ID: aiam2140

Dear Mr. MacEachern: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1975, telling us of you wish to market a rectangular sealed beam headlamp unit for motorcycles. In your opinion this might be prohibited by 'federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the amended SAE J584b December 1971.'; Substitution of J584b would not be a solution to your problem since i does not specify a Type 2A sealed-beam headlamp unit as one of the approved options. There would have to be both a substitution of J584b and a provision in Standard No. 108 itself that either a Type 2 or Type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit may be used. I enclose a copy of a regulation that tells how you may submit a petition for rulemaking for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 108.; You also enclosed a letter from the California Highway Patrol statin that it was amending its regulations; >>>'to allow the use of motorcycle headlamps which comply with the typ 2 lower beam photometric requirements and the motorcycle upper beam requirements, though we are not sure what position NHTSA would take upon this interpretation'.<<<; Such action by the California Highway Patrol appears precluded b Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The effect of this section is to prohibit California from having a State lighting standard that differs in any way from Standard No. 108. Since the Federal lighting standard does not allow the California amendment, the State regulation appears invalid.; Notwithstanding California's 'approval' of your headlamp, your sale o this rectangular headlamp for motorcycles as either original equipment or as replacement equipment (but only for motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972) would appear to be a violation of Section 108(a) (1) (A) of the Act, unless and until Standard No. 108 is amended. There is a maximum penalty of $1,000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5103

"Dear Mr. Webster: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1992 seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). More specifically, your letter requested clarification of the correct test procedure for S5 of Standard No. 124 under a specific condition. By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a vehicle or product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Section S5 of Standard No. 124 requires vehicles to comply with certain requirements 'when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40 F. and +125 F. after 12 hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range.' (Emphasis added.) For purposes of the safety standards, the term any 'means generally the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing.' (49 CFR 571.4) Therefore, vehicles must meet Standard No. 124's requirements at all temperatures within the specified range. Your letter states that some vehicles are impossible to start after conditioning for 12 hours at -40 F. You asked which of the following procedures would be correct when testing a vehicle which will not start: Alternative (1): Test with engine not running at the -40 F. test condition. Alternative (2): Raise temperature until engine will start. Record test temperature and perform test. In conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would follow the procedures set forth in Standard No. 124. The agency would not follow the Alternative (1) test procedure since the standard specifies requirements that must be met 'when the engine is running.' The agency could conduct a compliance test at any temperature or temperatures within the specified -40 F. to +125 F. range. I note that S5.3 specifies that the performance requirement for maximum time to return to idle position varies depending on whether the vehicle is 'exposed to ambient air at 0 F to - 40 F. during the test or for any portion of the 12-hour conditioning period.' This language makes it clear that the ambient air does not need to be held at a single temperature during the conditioning period or during the test. If NHTSA chose to conduct a compliance test at -40 F. and the vehicle would not start because of the extreme cold, the agency would most likely either use a standard engine heater to assist in starting the vehicle or warm the entire vehicle to a temperature where it would start. I note, however, that if the agency did warm the vehicle to assist in starting, it might lower the temperature back down to -40 for purposes of conducting the test. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht91-6.8

DATE: September 24, 1991

FROM: Wayne Trueman -- Plant Manager, BX-100 International

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Chief Counsel Office, U.S. DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-16-91 from Paul Rice to Wayne Trueman (A38; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 7-31-91 from Wayne Trueman to Barry Felrice (OCC 6314)

TEXT:

This is in response to the letter of September 16, 1991 from Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice. I would like to thank Mr. Rice, yourself, and the other staff members who provided the information that went into the above letter.

One point that I believe needs clarification is the second sentence of paragraph one (copy enclosed). The BX-100 Brake Equalizer is NOT a valve, and has no impact what so ever on the axle to axle brake application timing. Having these units centrally installed between the brake chambers of EACH braking axle, only effects the air application at the individual axle ends into whose air system they are installed.

Per the Webster's New World Dictionary, a VALVE is: "Any device in a pipe or tube that permits a flow in one direction only, or regulates the flow of whatever is in the pipe, by means of a flap, lid, plug, etc. acting to open or block passage."

The function and intent of the BX-100 Brake Equalizer is simply to absorb brake system application PRESSURE variations. There is no air flow within this system once it is pressurized by the relay or quick release valve which also control the overall braking pressure applied to the brake ends. The only other pressure variations in the system are the various internal and externally induced air spikes. Having the BX-100 Brake Equalizers installed between the brake chambers, absorbs or removes the induced system air pressure variations. These high speed transient pressure variations during braking are normal and are caused by changes in the road surface, out of round brake drums, glazed brake pads, out of adjustment slack adjusters, and a host of other possibilities. The BX-100's absorb these variations and provide a more consistent brake application pressure which results in a decrease of heat production at the brake end and a resulting decrease in wear in all affected components. Since equal pressure is maintained, the driver retains complete control of his vehicle and is able to bring it to a shorter, safer, straight line stop.

Once again, thank you for your time and assistance in answering the various questions that I have submitted to your offices.

ID: reed.ztv

Mr. Eric Reed
P.O. Box 138
Bondurant, WY 82922

Dear Mr. Reed:

This is in reply to your letter of November 18,1999. We regret the delay in responding, but as Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you on January 27, 2000, your letter was misassigned.

With respect to S5.5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," you have asked whether you are correct in assuming that stop lamps must remain "activated" "as long as the service brake is applied." You comment that "the regulations do not address any duration of burn time or delay in de-activation of the stop lamps after the service brakes are released."

Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J586 FEB84 "Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width" and SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 "Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width." Paragraph 2.1 of each of these standards defines a stop lamp in part as a lamp that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Thus, S5.5.4 requires the stop lamps to activate when the service brakes are applied. The activation of the stop lamps at that point indicates that the driver intends to slow down or stop, and the stop lamps must remain activated as long as the service brake is applied. When the force that applies the service brakes is removed, the stop lamps are deactivated, as the operator's intent has become something other than to stop or diminish speed by braking. Continued activation of the stop lamp of any duration, in the absence of service brake application, is therefore not permitted by Standard No. 108.

You asked Mr. Vinson whether it is permissible for the hazard warning signal lamps to be automatically activated by a sensor to warn drivers approaching from the rear that their closing speed is excessive. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Recommended Practice J910 "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Operating Unit," January 1966. Paragraph 1 of J910 defines the unit as "a driver controlled device which causes all turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to the approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard." An automatic activation of the hazard warning unit would not be "driver controlled" and is therefore not permitted.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/29/2000

ID: nht76-5.32

DATE: 12/31/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: TREAD LABEL FORMAT: UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING STANDARDS

On December 16, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. Calvin Schaffner of B.F. Goodrich Co. (216 379-3470) concerning Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, 49 CFR @ 575.104. That figure depicts the format of the tread label required by the rule.

Mr. Schaffner referred to Figure 2 as it appears in Notice 21 (41 FR 54205; December 13, 1976). I explained that, because Notice 21 is a notice of proposed rulemaking rather than final rulemaking, the inclusion of the warnings in the traction and temperature grades is not yet certain. I further explained, however, that (i) in all other respects, the depiction of Figure 2 in that notice was correct; (ii) the appearance of Figure 2 was incorrect in both Notices 17 and 18, due to printing errors at the Federal Register, and (iii) this point would be clarified in a final rulemaking notice.

ID: nht95-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 13, 1995

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

TO: Gary Blouse -- V. P. Engineering, Fitting Image

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/26/94 LETTER FROM GARY BLOUSE TO OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONSOLE, NHTSA (OCC 10315)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Blouse:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. In your letter, you described your product as a bag holder for the interior of vehicles, designed to attach to the head restraint and hang on the back side of the front seats. Based on the illustration you provided, the bag holder appears to be a 12 inch flexible strap that attaches to the head restraint, with a "rigid plastic" hook at the end from whi ch plastic grocery bags are suspended.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that apply directly to your product, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Man ufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA's authority to issue these regulations is based on title 49, section 3 0102(7) of the U.S. Code (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), the relevant part of which defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added).

Although you appear to recognize the applicability of our regulations, based on your characterization of your product as "after market equipment," allow me to explain how NHTSA determines whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory under the U.S. Code. The agency applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertisi ng, 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 purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus subject to the provisions of the U.S.

Code.

Your bag holder appears to be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. It appears to be designed specifically to fit in motor vehicles using the head restraints, meaning that a substantial portion of its expected u se relates to motor vehicle operation. The bag holder would typically be purchased and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle).

While your bag holder is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. However, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. C ode concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Although no standards apply directly to the bag holder, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that require s, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance w ith that standard. If your bag holder were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the rigid plastic hook) were to be struck by the occupant's head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how big or how "rigid" the hook is, but it is something of which you should be aware.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the bag holder installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 pro hibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, complia nce with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the bag holder were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation .

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your bag holder in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authorit y to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

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

ID: nht71-5.7

DATE: 11/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971, in which you requested an opinion as to the requirements of Standard No. 208 that will apply to your vehicles after January 1, 1972. It appears from the information you provided that all of your vehicles have gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds. They will therefore be subject to the requirements of section S4.3 of the standard. Under this section, you may equip them with either of two restraint options - a passive restraint system, or a seat belt that conforms to the Federal seat belt standard (Standard No. 209). The vehicles will also have to have seats that conform to Standard No. 267, and seat belt anchorages that conform to Standard No. 210.

Copies of each standard are enclosed for your reference.

ENCLS.

ID: nht76-2.28

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1976, asking for an interpretation of the spacing requirements for motorcycle turn signal lamps specified in Table IV of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 requires that motorcycle turn signal lamps be located so that their edges are at least 4 inches from the edge of the headlamps (on the front) and tail or stop lamps (on the rear). You have asked for confirmation "that the minimum separation distance is measured between the edges of the illuminated lenses of the respective lamps on a line passing through each lamp . . . rather than being measured on a horizontal line between two planes touching the edges of the illuminated lenses".

This will confirm your interpretation that the minimum separation distance is to be measured at the point where the edges of the two lamps are closest to each other.

ID: nht67-1.1

DATE: 01/16/67

FROM: William Haddon, Jr., M.D. -- NHTSA

TO: H. H. Brainerd - Pennsylvania Bureau of Traffic Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 7, 1966, seeking clarification of questions posed by certain sections of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Your first question seeks interpretation as to the time when standards established under former Public Law 87-637 (brake fluid) and Public Law 88-201 (seat belts) become effective. Subsection 117(c) of the Act, although repealing the foregoing Federal statutes, continues in effect any standards effectively issued under those laws "as if they had been effectively issued under section 103 until amended or revoked..." Therefore, the Federal brake fluid and seat belt standands issued by the Secretary of Commerce before September 9, 1966, have continued in effect since that date under authority of section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The proposed Federal safety standard 209 on seat belts, if issued, will effectively replace the existing Federal seat belt (l5 CFR 9) standard issued on June 25, 1965 (Federal Register July 1, 1965) and the amendment thereto issued August 1, 1966 (Federal Register August 31, 1966).

Your second question asks whether proposed Federal safety standard 109 supersedes the Pennsylvania Law requiring testing and certification of brake linings. Because the Federal standard in question has not been promulgated but only proposed, we are precluded from making any official statement of interpretation regarding its preemption of state laws. However, we very much appreciate your having brought this matter to our attention and you may be assured that it will be fully considered before the initial Federal safety standards are promulgated. Your question will no doubt be clarified at that time.

The remaining questions you have raised seek clarification on how your State may ascertain whether manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, parts and components have complied with applicable Federal standards. We anticipate that the provisions of section 114 of the Act, which require every manufacturer or distributor of motor vehicle equipment to furnish a certification that each such item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, will provide the States with suitable confirmation of compliance. We [Illegible Words) of course, that these provisions will need to be fully implemented at the Federal level by regulations and testing procedures.

I trust this reply will be of assistance to you and that the answered questions will be resolved when the initial standards are promulgated later this month. However, if I can be of further service to you, please do not hesitate to let me know.

ID: 07-000135as