displace the guards beyond 125 mm. If the required level of strength has not been achieved by 125 mm, the guards will have failed the test. The test procedures are based on demonstrating compliance with the requirements, and the relevant requirement, S5.2.1, states "[t]he guard must resist the force levels specified . . . without deflecting by more than 125 mm."

Question 4: Hydraulic guards that are velocity sensitive have been excluded from the energy absorption test with the statement in the January 24, 1996 Federal Register that the NHTSA is unaware of any nonhydraulic guards that are velocity sensitive. We are looking at the contribution of energy absorption of air escaping from an elastomeric bumper facade as it is compressed under load and at high velocity. What must be done to allow the energy absorption of a pneumatic chamber deflating?

Hydraulic guards are defined in S4 as ". . . a guard designed to use fluid properties to provide resistance force to deformation." (emphasis added). Pneumatic guards use the fluid properties of air to provide resistance to deformation. However, the word "hydraulic" is defined as "operated by, moved by, or employing water or other liquids in motion."⁽¹⁾ Therefore, the word "hydraulic" limits the meaning of the word "fluid" to liquids. This is also the common sense meaning of the word "hydraulic."

Like hydraulic guards, guards based on pneumatic resistance of escaping air might not provide sufficient resistance to the slow application of force in Standard No. 223's quasi-static test. Therefore, the quasi-static test is inappropriate for testing guard designs based on the principle of pneumatic resistance of escaping air. Only a change in the standard will allow relying on such a chamber to provide energy absorption.

Question 5: Will we be allowed to use a full width elastomeric bumper facade that does not meet the quasi-static test using an 8" x 8" input plate but that in total provides more energy absorbing potential that a structure utilizing plastic deformation of steel supports that does meet the quasi-static test using an 8" x 8" plate?

No. The requirements are not based on the total energy absorbing potential of the entire structure, but on the energy absorbing potential at the P3 test points using an 8" by 8" plate. Writing a standard based on calculating the "total energy absorbing potential" would be impractical due to the many possible guard designs. In addition, that is not an appropriate measure for guard performance, because the force of an underriding vehicle will normally be concentrated in a certain area, rather than distributed along the entire surface of a bumper facade.

We note that NHTSA has received petitions for reconsideration on certain aspects of the energy absorption requirements, although their resolution probably will not affect our answers to your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:223

d:4/29/97

1. Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged edition, 1966.

ID: 13392.ztv

Mr. Miguel Padres
441 N. Grand Avenue, Suite 350
Nogales, AZ 85621

Dear Mr. Padres:

This is in reply to your e-mail of December 30, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the regulations of this agency as they may affect a business plan you wish to implement. We regret the delay in responding to you but your letter presents novel and complex questions.

You would like to take a 1969 VW Beetle to Mexico and "restore or replace all the parts permitted by the laws, that would continue to make it a 1969 VW Beetle." You refer to 49 CFR 571.7(e) and interpret it as saying that "placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axle (as a minimum) are not new and at least two of which were taken from the same vehicle. You intend to " place a new body on the old chassis" which, to you, would mean that it "would still be a 1969 vehicle." As part of your modifications you would either retain or replace with DOT certified items the original brake hoses, lamps and reflectors, tires, rims, glazing and seat belt assemblies. You would then bring the vehicle back to the United States.

First of all, Sec. 571.7(e) does not apply to passenger cars such as VW Beetles; it applies to trucks. However, according to long-standing agency interpretations, the addition of a new body to the chassis of a passenger car previously in use does not result in the creation of a new motor vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the basis of the limited information you have provided us, we do not believe that the parts you have listed that you may replace, together with the body, would exceed this threshold. The vehicle would remain a 1969 model under our interpretations.

Further, our importation regulations do not require that a vehicle comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards if it is 25 years old or older (49 CFR 591.5(i)(1)). This means that the modified 1969 Beetle, when imported into the United States after the modifications are made in Mexico, need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, if the refurbishing involves sufficient manufacturing operations, the vehicle would be considered a newly manufactured one. This means that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of refurbishing (manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards. Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case by case basis.

We are unsure of your connection with Beetlemex, Inc., which shares your street and suite address in Nogales. Beetlemex is advertising on the internet that it is "bringing brand new Beetles into the U.S.", each of which is "officially a restored vehicle, but is actually a brand new Beetle." Beetlemex instals "brand new parts taken off from a brand new sedan" and "at the end, we have a Beetle that has most of the parts from a brand new Beetle." Statements such as these raise the possibility that the threshold has been exceeded. The ad also states that Beetlemex registers and titles the vehicles as well. In our interpretations, we consider it important that a vehicle equipped with a new body on an old chassis would continue to carry its original model year designation for state registration purposes, in this instance, 1969. If the vehicles refurbished by Beetlemex have been registered and titled as 1996 or 1997 models, that is prima facie evidence to us that the modifications have gone beyond what is permissible for the original vehicle to retain its characterization as one manufactured in 1969.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.7/28/97

ID: 13415.ztv

Ms. Ana S. Salcedas
308 N. Forklanding Road
Maple Shade, NJ 08052

Dear Ms. Salcedas:

This responds to the letter that you and Mr. Silva sent us on December 14, 1996. We are sending a copy of our reply to Mr. Silva at his Philadelphia address. You have asked our "assistance in ensuring that the patent [for the Auto Brake Light] meets the requirements for Code 571.108."

The patent application indicates that the Auto Brake Light is a message-sending device that can take several forms. In one application, the center highmounted stop lamp can display the message "STOP". In another form, the left hand stop lamp, the center highmounted stop lamp, and the right hand stop lamp can display, one word to a lamp, the message "SLOW DOWN NOW". We assume that the lower stop lamps could also display the message "SLOW DOWN." The application states that "[o]ptimally, the present invention may be used with retrofitted light assemblies that are attached to a vehicle after its original manufacture."

Under our basic regulatory statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, a motor vehicle must conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time it is sold and delivered to its initial purchaser. This means that, if the vehicle is modified after manufacture and before such sale, it must continue to comply with the Federal safety standards after the modifications. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, 49 CFR 571.108, permits the addition of supplementary lighting devices at the time of initial manufacture or before initial sale provided that they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required as original equipment by Standard No. 108.

As noted above, in one form of your invention, the center highmounted stop lamp can display the word "STOP." Figure 10 of Standard No. 108 establishes minimum candela intensity values that must be met at individual test points on the lamp, or the sum of such test points within zones. If any portion of the word "STOP" obscures the light at any individual test point so that the zone total falls below the minimum sum specified for the zone, that obscuration would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, and the retrofitted lamp would not be permissible. In addition, visibility of the center stoplamp signal must not be impaired by any part of the vehicle including the word "STOP" from test points 10U to 5D and from 10L to 10R, unless the lamp is designed to comply with all requirements when the obstruction is considered. If the letters can be arranged so that the lamp continues to comply, as discussed above, we do not believe that the word "STOP" would impair the effectiveness of the center stop lamp.

On the other hand, we believe that the message "SLOW DOWN" or "SLOW DOWN NOW" when placed on the lower stop lamps could create a momentary distraction, which would impair the effectiveness of the stop lamp system when used to signal that the vehicle is stopping. This aspect of your invention would not be permitted by Standard No. 108.

Once a motor vehicle is sold, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We view the phrase "making inoperative" in this case as the equivalent of creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. This means that the persons named in the previous sentence may not retrofit a center lamp with the word "STOP" if it obscures any of the required test points. Further, it means that such persons may not retrofit vehicles with lamps spelling "SLOW DOWN NOW."

Because existing lamps are designed to meet the required test points with an unobscured lens, it is almost a certainty that lamps on vehicles in use would become noncomplying if retrofitted with letters forming words such as "STOP" and "SLOW DOWN NOW."

You will note that the prohibition discussed above does not extend to the vehicle owner who, under the statute, may create a noncompliance in his or her vehicle without violating Federal law. But a vehicle modified by its owner remains subject to the laws of the States in which it is registered and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws that may affect your device, and recommend that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles of the States where you intend to market it.

We offer no opinion on the validity under Federal law of the other patented lighting devices discussed in the application.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Armenio N. Silva
     5110 Arendele Ave.
     Philadelphia, PA 19114

ref:108
d:2/25/97

ID: 13434.ztv

Mr. Binh Nguyen
Product Manager
Customer Satisfaction
AutoZone
P.O. Box 2198
Memphis, TN 38101-9842

Dear Mr. Nguyen:

This responds to your letter of December 16, 1996. You informed us that AutoZone "does sell auxiliary driving lights that are either SAE/DOT Approved or For Off Road Use Only." You have asked us several questions about such driving lamps, and we are pleased to respond.

"1. Who regulates auxiliary driving lights - the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) or the Department of Transportation (DOT)?"

DOT has not established specifications for auxiliary lamps such as driving, fog, etc., and does not directly regulate them. Unlike headlamps, for example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment does not require auxiliary driving lamps to be original equipment on motor vehicles. However, they must not be installed on a motor vehicle, either as original or aftermarket equipment, in a manner that impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment (e.g., mounted so close to a turn signal lamp as to mask its signal), and they should not be used as substitutes for headlamps. In addition, DOT has broad jurisdiction over "motor vehicle equipment"; thus, if auxiliary lamps are determined to have a safety related defect, their manufacturer must notify customers and remedy the defect.

The SAE is not a regulatory body and compliance with its standards and recommended practices is voluntary and of no legal significance, unless those standards have been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 and/or a State's motor vehicle laws. As stated above, SAE provisions on auxiliary driving, fog, and other such lamps have not been incorporated as Federal requirements.

"2. If no one currently regulates these automotive parts, are there plans at the Federal level to regulate these lights in the future? Who will regulate them and what will be the requirements?"

We have no plans at this time to regulate auxiliary driving or auxiliary lower beam headlamps in the future, but we have publicly stated our intent to regulate front and rear fog lamps. Whether

this will actually occur we cannot say at this time, but it is likely that any regulations will be based on both SAE and European standards.

"3. Do individual states have different restrictions regarding auxiliary driving lights?

4. If the answer is yes, would you please provide me with information on these different restrictions and with contact names for the various state agencies?"

In the absence of Federal regulations, each State may regulate any and all auxiliary lamps under State laws. There may be States with restrictions. However, we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, and I regret that we are unable to provide you with contact names in the office of the Motor Vehicle Administrator of each State.

"5. What does it mean when a light manufacturer says "This light is DOT/SAE approved?" or "This light is AAMVA approved?"

The phrase "DOT/SAE approved" should never be used. DOT does not have the authority to "approve" or "disapprove" motor vehicle equipment. To the best of our knowledge, SAE does not approve lamps either. Sometimes a manufacturer will use the phrase to imply that the lamp has been manufactured to SAE specifications that have been incorporated into Standard No. 108 as Federal requirements. If this is the case, the manufacturer may simply mark the lamp "DOT" as its certification that the lamp has been manufactured to conform to all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108. Otherwise, the manufacturer must certify compliance by means of a label on the lamp or on the container in which it is equipped. In cases where "DOT/SAE approved" appears on auxiliary lamps and their packages, the marking is meaningless. We shall answer your question on AAMVA under Question 7. below

"6. Who is the AAMVA?"

"AAMVA" is the abbreviation for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, an organization whose members are the motor vehicle administrators of the individual States. It is located at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

"7. What role does the AAMVA play in regulating auxiliary driving lights or any automotive lighting.?"

Some States require registration of manufacturers doing business within their borders. Because auxiliary lamps are not required lighting equipment under Standard No. 108, a State may set its own standard for these lamps, and require manufacturers to obtain a certificate of conformance with the State standard as a condition for selling the auxiliary lamps in the State. We understand that AAMVA previously performed the service of obtaining these certificates. However, another organization appears to have assumed that role. This new organization is the Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. (AMECA), Suite 605, 1101 15th St. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005. I am not familiar with the phrase "This lamp is AAMVA approved" but it may mean that AAMVA had obtained the necessary clearances for sale of the lamp in those States which permit AAMVA-approved lamps.

"8. How does a light manufacturer get his/her lights approved for sale at the federal and state levels?"

As I explained earlier, DOT has no authority to "approve" lighting equipment. All that is required under Federal law for a lamp to be sold is that it comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and bear its manufacturer's certification of compliance in the form indicated in response to Question 5. Since no Federal requirements apply to driving lamps, no permission to sell or certify is required under Federal law. The individual States may require State approval before sale, and we recommend that you consult AMECA as to its recommendations for sale in the individual States.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:/8/97

ID: 13439.drn

Mr. Donald E. Moore
Compliance Engineer
Western Star Trucks
2076 Enterprise Way
Kelowna, British Columbia
CANADA V1Y 6H8

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a truck's "vernier hand throttle" (VHT) that is not used in driving the vehicle, must meet the "hand operated control" requirements of Standard No. 101 Controls and displays. As explained below, the answer is no.

In your letter, you stated that the VHT is used in trucks to power vocational applications, such as dump trucks or cement mixers that power a hydraulic pump, providing energy to a hydraulic motor or ram. The VHT is used only when the vehicle is stationary or moving at a very low speed. You further wrote that the people using the VHT are usually professionals, who perform these tasks daily.

You further wrote that the VHT is placed under the steering column. When in the normal seated position, the driver cannot see the VHT, but can operate it with difficulty. You explained that in its location, the VHT can be operated either from the ground where the operator can easily monitor the auxiliary equipment powered by the VHT, or from the driver's seat. The VHT is placed out of the way of the driver's knees, where it may interfere with driving controls.

Your letter concluded that if NHTSA determines the VHT to be a "hand throttle" as defined in Standard No. 101, your company would have difficulty meeting Standard No. 101 by placing a label in a meaningful location where the driver can both see the label, and have the label be adjacent to the VHT. You further stated your belief that identifying the VHT as a "throttle" may imply that the VHT is meant to regulate road speed while driving, which the VHT does not do.

Standard No. 101's purpose, stated at S2, makes clear the Standard is intended to apply to controls and displays used in the driving task:

The purpose of the standard is to ensure the accessibility and visibility of motor vehicle controls and displays and to facilitate their selection under daylight and nighttime conditions, in order to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting controls.

You have explained how the VHT, although called a "throttle," is not the same as a throttle used to regulate road speed while driving. Since it is not a control used in the driving task, and is not a "hand throttle" specified in S5.1 Location, the VHT need not meet Standard No. 101.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101
d:3/19/97

ID: 13441.ztv

Mr. Kevin Imagawa
Manager, Product Safety and Compliance Division
Matsushita Technology Development Center
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America
One Panasonic Way, 4B-8
Secaucus, NJ 07094

Dear Mr. Imagawa:

This letter replies to your letter of December 20, 1996, to Bob Shelton of this agency, as supplemented by your letters of January 9 and January 14, 1997, to this Office.

You describe the subject of your letters as a "battery-operated DC-motor-driven bicycle." You have told us that you plan to market this machine and asked whether "49 USC Chapter 301 (Motor Vehicle Safety) and 49 CFR Parts 390 & 571 are applicable to this kind of product or not." You tentatively concluded "that only CPSC has the mandatory safety requirements for a bicycle. . . ." If we understand your letters correctly, the battery provides the same amount of torque as the torque provided by a rider pedaling the bicycle up to a speed of 14.9 mph, at which point the motor cuts off and 100% of the torque is provided by the driver. The motor also shuts off whenever the driver stops pedaling.

First, the regulations at 49 CFR Part 390 are those of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA only regulates motor vehicles that are used for commercial purposes in interstate commerce. Your vehicle would not be operated in interstate commercial ventures and these regulations would not apply to you.

A "motor vehicle" as defined under 49 USC Chapter 301 is one that is "driven or drawn by mechanical power . . . ." With respect to your design, the vehicle would be driven primarily by muscular power, with a mechanical assist. At no point does the motor alone drive the bicycle. It assists the prime mover, muscular power, and does not drive the bicycle in the absence of muscular power. We have therefore concluded that your bicycle design with power assist is not a motor vehicle as defined by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 and is not subject to it or to 49 CFR Part 571. I enclose a letter of February 16, 1993, to Mr. J.C. Townley, which explains our views in somewhat greater detail.

You also asked whether "a driver's license is required by law when a bicycle is provided with a continuous (without pedaling) motive power exceeding a certain speed limit (Ex. 14.9 mph) or of more than 5 horse power." I am sorry that we cannot answer this question for you. Each State has its own requirements for licensing the operation of motor vehicles within its borders. We are unable to advise on the laws of the States, and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in each State where you intend to market your product.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571

d:5/2/97

ID: 13472-2.pja

Mr. Garry Bowhall
VP Sales and Engineering
Red River Mfg., Inc.
202 8th St. W.
P.O. Box 732
West Fargo, ND 58078

Dear Mr. Bowhall:

This responds to your letter asking whether your belted-bottom trailers are "special purpose vehicles" under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear Impact Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding. The answer to your question is no.

After January 1998, Standard 224 will require most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard. Excluded from Standard 224 are "special purpose vehicles." A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of the standard as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment . . . that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard . . . ." (Emphasis added.)

Your letter and its enclosed brochures and video explain that you manufacture trailers that discharge their contents by means of a moving belt on the trailer floor that pushes the contents to the rear of the trailer. Your underride guards are currently located 24 inches forward of the vehicle's rear extremity, and you believe that having to locate the guard 12 inches closer to the rear extremity, as will be required by Standard 224, would render your vehicles unusable.

Your vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. The "special purpose vehicle" exclusion does not apply merely because the vehicle has a "special purpose." The exclusion involves the relationship of work-performing equipment to the guard. The conveyor belt on your vehicles at no time passes through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located. Moreover, even if it did pass through, it would have to do so while the vehicle is in transit. Because your vehicles do not meet the definition of "special purpose vehicles," they are not excluded from Standard 224.

Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. I have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. Please note that it takes three to four months from the date of submittal before a decision can be made on such an application because it has to be submitted for public comment.

If you need further assistance, you may contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:224