ID: nht95-4.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 4, 1995

FROM: Donald B. Karner -- Electric Transportation Applications

TO: Mary Versailles -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 1/24/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Donald B. Karner (A44; Part 567; Part 571.3)

TEXT: Electric Transportation Applications has been contracted to conduct electric vehicle performance testing. During our listing, we encountered an issue concerning FMVSS Certification of a converted vehicle. Mr. Jude Clark of our staff spoke with you last week, and understood that your office was willing to provide NHTSA's opinion on this issue. We are writing to obtain this opinion.

Our questions center on changes made to a vehicle's seating capacity:

1. When a converter recertifies a vehicle with fewer designated seating positions than the number specified on the Original Equipment Manufacturer's (OEM) FMVSS Certification label, what actions must the converter take to prevent the seat from being occ upied?

2. Must the payload of the vehicle (GVWR less curb weight) be greater than the number of certified seating positions times 150 pounds (or some other number representing the weight of a typical passenger)?

3. What vehicle options, if any, must be considered in determinate of the curb weight used in question 2?

Thank you for your help in this matter. We are looking forward to your reply.

ID: 18826.ztv

Mr. Gerald C. Philips
President
Fiber Light Solutions, LLC
1408 One Hancock Plaza
Gulfport, MS 39501-1980

Dear Mr. Philips:

This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, seeking further clarification of the relationship of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment to your product, "Fat Boyz Flasherz," with respect to its installation on pick-up trucks. We have provided interpretations about this product to your company on January 31, 1997, and September 22, 1998.

We are also responding to your letter of September 30, 1998, to Larry Minor, addressed to him at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), with respect to the installation of "Fat Boyz Flasherz" on tow trucks. Mr. Minor is with the Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). That is the agency within the Department of Transportation responsible for safety regulations concerning the operation of heavy trucks and buses in interstate commerce. With respect to tow trucks, its regulations are currently applicable to commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,001) pounds or more. We are unable to tell from your schematic whether the tow truck illustrated that is equipped with "Flasherz" is subject to FHWA regulations. However, FHWA allows the use of additional lighting equipment provided the additional equipment does not decrease the effectiveness of the lamps and reflectors that NHTSA requires under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and the FHWA has concurred in this letter to you.

In my letter of September 22, I advised your company that "the color must be red for FATBOYZ mounted on the side of the box of pickup trucks, and, on trailers, amber up to the midpoint of the trailer, and red to the rear of the midpoint." You believe that the issue is the "mid-point" question, and that "since the now required cab rear red light is beyond the mid-point from the rear of the pick-up truck, and that it can be seen from the side, that an interpretation of the regulations could permit use of Flasherz as described herein."

As we have advised before, we regard the Flasherz light rail, as previously described, as a supplementary side marker lamp. The cab-mounted center stop lamp is not required to be seen from the side of the vehicle, and therefore is not relevant to this interpretation. However, we have reconsidered the issue of supplementary side marker lamps, and we agree that yellow is the correct color for "Flasherz" when operating as a side marker lamp. European trucks are required to have a series of side marker lamps, all of which are yellow except the rearmost. Canada permits the European arrangement of yellow side marker lamps spaced not more than 3m apart without requiring one to be mounted exactly at the mid-point. It is also common practice on heavy trucks and trailers regulated by FHWA to have an array of yellow supplementary side marker lamps. All these arrangements use a single red rear side marker on each side. The original rear side red rear side marker would meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, while the "Flasherz" would be analogous to the supplementary yellow side marker lamps of heavy vehicles.

The diagrams you enclosed with your letters indicate that the Flasherz light rails mounted on the pick-up box and tow truck side flash with a yellow color to serve as supplementary turn and hazard warning signals. When the brakes are applied, the light rails illuminate a steady-burning red as a supplementary stop signal. On the pickup, when the turn signal is on and the brakes are applied, the light rail in the direction of the turn flashes yellow and red (on the tow truck it appears to flash only yellow), while the light rail on the opposite side remains a steady-burning red. The light rails are a steady-burning yellow under all other operating conditions.

Flasherz also incorporates a stop signal function. We do not view this feature as comprising a supplementary stop lamp because the light rail is located on the side, rather than the rear of the vehicle as stop lamps are required to be. This feature of Flasherz, then, is an "additional lamp" within the meaning of S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 which is not prohibited if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. Under the conditions described below, we believe that this feature is acceptable.

The operation of Flasherz as you describe it is not totally in accord with Standard No. 108's requirements, but we believe that Flasherz can be modified to conform with them. The system would be acceptable if it operates in the following manner. The system flashes one or both light rails in a yellow color to indicate, respectively, the direction of a turn or activation of the hazard warning system, a present feature of the system. When the brakes are applied, the light rails illuminate a steady-burning red, also a present feature of Flasherz. When the turn signal is on and the brakes are applied, however, the light rail in the direction of the turn must flash yellow/off (as it appears to do on the tow truck), or illuminate in a steady-burning red, but not both, while the light rail on the opposite side remains a steady-burning red. We believe that the alternately flashing yellow/red signal, unfamiliar to motorists, has the potential to impair the effectiveness of both the original equipment turn signal and stop lamps. The turn operation function also follows the convention for optically combined turn signal/stop lamps where the stop lamp function is suppressed during turn signal operation.

We have further comments regarding the diagram showing the tow truck, concerning the truck's strobe system. It is equipped with a yellow "strobe beacon;" when the strobe beacon is on, the light rails alternate between the strobe pulse and their normal steady-burning state, which we agree should be yellow. If the brake is applied when the yellow strobe beacon is activated, the light rails alternate between a strobe pulse in yellow and a red steady-burning state. We have informed you in a previous paragraph that we believe an alternatively flashing yellow/red has the potential to confuse motorists. We would advise caution in determining the number and pulse rate of strobe lights on motor vehicles, because they may trigger photic reactions in some observers, similar to epileptic seizures.

I hope that this is responsive to your concerns. If you have any questions, you may telephone Mr. Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.12/23/98

ID: aiam1969

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This responds to Toyota's June 9, 1975, request for confirmation tha S5.3.2 of Standard No. 105-75, *Hydraulic brake system*, requires a check of the brake system indicator lamp function only when the transmission is in the 'P' (park) position or the 'N' (neutral) position.S5.3.2 specifies:; >>>S5.3.2 All Indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lam function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the 'on' ('run') position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between 'on' ('run') and 'start' that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.<<<; The wording of S5.3.2 requires a check of lamp function without regar to the position of the transmission shift lever whenever the ignition switch is in one of the positions described. In the case of vehicles equipped with automatic transmission, this language does not reflect the National highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) intent that the check function occur during the process of starting the vehicle.; To incorporate the intended meaning of the requirement into th standard, the NHTSA will shortly issue an interpretative rule that modifies the language of s%.3.2 by limiting the check function to the park an neutral positions for vehicles with automatic transmission.; Sincerely, James D. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: 22692

Mr. Jeffrey D. Gonneville
Senior Project Technical Manager
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
80 Broadway
Everett, MA 02149





Dear Mr. Gonneville:

This is in reply to your recent letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, as they apply to large passenger buses equipped with a liquid crystal display (LCD) information panel. Your letter describes the LCD panel as a microprocessor controlled programmable display having the ability to display a number of conditions in the vehicle, including the air pressure present in the primary and secondary brake systems. You further state that the LCD display would be programmed so the default mode would be to show the primary and secondary brake system pressure. However, in the event that a malfunction or abnormal condition is detected by the vehicle's monitoring system, a message or warning would be displayed on the LCD in place of the brake pressure gauges until the vehicle operator acknowledges the fault and resets the display. Once the display is reset, the LCD will again go to the default mode and display the primary and secondary brake system pressure. In addition to the LCD, you describe the buses as having a traditional warning light and buzzer that will activate in the case of low brake system air pressure.

I am happy to have this opportunity to discuss the role of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in this matter. Under its statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA issued Standard No. 121, "Air brake systems," which specifies minimum performance requirements for trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Among other things, Standard No. 121 requires that vehicles be equipped with a pressure gauge for each service brake system (S5.1.4) and a warning device that gives continuous warning to a driver when the ignition is in the "on" or "run" position and the service reservoir system pressure is below 60 psi (S5.1.5).

The requirements for pressure gauges are found in S5.1.4 of Standard No. 121. Paragraph S5.1.4 requires a pressure gauge to be "readily visible" to a person seated in the normal driving position. It is the agency's position that in the context of Standard No. 121, "readily visible" means visible whenever the driver wants to see it. It does not mean that the air pressure level should be continuously visible. As we understand your system, the air pressure gauges will be "readily visible" unless a fault indicator or warning message appeared on the LCD. If this occurs, the driver could determine the air pressure at any time by pushing the "reset" button. We have concluded that this operation satisfies S5.1.4 and that your system would be permissible under that section.

A low pressure warning signal is required by paragraph S5.1.5 and must be separate from the pressure gauge. You state that the buses will have a separate warning light and an audible alarm. This would appear to conform to S5.1.5.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.7/16/01

ID: 08-006052drn vasatko

ID: 8089

Mr. L. J. Sharman
314 Lakeside Drive South
Surfside Beach, SC 29575

Dear Mr. Sharman:

This responds to your letter of November 18, 1992, regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your questions and the answer to each follows.

Question 1.

MVSS-302, in Section S5.3(e), states that the timing for each specimen be started when the flame from the burning specimen reaches a point 1.5 inches from the open end of the specimen and, in Section S5.3(f), is stopped when the flame progresses to a point 1.5 inches from the clamped end of the specimen. Further, the Standard, in Section S5.2.2, states the specimen is oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant compartment air space faces downward on the test frame. The question that has been raised is whether the timing is started and stopped when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface of the specimen closest to the occupant compartment air space (the surface facing down during the test), or when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface of the specimen facing away from the occupant compartment air space (the surface facing up during the test).

You suggest that the timing should be started and stopped when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface facing up during the test. As explained below, NHTSA disagrees.

Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 302 states:

When tested in accordance with S5, material described in S4.1 and S4.2 shall not burn, nor transmit a flame front across its surface, at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. However, the requirement concerning transmission of a flame front shall not apply to a surface created by the cutting of a test specimen for purposes of testing pursuant to S5.

Any surface not created by the cutting of the test specimen, including the surface oriented downward pursuant to S5.2.2, is required to comply with the burn-rate requirement of S4.3(a). Surfaces created by the cutting of the test specimen were excluded from this requirement in a final rule published on March 31, 1975 (40 FR 14318). The reasons for the exclusion were stated in the notice as follows:

(C)utting certain materials to the prescribed thickness produces a tufted surface upon which a flame front may be propagated at a faster rate than it would be upon the surface of the material before cutting, thereby creating an artificial test condition.

Because of this exclusion, the surface facing upward pursuant to S5.2.2 is not required to comply with the burn-rate requirement of S4.3(a) if the surface was created by cutting the material to be tested to the prescribed thickness.

In addition, I note that S5.3(b) requires the test specimen to be placed in the center of the cabinet. Therefore, it should not be any more difficult to observe the progress of the flame on the surface facing down than the surface facing up.

Question 2.

MVSS-302, in Section S5.3(f), states that the flame progression be measured to a point 1.5 inches from the clamped end of the specimen under test. The standard does not specify actions to be taken after timing has stopped. Some laboratories put out the flame using a small amount of water from a spray bottle. The question has been raised as to whether using a small amount of water from a spray bottle to put out the flame is an acceptable procedure.

You are correct that Standard No. 302 does not specify a procedure to extinguish the flame after the test. Therefore, spraying a specimen with a small amount of water to extinguish the flame would be acceptable.

However, please bear in mind that S5.1.2 states

Prior to testing, each specimen is conditioned for 24 hours at a temperature of 70 F. and a relative humidity of 50 percent, and the test is conducted under those ambient conditions.

After spraying a specimen in the test cabinet, it would be necessary to ensure that the ambient conditions in the cabinet conform to those specified in S5.1.2 before conducting any additional tests.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:302 d:3/23/93

ID: nht93-2.24

DATE: March 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: L. J. Sharman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-18-92 from L. J. Sharman to NHTSA, Department of Transportation (OCC 8089)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 18, 1992, regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 302, FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS. Your questions and the answer to each follows.

Question 1.

MVSS-302, in Section S5.3(e), states that the timing for each specimen be started when the flame from the burning specimen reaches a point 1.5 inches from the open end of the specimen and, in section S5.3(f), is stopped when the flame progresses to a point 1.5 inches from the clamped end of the specimen. Further, the Standard, in Section S5.2.2, states the specimen is oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant compartment air space faces downward on the test frame. The question that has been raised is whether the timing is started and stopped when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface of the specimen closest to the occupant compartment air space (the surface facing down during the test), or when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface of the specimen facing away from the occupant compartment air space (the surface facing up during the test).

You suggest that the timing should be started and stopped when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface facing up during the test. As explained below, NHTSA disagrees.

Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 302 states: When tested in accordance with S5, material described in S4.1 and S4.2 shall not burn, nor transmit a flame front across its surface, at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. However, the requirement concerning transmission of a flame front shall not apply to a surface created by the cutting of a test specimen for purposes of testing pursuant to S5.

Any surface not created by the cutting of the test specimen, including the surface oriented downward pursuant to S5.2.2, is required to comply with the burn-rate requirement of S4.3(a). Surfaces created by the cutting of the test specimen were excluded from this requirement in a final rule published on March 31, 1975 (40 FR 14318). The reasons for the exclusion were stated in the notice as follows:

(C)utting certain materials to the prescribed thickness produces a tufted surface upon which a flame front may be propagated at a faster rate than it would be upon the surface of the material before cutting, thereby creating an artificial test condition.

Because of this exclusion, the surface facing upward pursuant to S5.2.2 is not required to comply with the burn-rate requirement of S4.3(a) if the surface was

created by cutting the material to be tested to the prescribed thickness.

In addition, I note that S5.3(b) requires the test specimen to be placed in the center of the cabinet. Therefore, it should not be any more difficult to observe the progress of the flame on the surface facing down than the surface facing up.

Question 2.

MVSS-302, in Section S5.3(f), states that the flame progression be measured to a point 1.5 inches from the clamped end of the specimen under test. The standard does not specify actions to be taken after timing has stopped. Some laboratories put out the flame using a small amount of water from a spray bottle. The question has been raised as to whether using a small amount of water from a spray bottle to put out the flame is an acceptable procedure.

You are correct that Standard No. 302 does not specify a procedure to extinguish the flame after the test. Therefore, spraying a specimen with a small amount of water to extinguish the flame would be acceptable.

However, please bear in mind that S5.1.2 states

Prior to testing, each specimen is conditioned for 24 hours at a temperature of 70 degrees F. and a relative humidity of 50 percent, and the test is conducted under those ambient conditions.

After spraying a specimen in the test cabinet, it would be necessary to ensure that the ambient conditions in the cabinet conform to those specified in S5.1.2 before conducting any additional tests.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam3072

Dear Mr. Champagne: This is in response to your telephone conversations of July 13, 1979 with Mr. Steve Wood of my office, in which you requested a general explanation of the Federal law concerning auxiliary gasoline tanks and the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles to propane-powered vehicles.; The following discussion sets forth the implications of thes activities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits.; Before getting into the legalities of these installations an conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles which are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increase the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present.; The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles.; Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate customer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.R. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7).; Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act).; With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is tha not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also.; If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fue system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline- powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane- powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75.; After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufacture in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974) (sic). Such a reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.; There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection wit FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be governed by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars.; The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle s that is has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A).; As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 *et seq.* o the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well (sic) persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 *et seq.* provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term 'manufacturer' includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers.; Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or make propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation.; Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and th propane systems would all be treated as 'replacement equipment.' Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment.; Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provid notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1000 per violation.; Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 *et seq.* Since the term 'manufacturer' is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble, or import *new* vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers.; Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of th liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary of replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort.; I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have an further questions I will be happy to answer them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 581interpretation

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Regulations Manager
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 E. Imperial Highway
Brea, CA 92821

Dear Mr. Bush:


This responds to your question of whether the front grille of a Suzuki passenger car qualifies as a bumper face bar component under 49 C.F.R. Part 581. The answer to your question is no, the front grille does not qualify as a component of the bumper face bar.

The purpose of the bumper standard, as set forth under Section 581.2, is to reduce the physical damage to the front and rear ends of passenger motor vehicles from low speed collisions. To accomplish this purpose, Part 581 requires the vehicle to withstand prescribed pendulum and barrier tests. Vehicles must experience no damage to vehicle exterior surfaces, and only limited damage to the bumper face bar, and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Section 581.4 defines the bumper face bar as any component of the bumper system that contacts the impact ridge of the pendulum test device. See Figures 1 and 2 of Part 581.

In an interpretive Federal Register notice that followed the publication of the rule, we addressed the application of the rule to bumper face bars and attached components. We explained that components must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they constitute components of the bumper system. We looked to the function of the component and recognized that some components could not qualify as components of the bumper system, even if contacted by the impact ridge of the pendulum or barrier. For example, "illumination devices, e.g., fog lamps and directional signals, are not associated with the bumper systems function and could not qualify as components of the bumper system, even if contacted by the pendulum test device or barrier." 43 Fed. Reg. 40229, 40230 (Sept. 11, 1978). However "other components could be considered components of the bumper system, depending on their application in a particular vehicle design." Id.For example a grille, which is generally associated with the body of the vehicle, "could perform a protective function as a component of a bumper system in a soft-face configuration, and could therefore qualify as a component of the bumper system." Id.

After reviewing your submitted materials, it appears that the Suzuki front grille is not a component of the bumper system. First, the grille appears to be a separate part that can be installed and removed independent of the front bumper. It is not an integral part of the bumper system. Second, the grille does not appear to be associated with the bumper systems function, namely performing a protective function of reducing the physical damage to the vehicle.

If you have any questions or concerns about this interpretation, please contact Raymond Woo at the Office of Chief Counsel at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:581
d.3/9/04

ID: aiam4547

Dear Mr. Ziolo: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1988 asking about the acceptability under Safety Standard No. 108 of modifying imported vehicles so that they are equipped with two Type 2D1 and two Type 1C1 headlamps. You have been informed by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that this is impermissible 'because they are 'nonconforming' 'headlight systems'.' You disagree because you believe that the minimum requirements of the Standard are satisfied by the Type 2D1 lamps, and that 'S4.4 appears to permit such a combination.' Paragraph S4.4 is not applicable to the situation you present as it refers to combinations of lamps serving different functions, in your discussion, the lamps serve the identical function of headlighting. Given the fact that the Type 2D1 sealed beam 7' diameter headlamps fulfill the headlighting requirements of the Standard, your question must be viewed as whether a supplement to the headlighting system is permissible under Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.l.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the addition of nonrequired lighting equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the equipment that the standard requires. The two Type 1C1 5 3/4' diameter sealed beam lamps in a four lamp headlighting system form the major portion of an upper beam headlighting system. The two Type 2D1 lamps in a two lamp headlighting system form the whole of an upper beam headlighting system. Thus, a vehicle furnished with the systems you posit would be equipped with more than one upper beam headlighting system. The Type 2D1 system must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c DEC79 'Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles.' The SAE Standard establishes at two test points, H-V and 4 D-V, maximum allowable candela of 75,000 and 5,000 respectively for each Type 2D1 headlamp. This means that the maximum allowable candela for headlighting systems at these test points is 150,000 and l0,000 candela. The Type 1C1 headlamps will also be designed to conform to SAE J579c. Corresponding maxima at test points H-V and 4 D-V for Type 1C1 systems are 60,000 and 5,000. Thus, a vehicle equipped with the lamps you have described could emit a total of 270,000 candela at test point H-V (when only 150,000 is permitted), and 20,000 at 4D-V (when only l0,000 is allowable). Agency research has shown that candela readings in excess of 150,000 greatly increase the potential for glare with little increase in seeing ability. This glare would be visible both to the driver of an oncoming car, and the driver of the modified vehicle itself through creation of a 'veiling' glare. The addition of the Type 1C1 headlamps would therefore impair the effectiveness of the Type 2D1 headlighting system, and is forbidden by S4.1.3. We appreciate your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;