ID: 7603

Thomas E. Wilde
3440 Parkway
Butte, MT 59701

Dear Mr. Wilde:

This responds to your July 28, 1992 letter asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags. I note that your letter was stamped confidential; however, in a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you indicated that you did not object to your letter being placed in our public docket.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which retrofit air bags must comply.

The only Federal requirement that might affect a retrofit air bag would be the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

With regard to retrofit air bags, the existing safety belts (in a vehicle not already equipped with an air bag) are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." If a retrofit air bag installed by a commercial business interferes in any way with the performance of the safety belt system, it would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition.

You should also note that a retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

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

Enclosure

ref:VSA#208 d:9/9/92

ID: 7605

Mr. Kevin R. Boyne
Chief Engineer
Dynamics and Durability Engineering
Transportation Research Center Inc.
East Liberty, OH 43319-0367

Dear Mr. Boyne:

This responds to your letter requesting a clarification of the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. That section sets forth new requirements relating to key removal, which became effective on September 1, 1992. Your letter asks whether a vehicle which operates in the following manner would meet the requirements:

Initial Condition -Engine running and shift lever positioned in "drive".

Action -The operator depresses the thumb button on the left side of the shift lever and moves the shift lever to the "park" position.

Point of Concern -As long as the thumb button is held in the depressed position, the ignition key can be rotated to the lock position and removed. Still holding the thumb button, the shift lever can later be moved to any position. Removal of the key will only occur in the "park" position.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that a system which operates in the manner you described would comply with S4.2.1 of the standard for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, but not for vehicles manufactured after that time. This assumes, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, that steering is prevented after removal of the key. It also assumes that the system does not otherwise permit removal of the key when the transmission is not locked in park.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states:

Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

The system which you describe appears to permit removal of the key in a situation when both the transmission and transmission shift lever are not locked in "park" and when they do not become locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. This conclusion follows from the fact that, following the removal of the key, the shift lever can be moved to any position. Therefore, the system you describe would not comply with S4.2.1 unless one of the exceptions in section S4.2.2(a) and (b) apply.

The exception set forth in S4.2.2(a) only applies in the event of electrical failure and is therefore not relevant to the system you describe. S4.2.2(b) of Standard No. 114 reads as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

NHTSA included this second exception to allow for a manual override of the transmission shift lock so that a disabled vehicle could be moved. The requirement that such devices either be operable by the key or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface originally had an effective date of September 1, 1992. However, after considering petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA decided to provide an additional year's leadtime, noting that this would lessen the impacts associated with such redesign of the emergency override buttons of a number of systems.

While the agency was primarily concerned about emergency override buttons in drafting S4.2.2(b), it is our opinion that the language in (b)(1) is sufficiently broad to include the thumb button on a transmission shift lever itself, i.e., the button can be considered a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key. Therefore, assuming that steering is prevented after the removal of the key, the system you describe would come within the exception provided in S4.2.2(b)(1).

Effective September 1, 1993, of course, such a device must also meet the requirements set forth in S4.2.2(b)(2) in order to come within this exception to S4.2.1. The system you describe would not fall within the exception at that time. The thumb button is not "the key, as defined in S3." In addition, the thumb button is not "covered by a non- transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool." Therefore, based on the information you have provided, the system would not comply with S4.2.1 for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993.

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

ref:114 d:10/21/92

ID: 7614

Mr. Christopher Leone
NewBold Designs
765 Allens Avenue
Providence, R.I. 02905

Dear Mr. Leone:

This responds to your FAX of August 6, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for rules and regulations of the Department on electric vehicles. I understand that you talked with Mr. Vinson later in the day, and received an overview of the matter. I further understand that you intend only the construction of a single experimental vehicle, and have no plans for its production.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the introduction into interstate commerce, by any person, of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation, for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 may be imposed. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are set out in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. There are no standards that apply specifically to electric vehicles, and the standards that apply to your project car are those that apply to "passenger cars" in general.

However, the manufacturer of an electric vehicle may petition us for a temporary exemption (up to 2 years) from one or more of the safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle. The temporary exemption regulations are found at 49 CFR Part 555. An exemption covers up to 2,500 vehicles per year for any 12- month period that the exemption is in effect.

Regulations governing the licensing of motor vehicles are the prerogative of the individual States. Thus, you should inquire as to what Rhode Island requires for your contemplated vehicle.

There is a regulatory gap which your situation highlights, and that is the legal status of a person who intends to build only a single motor vehicle. Such a person is not a "manufacturer" under the Act, since the operative portion of the definition of "manufacturer" is one who manufactures or assembles "motor vehicles". The temporary exemption authority appears directed towards commercial enterprises and not single motor vehicles. Nevertheless, we believe we have the authority to exempt a single motor vehicle under these provisions.

If you wish to consult us further in this matter, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to help you.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:555 d:11/9/92

ID: 7633

Mr. Gary L. Hopkins
VP & G.M. Control Systems Products
Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems
901 Cleveland Street
Elyria, OH 44036

Dear Mr. Hopkins:

This responds to your letter of August 3, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). More specifically, your letter sought "confirmation of (y)our position that vehicles equipped with electronic engine control systems ... which include an electronic treadle assembly are not covered by the scope and requirements of FMVSS #124." As explained in detail below, your understanding is incorrect. Standard No. 124 applies to all listed vehicle types, regardless of whether their engine control systems use electronic or mechanical means to control the engine.

The purpose of Standard No. 124 is to reduce deaths and injuries caused by vehicles that continue to supply fuel to the engine when there is a malfunction in the accelerator control system. To ensure that drivers could bring vehicles that experience a problem with the accelerator control system to a controlled stop, instead of having the vehicle continue to speed forward, Standard No. 124 requires that the vehicle's throttle return to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control and that the throttle return to idle whenever there is a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. The safety need for these requirements is the same for all vehicles, regardless of whether their accelerator control system is electronic, mechanical, or some other type of technology.

S4.1 sets forth the following definitions:

Throttle means the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver-operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver-operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed.

Fuel metering device means the carburetor, or in the case of certain engines, the fuel injector, fuel distributor, or fuel injection pump.

Driver-operated accelerator control system means all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.

You said in your letter that the electronic treadle assembly in your company's accelerator control system "modulates an electric signal, received from an outside source, in response to the input of the operator's foot. This signal is an input to the engine electronic controller which in turn provides electronic signals that operate the engine fuel injectors to control engine power."

You asserted that the electronic treadle assembly is not a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. Based on the information provided in your letter, we agree. Standard No. 124 expressly provides that the throttle must be part of the fuel metering device. In the example you have given, the electronically controlled fuel injectors, together with any pumps or other metering systems connected to those injectors, appear to be the "fuel metering device." Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the electronic treadle assembly would be considered to be part of the "driver-operated accelerator control system," because it is a vehicle component that regulates engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control.

You went on to assert that no component of an electronically controlled diesel engine would be considered a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. We disagree. Standard No. 124 defines a throttle as "the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver-operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver- operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed." Every engine design of which we are aware, including electric, diesel, conventional gasoline, and Wankel rotary gasoline, has a component that controls the engine speed in response to inputs from the driver. That component is the throttle. Indeed, an engine design without a throttle would not allow the driver to control the engine speed.

NHTSA has already addressed the applicability of Standard No. 124 to electronic accelerator control systems. In an August 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Koji Tokunaga of Isuzu (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 would apply to a proposed electronic accelerator control system. In a November 9, 1988 letter to Mr. J.E. Carr of Caterpillar (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 applies to an electronically controlled diesel engine. Hence, the issue of how Standard No. 124 applies to electronic accelerator control systems has been settled at least since 1988. Given the broad language used in the standard, the agency's previous interpretations of the standard, and the compelling safety need to prevent runaway vehicles if malfunctions should occur in the accelerator control system, we must reject your suggestion that Standard No. 124 should be interpreted in such a way that it does not apply to electronically controlled diesel engines.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions or would like some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:124 d:9/23/92

ID: 7636

Mr. S. Watanabe
Manager
Automotive Equipment Legal
& Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This responds to your letter of August 7, 1992, with respect to the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of two configurations of rear stop/taillamps and center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) on passenger cars.

In your Figure 1, the stop/taillamps are mounted at 72 inches height above the road surface, while the CHMSL is mounted 3 inches below the rear window. In your Figure 2, the stop/taillamps are again mounted at 72 inches while the CHMSL is mounted above the rear window and between the stop/taillamps. You believe that both Figures depict a conforming rear lighting scheme under Standard No. 108.

You are correct. Standard No. 108 does not specify any spatial relationship between the CHMSL and stop lamps or taillamps. It permits the CHMSL to be mounted anywhere on the vertical centerline of the passenger car, but not lower than 3 inches below the rear window. Standard No. 108 also permits stop and taillamps to be mounted not higher than 72 inches above the road surface. Your two Figures do not exceed these regulatory parameters, and thus, each is permitted by Standard No. 108.

However, the research that proved the efficacy of the CHMSL in addressing the problem of rear end collisions was based upon a triangular configuration of stop lamps in which the CHMSL was the apex. We note that the CHMSL in Figure 1 is at the apex of an inverted triangle, while in Figure 2 the CHMSL is simply a lamp in a horizontal array. It is possible that the benefits of the CHMSL would not be realized through use of the configurations depicted in Figures 1 and 2, even if they are permitted by Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/21/92

ID: 7638

Mr. R.J. Misorski
Director, Maintenance & Repair
Maersk Inc.
231 Tyler Street
Port Newark, NJ 07114

Dear Mr. Misorski:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You write with reference to an amendment that became effective December 1, 1991, requiring a minimum of 12 square inches of lens area for rear stop or turn signals on vehicles over 80 inches wide, regardless of the separation between lamps. You request confirmation of your feeling that "equipment manufactured prior to December 1, 1991 would be exempt from this ruling", and that "it only applies to equipment that is manufactured after December 1, 1991." You have asked for this interpretation to "ensure compliance with our equipment fleet."

What the amendments require is that multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which are manufactured on and after December 1, 1991, be equipped with stop and turn signal lamps that meet the new requirements. Stop and turn signal lamps which were manufactured prior to that date that do not meet the new requirements are permissible to replace original equipment of the same type on vehicles manufactured before December 1, 1991, but they cannot be used as either original or replacement stop and turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured on and after December 1, 1991. Furthermore, Standard No. 108 continues to allow manufacture and sale on and after December 1, 1991, of the old type of stop and turn signal lamps for replacement of original equipment on vehicles manufactured prior to December 1, 1991.

I hope that this assists you with your compliance question. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/21/92

ID: 7641

Mr. Dan Trexler
Thomas Built Buses
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Mr. Trexler:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your questions about requirements addressing the activation of a stop signal arm and the permissibility of a manual override device. In addition, I am enclosing a September 14, 1992 interpretation letter from this agency to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, which explains these requirements.

As your letter indicates, there are two different types of lamp systems on school buses: a four lamp system with four red lamps and an eight lamp system with four amber and four red lamps. You asked several questions about the stop arm's activation and the manual override device.

You first ask whether the stop arm is required to extend every time the signal lamps in a four lamp system are activated. (emphasis in original). As a general rule, S5.5 of Standard No. 131 requires that the stop arm be automatically extended at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps are activated. Nevertheless, Standard No. 131 includes an exception to this general rule which permits the installation of an override device. If the override device were activated, then the stop arm would not extend.

Your second question addresses the operation of the stop arm on buses with an eight lamp system. Specifically, you ask whether the stop arm is required to extend only after the red signal lamps have been activated by opening of the bus entrance door or is the stop arm required to extend at any time the red signal lamps are activated. (emphasis in original).

As stated above, Standard No. 131 includes provisions addressing the activation of the stop signal arm. Standard No. 131 requires the stop arm to be automatically extended whenever the red signal lamps are activated, whether those lamps are activated by opening the bus door or for some other reason. Of course, the stop arm may be extended for a longer period of time than when the red signal lamps are activated, given that Standard No. 131 includes the phrase "at a minimum" in explaining when the stop arm must be extended. In the final rule establishing Standard No. 131, the agency addressed methods of stop arm activation used by Washington State, Illinois, and Florida in which the stop arm was activated to control traffic before the door was opened. (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991).

Your third question asked whether a device may be used that is capable of remaining in the "override" position with only a one time activation by the driver. The override would have an audible signal that would automatically sound for at least 60 seconds and would automatically recycle each time the service door was opened, with the engine running. As mentioned above, Standard No. 131 permits a device that prevents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm. In our September 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Lyle Walheim from the State of Wisconsin, we explain a situation in which an override would be permissible. Based on S5.5 of Standard No. 131 and the September 14, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Walheim, it would appear that the override device you describe also would be permissible.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:131 d:10/2/92

ID: 7653

Mr. Mike Hawkes
General Manager
Unique Motors and Upholstery, Inc.
407 E. Ft. Lowell
Tucson, AZ 85705

Dear Mr. Hawkes:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992 requesting information on adding lap belts to a mini bus. During an August 27th phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you clarified that the bus to which you are referring is a 26-passenger 1987 Ford Econoline (6-wheeler) that is not a school bus and that has already been used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the occupant protection that must be provided at passenger seats in buses. The first of these is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. The second potentially relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. For buses manufactured before September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 required that a seat belt be installed at the driver's seating position only. In other words, no belts were required to be installed at the passengers' seating positions in this bus when it was a new vehicle.

The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Hence, the seat belt originally installed at the driver's seating position and any other seat belt assemblies that were installed in the bus had to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209.

The fourth and final potentially relevant standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages For buses manufactured before September 1, 1991, Standard No. 210 required that anchorages for a seat belt be installed at the driver's seating position only. Hence, no seat belt anchorages were required to be installed at the passengers' seating positions in this bus when it was a new vehicle.

Federal law requires that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards at the time of the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. After that first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Your company is subject to this prohibition, because you are a motor vehicle repair business. However, because the bus in question was not required to have seat belts or seat belt anchorages at the passenger seating positions and those passenger seating positions were not required to meet the performance requirements for seats, the voluntary installation of belts and anchorages at the passenger seating positions would not violate the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act, regardless of where the anchorages were located.

As noted above, replacement belts must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209. Hence, to avoid violating the Safety Act, you must ensure that the seat belts your company voluntarily installs at the passenger seating positions in this bus are certified as complying with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 209.

Despite the absence of such a requirement in Federal law, I urge you to exercise care when installing belts in the passenger seats of this bus. As noted above, the passenger seats of this bus were not required to meet the generally applicable seat performance requirements, and they were not required to be equipped with any seat belts or anchorages. The belts you propose to install will fail to achieve their intended purpose if they separate from the vehicle or separate the seats from the vehicle frame in a crash. I recommend that you contact the original manufacturer of the bus to learn if it can offer guidance on how to best attach seat belts at the passenger's position. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, I note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

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

ref:208#209#210 d:9/17/92

ID: 7669

Richard Allison
Program Manager
The Bott Group, Inc.
32330 Howard Avenue
Michigan Heights, MI 48071

Dear Mr. Allison:

This responds to your letter of August 20, 1992 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. Specifically, you requested "an interpretation of 1) the proper application and orientation of the test device (S6.2 of this standard) and 2) the distance the test device is allowed to travel (paragraph S4 of this standard), when testing vehicles equipped with roof mounted accessories, such as roof racks (luggage racks)."

You believe that there are three possible test conditions. The first condition would conduct the test either without the roof rack installed or with the roof rack removed, and with the test device positioned in accordance with S6.2. The second condition would conduct the test with the roof rack installed, and with the test device positioned using the point of contact established under test condition 1. The third condition would conduct the test with the roof rack installed, and with the test device positioned in accordance with S6.2 to the roof rack. You requested our interpretation as to which is the correct test condition. In addition, you asked if we determined that either test condition 2 or 3 was correct, could the amount of distance traveled before contact with the roof be added to the allowable distance of test device travel under S4.

We would conduct our compliance testing for Standard No. 216 with roof mounted accessories such as roof racks removed (your test condition 1). We would do so because the purpose of the test is to measure the strength of the roof, not the strength of roof mounted accessories. Further, as you have noted, conducting the test with roof mounted accessories in place could influence the positioning of the test device.

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

ref:216 d:9/21/92

ID: 7675

Mr. Spencer A. Darby
Vice President, Engineering
Sate-lite Manufacturing. Co.
6230 Gross Point Road
Niles, IL 60648

Dear Mr. Darby:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a warning device would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR 571.125). You were specifically concerned about the implications of adding a battery operated flashing light to a warning device that otherwise complies with the Standard. You stated that placing flashing lights between the reflex reflectors would enhance the device's conspicuity at night. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

As your letter states, Standard No. 125 applies to "devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (emphasis added; see section S3) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self- contained energy sources. In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that the phrase "self-contained energy sources" includes such things as battery powered lights. Accordingly, a warning device to which a battery operated flashing light was added would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

You also asked whether a vehicle required to have three "125 warning triangles" would be required to have three non- lighted complying triangles set out as well. Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate the use of warning devices. I am forwarding your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate some motor vehicle operators and vehicle operations.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 125 d:10/28/92