ID: nht89-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/89

FROM: C. COLEMAN BIRD

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION REGARDING STATUS OF PORTABLE BACK MASSAGER UNDER NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/05/90 FROM STEPHENS P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL TO C COLEMAN BIRD -- PEPPER HAMILTON AND SCHEETZ, A35, VSA 102[4]

TEXT: This is written to request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ("NHTSA's") interpretation of the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. @@ 1381 et seq. (the "Act") and the regula tions (49 C.F.R. Part 571) as applied to the portable back massager product described below. The particular questions are: (1) whether this product is an "item of motor vehicle equipment" as defined in the Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(4); (2) whether any Feder al safety standards (including but not limited to any NHTSA vehicle or equipment safety standards) are applicable to this product; and (3) if the product is not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of NHTSA or the Department of Transportation, whether it is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of any other agency.

The product in question is a portable back massager, which consists of an inflatable cushion (approximately 24.5 inches long, 14.5 inches wide, and 3 inches deep) that conforms to the user's back, with two massaging units (separate electric motors) th at are capable of giving simultaneous massage to the thoracic (upper back) and lumbar (lower back) regions of the user's back. The product also can provide heat to the user's back. It is designed for use either in the home or the user's vehicle (by mean s of an adaptor that plugs into the vehicle's cigarette lighter). When used in a vehicle, the product will simply be

placed on the user's seat and will not be affixed or installed in the vehicle in any way. It could be used either by the driver or by a passenger.

Please let me know if you need any additional facts concerning the product or its proposed use in motor vehicles in order to respond to this inquiry.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated prompt response.

Sincerely,

ID: 1982-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Dianne Palmer

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1982, on behalf of the Northstar Youth Organization asking for "authorization for our vehicles (buses & trucks) to operate on highways within the United States." You indicate that this group is planning "an extensive trip" through the States shortly.

The Department has no objection to occasional use of U.S. highways by foreign vehicles that do not conform to all applicable U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards but it has taken the position that vehicles used in cross-border activity on a daily basis should meet those standards. Your letter indicates that your planned trip may be a one-time occurrence. At the border your drivers may be asked by U.S. Customs officials to execute a Form HS-7, which applies to importation of vehicles not meeting U.S. standards. In this event, Box 5 should be checked which is a declaration that the importer is a non-resident of the U.S. importing the vehicle primarily for personal use for a period not exceeding one year, and that he will not sell it in the U.S. during that time. This should be sufficient to allow your group to enter the country and travel through it.

We hope that the trip will be both pleasant and educational for your youth group.

SINCERELY,

Northstar DRUM CORPS INC.

September 14, 1982

Department of Transportation Reciprocity & Insurance Section

Dear Sir:

On behalf of the Northstar Youth Organization of Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, I hereby request authorization for our vehicles (buses & trucks) to operate on the highways within the United States.

Our vehicles are privately owned by the Organization and are used for the sole purpose of transporting the members of the Drum Corps and their equipment.

We are planning an extensive trip throughout the United States during the upcoming season and would like this information as soon as possible.

If anything further is required, please advise.

Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.

Dianne Palmer

ID: 00946.ztv

James T. Pitts, Esq.
Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP
1201 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20005-3917

Dear Mr. Pitts:




This is in reply to your letter of October 1, 2002, to Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.You wrote on behalf of your client, TBC Corporation ("TBC"), whose Director of Engineering and Quality Assurance, L. M. Hardy, was notified by Claude Harris, Director of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, on September 4, 2002, that its petition for an inconsequentiality determination was moot.The basis for this conclusion was that all the noncomplying tires covered by the petition remained in the possession of the company, and had not been distributed or sold.You have asked us to reconsider our position on the basis of alternative arguments that you presented.

By way of background, paragraph S6.4 Treadwear indicators of 49 CFR 571.119, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, "New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars," specifies that each tire to which the standard applies "shall have at least six treadwear indicators . . . ." TBC determined that certain of its tires had only five treadwear indicators.It then properly determined that this was a failure to comply with Standard No. 119, notified NHTSA as required by 49 CFR Part 573, and petitioned for a determination that the noncompliance was inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.As noted in the first paragraph, we considered the petition to be moot and further informed TBC that its noncompliant tires could not be legally sold (letter of Claude Harris, attached).

In your first argument, you analogized to a 1979 case involving Vespa of America Corporation which had failed to provide a turn signal indicator on its motorcycles.We concurred with the company's argument that the rapid flashing of the front turn signal lamps to indicate a failure of the rear turn signal lamps was a functional equivalent of a turn signal indicator which would indicate a failure in the turn signal system (letter of Chief Counsel Frank Berndt, March 16, 1979).You have asked us to make a similar decision with respect to TBC's noncompliance.

We have reviewed Mr. Berndt's letter.Significantly, Mr. Berndt stated that "we have determined that there is no failure to comply with the standard and your petition is moot." NHTSA's determination that there was no failure to comply with Standard No. 108 permitted Vespa to sell its complying motorcycles.With respect to TBC, we cannot make a determination that there was no failure to comply with Standard No. 119 on the basis of functional equivalence.The standard requires a minimum of six treadwear indicators.We cannot interpret this as meaning five treadwear indicators are the functional equivalent of "at least six treadwear indicators."

In the alternative, you have presented your interpretations of 49 U.S.C. Sections 30112, 30118, and 30120.You asserted that "there is nothing in Section 30118(d)" or Section 30120. . . that requires that there be 'owners, purchasers, and dealers' as a prerequisite to an inconsequentiality determination." You concluded that "it is clear that NHTSA can make an 'inconsequential to safety determination' at a time when the noncomplying equipment is still in the hands of the manufacturer."You next argued that "The ability of the manufacturers to then sell that equipment turns on the language in section 30112(b)(2)(A), which excludes certain persons and equipment from the prohibitions in section 30112(a) relating to the sale of non-complying equipment." Specifically, you asserted that subsection (b)(2)(A) excludes persons exercising reasonable care who had no reason to know that the equipment "does not comply." You argued that "The exclusion, written in the present tense, does not assume that any of the actions prohibited in subsection (a) have already taken place. Otherwise, the exclusion would reference the lack of knowledge regarding the noncompliance of the equipment at the time the equipment was imported or sold, i.e., a past action, and not a present condition."You concluded that "TBC imported the tires in questions (sic) and had no reason to know then of their noncompliance.The equipment does not comply with an applicable standard.The exclusion from the flat prohibition of sale is thus satisfied and the tires can be sold without penalty if, and only if, NHTSA determines that the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety."

The Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to add Section 157, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Failure to Comply (the Safety Act was recodified in 1994 and the provisions of Section 157 were divided between Section 30118(d), regarding notice, and Section 30120(h), regarding remedy.The 1974 Amendments required manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to remedy noncompliances and safety-related defects without charge.The obligation was absolute and Section 157 was added as a means of relieving manufacturers of the need to notify and remedy where noncompliances, such as those involving labels, and defects were inconsequential as they related to motor vehicle safety.The legislative history clearly indicates that this was the purpose of the inconsequentiality provisions:

This section [157] enables a manufacturer to apply to the Secretary for an exemption from the obligation to give notice with respect to, or to remedy, a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, which contains a defect relating to motor vehicle safety or which fails to comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. * * * Your Committee believes that this provision is a reasonable corollary to the new statutory obligation for manufacturer to remedy without charge. [H. Rep. 93-1191. 93d Cong. 2d Sess. 31 (1974)]

We disagree with your analysis of Section 30112.Significantly, Section 157 referred only to relief from the notice and remedy provisions.It did not alter what is now Section 30112(a).Under Section 30112(a), sale of the noncomplying tires remains unlawful. We further read Section 30112 in context with Section 30165(a)(1).That section authorizes civil penalties for a person that violates Section 30112 (and other statutory provisions).TBC's importation of non-complying tires into the United States is a prima facie violation of Section 30112(a).However, if TBC can establish that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it did not know of the noncompliance at the time of importation, it will not be held to have violated Section 30112(a) for purposes of civil penalties.The existence of a reasonable care defense does not alter the fact that non-complying tires have been imported. If TBC then proceeds to engage in further violations of Section 30112(a), i.e., to "sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce" the defense of Section 30112(b)(2)(A) will no longer be available to it, and it will be liable for civil penalties under Section 30165.A determination that a noncompliance is inconsequential does not bring a noncompliant product into compliance, and such a determination is immaterial for purposes of knowing violations of Section 30112(a) (but an inconsequentiality determination would be relevant for the agency to weigh in determining the amount of a civil penalty for a violation of Section 30112(a), because the agency is required to consider the gravity of the violation that has occurred.See Section 30165(c)).

For NHTSA to relieve a manufacturer of the obligation to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers when none of the noncomplying products have been delivered to them would be a meaningless exercise; under these circumstances the obligation does not arise in the first instance and the petition is moot. Similarly, the obligation to remedy under Section 30120 arises only when notification of a defect is required under Section 30118(c), and if this obligation is moot, so is the obligation to remedy.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.11/1/02

ID: nht95-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Holmes

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/15/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES HOLMES TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11084)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company.

In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your s on in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand "over the door handle . . . [and] was tring [sic] to hold on and the door came open."

You ask several questions relating to requirements for "a safety lock" for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have "safety locks."

Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and ne w items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 established certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold "new" to the rental company.

Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a "safety lock." Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to disable th e outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install "child safety locks" on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the "unlocked" posit ion. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA.

Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a "rental vehicle." The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a "truck" under our regulations, regardle ss of whether it is a rental vehicle.

Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action.

Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accide nt and where there were no fatalities or injuries.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Enclosure (COPY OF REGULATION IS OMITTED.)

ID: aiam4990

Dear Mr. Phillips: This responds to your letter to this office date March 20, 1992, in which you inquired whether the Hybrid III large male test dummy, Model No. H3-95-R with 1992 pelvis upgrade, manufactured by First Technology Safety Systems, is an 'approved equivalent test device' for conducting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 202 test. I am sorry we could not respond to you on or before April 2 as you requested. Standard 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR Part 571.202), specifies requirements for head restraints to reduce the frequency and severity of neck injury in rear-end and other collisions. S4.3 of the standard requires that 'a head restraint that conforms to either (a) or (b) shall be provided' for certain seating positions. In Standard 202's demonstration procedures relating to the compliance option set forth in S4.3(a), S5.1(a) specifies use of a 'dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device.' The Model H3-95-R dummy is marketed by First Technology Safety Systems as a '95th Percentile Male Hybrid III Test Dummy.' We therefore assume that it has the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male. The only remaining issue of whether the dummy can be used under S5.1(a) is whether it has 'an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure.' In the preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 202, NHTSA provided clarification of the term 'approved representation of a human articulated neck structure.' The agency stated that a neck structure of a test device would be approved if it could be demonstrated by technical test data that the articulation of the neck structure represented that of a human neck. NHTSA indicated that approval could only be given to a structure sufficiently described in performance parameters to ensure reliable and reproducible test data. See 33 FR 2945-2946, February 14, 1968. You did not provide any specifications or test data concerning the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy (Model H3-95-R). However, NHTSA conducted an extensive evaluation of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy, including its neck, in the context of specifying its use (as one of two alternative 50th percentile male dummies) in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, dummy. The specifications for the Hybrid III test dummy, for purposes of Standard No. 208, are set forth in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. The specifications for the other 50th percentile male dummy used in Standard No. 208 are set forth in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572. We understand that the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy is essentially a scaled version of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. We therefore approve a Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy for purposes of Standard 202, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that of the Part 572 Hybrid III test dummy, other than minor differences related to adjustments for length. For the same reasons, we approve use of a 95th percentile male version of the dummy specified in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that specified in Part 572, other than minor differences related to adjustments to length. I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: 21575.ztv

Mr. Randy Burns
Rt. 2, Box 267
Linden, TX 75563

Dear Mr. Burns:

We are replying to your e-mail of April 25, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You relate that you have bought a set of "clear tail lamps" for use on your truck, which "state that they are dot approved." The units "have the red reflector." You are "using red bulbs in the lamps to make the lights red." You ask whether the lenses are legal.

In our view, the manufacture and/or sale of clear lenses intended for use on stop lamps or taillamps violates Federal law because they are not identical to the original lenses they are intended to replace, and would not provide a proper lamp color. We further advise that, under certain circumstances, installation of clear lenses on the rear of a motor vehicle could also violate Federal law. And as we have advised before, whether it is legal to drive a vehicle with clear lenses installed is a question to be answered under the laws in effect where the vehicle is driven. We have enclosed materials indicating that lamps with clear lenses and red bulbs are not legal in Texas.

The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are established by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which applies to lighting equipment on new vehicles, and replacement equipment for that original lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of Standard No. 108 requires lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment to be designed to conform to Standard No. 108.

Under Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108 and appropriate SAE Standards incorporated by reference, the color of the light from taillamps and stop lamps must be red (If a manufacturer chooses red rather than amber for the rear turn signal lamp, the color from that lamp must be red as well. Rear clearance and identification lamps, and rear side marker lamps must also be red). The color red is defined by SAE Standard J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices, February 1977, which S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Although Standard No. 108 does not expressly state that the lens of a rear signal lamp must be red and the bulb white for the light to achieve the color red, we are unaware of any original equipment lamp required to emit the color red that consists of a clear lens and a red bulb and that is certified to comply with Standard No. 108. This is not simply a design choice; we know of no red bulb in production that conforms to Standard No. 108's color specification. The combination of a clear bulb and a red lens, therefore, is the only way to design a lamp that conforms to Standard No. 108's requirement that its light be red. This means that the manufacture of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps on lamps whose original color was red is a violation of S5.8 of Standard No. 108, and the manufacture and sale of clear lenses or lamps for these purposes is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). This means that the use of the DOT symbol on the lamp's lens or its container will be regarded as a violation of the certification provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30115. We shall maintain this position until we determine that a bulb conforming to the color red is in production, and specifically intended for use in lamps that will be certified as complying with Standard No. 108.

We contrast this with clear replacement lenses and lamps for turn signal and parking lamps (and front side marker lamps, as well as front clearance and identification lamps on wider vehicles). The light from these lamps must be amber (also when amber is chosen over red for the rear turn signals). The amber light from these lamps furnished as original equipment is produced by either a white bulb and amber lens, or by an amber bulb and a white lens. The latter is permissible because amber bulbs meeting J578's color specification for amber are available. Lamps incorporating white lenses and amber bulbs are being certified as conforming to Standard No. 108. Thus, a clear lens for these specific lamps is permissible as original equipment, provided that the lamp with an amber bulb produces light meeting J578's amber color specification. It follows that replacement lenses or lamps for original equipment lamps with amber bulbs may also be clear, and that it is not a violation of Federal law to manufacture and sell them, provided that they comply in every way with Standard No 108.

We also note that, if any replacement lens or the lens of a replacement headlamp is plastic, S5.1.2 requires it to conform to the specifications of SAE Recommended Practice J576, Plastic Materials for use in Optical Parts, Such as Lenses and Reflectors, of Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, JUL91. Since conformance is determined after a three-year outdoor exposure test, we have substantial doubts that any aftermarket clear plastic lens or lamp intended for replacement use on lamps required to produce red or amber light is manufactured from materials that have been tested in accordance with SAE J576 JUL91, as required for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You report that the clear lenses you bought incorporate a red reflector. One of our previous objections to clear replacement taillamp lenses was their lack of a red reflex reflector, present in many original equipment red taillamp lenses and which the vehicle manufacturer may have used to fulfill the requirement of Standard No. 108 that vehicles have red reflex reflectors on the rear, and if included in the original lamp, a red reflector on the side that fulfills the requirement for a red side reflex reflector.

You use the term "dot approved," but we have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" vehicle lighting equipment, and such language is improper. We believe you must mean that the lenses are marked with a DOT symbol, or that the package in which they were sold stated "DOT approved." The use of the DOT symbol is reserved for representing the manufacturer's own certification that the lens or lamp complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and not that we have approved the product. As noted above, we doubt whether manufacturers of these lenses have conducted the outdoor exposure test to which they may be certifying compliance by use of the DOT symbol. It is possible, also, that other tests for determining compliance have not been done as well.

At the beginning of my letter, I remarked that the installation of clear stop lamp and taillamp lenses could be a violation of Federal law under certain circumstances. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses are forbidden from making inoperative any equipment installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If one of these persons replaces the original red lens by a white lens, we will consider that a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 has occurred, even if that person installs a red bulb.

However, this prohibition does not apply to an individual vehicle owner.

We enclose material that was published on June 8, 2000, on its internet website by the Texas Department of Public Safety which states that "clear tail lamp lenses utilizing red bulbs" are "in violation of Texas law."

If you have any questions, you may again contact Taylor Vinson by e-mail.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/20/00

ID: nht95-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1995

FROM: Merridy Gottlieb

TO: Mary Versailles, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NHTSB Letter of Exemption

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MERRIDY R. GOTTLIEB (A43; STD. 207; STD. 208; VSA 108(A)(2)(A))

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles:

Per our conversation today, I am requesting a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration letter of exemption for a modification to my 1995 Chrysler Concord. I am disabled and need 3-4" of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent at the knees for long periods of time. I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all t he way out, there is no pain at all.

Mr. Robert Kitts of Auto Access has agreed to make the slight modification if I can secure your letter of exemption. His service is not local, but he will make a trip to Baltimore for this purpose.

Incidentally, the Automobile Accessibility hotline at Chrysler apparently does not know of your existence and was not aware of any exemptions that could be issued. After repeated phone calls, they said they could not help me and referred me to the Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Board hotline who was also unaware of any exemptions I could get. She was quite adamant that the design alteration would interfere with the functionality of the airbag and could not be done. When I again mentioned in closi ng that I was disabled and asked if anything at all could be done, referred me to "Ms. O'Neill" at the handicapped office in Washington. It turned out that she gave me the wrong name, but I did eventually find Ms. Dalrymple and she lead me to you. Plea se send a memo to the Chrysler Accessibility hotline supervisor and the NHTSB hotline operators informing them that you do exist for these types of problems. It may prevent someone less tenacious than me from giving up and accepting the many years of pa in.

Thank you very much for your quick telephone response.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: E. Brooks Harper -- General Manager, Backstop, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. E. Brooks Harper General Manager Backstop, Inc. 240 Pegasus Avenue Northvale, NJ 07647

This responds to your letter asking whether installation of your touch sensitive reverse braking system called "Backstop" on an air brake vehicle would conflict with any Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. According to your letter, Backstop is plumbed into the vehicle air brake system and wired to the back up light circuit. The system is activated only when reverse gear is engaged and works by instantly applying the vehicle brakes when the rear bumper is touched while reversing. Shifting to neutral or a forward gear returns the system to normal braking.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and is limited to the standards and regulations administered by NHTSA. You may wish to contact the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to the installation of Backstop.

NHTSA does not have any regulations covering a touch sensitive reverse braking system such as Backstop. However, since installation of Backstop requires plumbing into the vehicle's air brake system and wiring into the vehicle's backup light circuit, it is possible that it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and Ko. 108, Lamps( reflective devices, and associated equipment. For example, your letter states that a delay of four milliseconds is introduced to the air brake system response by the insertion of the double check valve in the control line. While this delay is very small, it could conceivably affect a vehicle's compliance with the timing requirements of sections S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 121 if the vehicle otherwise was at the edge of compliance. He suggest that you carefully consider whether installation of Backstop in the variety of current vehicles and vehicle configurations would affect compliance with the requirements or FMVSS No. 121 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards affected by the alteration. The specific certification requirements for alterers are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of Backstop would have no certification responsibilities, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This in required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 3, 1985

Ms. Erika Jones/Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation as to whether or not the installation of a BACKSTOP system on an air brake vehicle would conflict with any federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations.

BACKSTOP is s touch sensitive reverse braking system for air brake vehicles. It is marketed to truck, bus, and other heavy vehicle operators for the purpose of increasing safety and reducing property damage (see enclosed brochure).

BACKSTOP is plumbed into the vehicle air brake system and wired to the back up light circuit according to the enclosed diagram. The BACKSTOP system is activated only when reverse gear is engaged and works by instantly applying the vehicle brakes when the rear bumper is touched while reversing. Shifting to neutral or a forward gear returns the system to normal braking.

Our tests show that an insignificant delay of four (C) milliseconds is introduced to the air brake system response by the insertion of the double check valve in the control line (refer to enclosed test data). Failure of the BACKSTOP system in any way would not compromise the normal performance of the vehicles original air brake system.

Based on the tests we have performed, discussions with vehicle manufacturer brake system engineers, and our known knowledge of air brake systems, we state that installation of the BACKSTOP system on an air brake vehicle does not degrade that vehicles' compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations.

We request that your office acknowledge our position pith respect to installation of the BACKSTOP system on air brake vehicles.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

BACKSTOP INC.

E. Brooks Harper General Manager

EBH/gm Enclosure

cc: Mr. Duane E. Perrin/NHTSA

November 15, 1985

45 BUDD TRAILER

SEALCO VALVES 30" BRAKE CHAMBERS AUTOMATIC SLACK ADJUSTERS

TEMPERATURE 54 SUPPLY PSI 120 SERVICE CHAMBER PSI 60 ----------------------------------------------------------------TO TEST EFFECT OF TWO WAY CHECK VALVE IN SERVICE LINE OF AIR BRAKE SYSTEM ----------------------------------------------------------------

TWO 2400 CUBIC INCH TANKS -ONE ON SERVICE, ONE ON SUPPLY. BOTH AT 120 PSI. THREE WAY AIR SOLENOID ON SERVICE WITH AN ON SWITCH TO START CLOCK AND OPEN TANK. A SHUT OFF SWITCH ON SERVICE CHAMBER WHEN 60 PSI IS REACHED TO SHUT OFF CLOCK.

WITH VALVE IN SERVICE LINE WITH NO VALVE IN SERVICE LINE

293 288

293 290

293 291

293 292

294 290

294 290

293 288

293 287 ----------------- 2346 2316 Average -293.25 ms. Average 289.5 ms.

ID: aiam4238

Dear Mr. Humes: Thank you for your letter to Stephen Oesch of my office concerning th effect of our regulations on the conversion of hardtop vehicles into convertibles. You explained that your company will be performing such conversions on new Cadillac Sedan De Villes and you are specifically concerned about how Standards No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, would affect such conversions. I regret the delay in our response.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, eac manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under Part 567.7 of the agency's certification regulation, a copy of which is enclosed, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable standards. Thus, your company would have to certify that the vehicle you have altered into a convertible still complies with all applicable standards.; In the case of Standard No. 208, S4.1.2.3.2 of the standard permit convertibles to have either a lap or lap/shoulder belt at each front outboard designated seating position. Thus, when you alter a hardtop passenger car, you may remove the lap/shoulder belt and replace it with a lap belt that meets the requirements of S4.1.2.3.2.; Please note that beginning on September 1, 1986, manufacturers mus begin phasing-in the installation of automatic restraint systems, such as automatic belts and airbag systems, in their vehicles. For example, S4.1.3.1 of Standard No. 208 requires manufacturers to install automatic restraints in ten percent of their passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987. The agency has temporarily excluded convertibles from the automatic restraint requirement during the phase-in period. Instead of automatic restraints, convertibles may have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt.; Please note that the agency's final decision in the ongoing rulemakin on applying the automatic restraint requirement to convertibles may affect the conversion of hard-top cars into convertibles in subsequent years. If the agency does not exempt convertibles permanently from the automatic restraint requirement, then a person changing an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to ensure that the altered cars still complied with the automatic restraint requirement. Likewise, if the agency applied a dynamic test requirement to the manual safety belts used in convertibles, a person altering an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to either retain the automatic restraints or equip the altered vehicles with manual safety belts meeting the dynamic test requirements.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-1.87

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale E. Dawkins -- Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/7/94 from D. E. Hawkins to John G. Womack (OCC-9540)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 7, 1994, requesting confirmation that Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, "would permit the sun visor air bag caution label required in S4.5.1(b) to be combined with the utility vehicle information sticker required by 49 CFR Part 575.105."

Your letter notes that you are aware that both General Motors and Ford petitioned the agency to amend S4.5.1(b)(2) of Standard No. 208, as amended by a September 2, 1993 final rule, to permit the utility vehicle label on the sun visor. A March 10, 1994, final rule responding to the petitions for reconsideration amended S4.5.1(b)(2) to allow the installation of a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR Part 575.105(c)(1).

While the utility vehicle label will continue to be allowed on the sun visor, the language of the final rule does not allow the combination of the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label. The September 2 and March 10 final rules specify (1) that no information other than that in the air bag maintenance label is allowed on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that other than the air bag alert label or a utility vehicle label, no other information about air bag s or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Thus, the clear language of the final rules do not permit the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label to be on the same side of the sun visor.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if the language of the final rules do not allow combination of the labels. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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.