ID: 2281y

Mr. John G. Sims
Governmental Affairs
Champion Motor Coach, Inc.
5573 North Street
Dryden, Michigan 48428

Dear Mr. Sims:

This responds to your November 6, 1989 letter to Robert Hellmuth, Director of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). In that letter, you stated that OVSC had misinterpreted and misapplied the requirements of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). I conclude that OVSC correctly interpreted those sections of Standard No. 217 and correctly applied those sections to your company's buses.

The buses in question are not school buses and have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, section S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: "... each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' ... followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism."

Your company has designated the door immediately adjacent to the driver's seating position in these buses as an emergency exit. Operating instructions for that emergency exit are located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. However, the designation of this door as an emergency exit appears on a label located on a stanchion immediately behind the driver's seat, facing the passenger seating area. This designation does not appear within 6 inches of the release mechanism. You suggest that this arrangement complies with Standard No. 217, because S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism.

I disagree with your suggestion. While it might be possible to construe the language of S5.5.1 in the manner you suggest, the agency has consistently interpreted S5.5.1 as requiring that both the emergency exit designation and the operating instructions be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Nothing in the correspondence you refer to undermines this conclusion. Contrary to the assertion in your letter, there is a clear safety basis for requiring the emergency exit designation to be within 6 inches of the emergency exit release mechanism. This ensures that any person reaching the exit can quickly find both the release mechanism and the instructions. In an emergency, persons are used to finding an emergency exit where they see a label with the designation "Emergency Exit." In your company's buses, a person seeing the emergency exit label located on the driver's seat stanchion could be misled into thinking that there is an exit somewhere behind the driver's seat, rather than at the driver's door, thus wasting valuable escape time. This is exactly the type of situation S5.5.1 is intended to prevent.

Your letter also suggests that requiring the emergency exit designation within 6 inches of the release mechanism would substantially reduce the visibility of the emergency exit sign, since the operating mechanism is frequently located below the shoulder level of seated passengers. While this may be true in some cases, I do not believe it would be likely to impede emergency egress. In an emergency situation, the occupants of the seat adjacent to the exit are likely to be the first ones out of the exit, and would thus no longer impede the visibility of the exit designation for other passengers seeking to exit.

We are only focusing on the designation here. Also, once it is open, the instructions aren't needed.

Your letter also suggests that the emergency exit requirements for school buses, contained in S5.5.3, support your interpretation of S5.5.1, because the school bus emergency exit requirements specifically authorize the separation of the emergency exit designation and operating instructions. I must again disagree with you on this point. NHTSA recognized the considerable differences between school buses and other buses when Standard No. 217 was being developed. S5.5.3 addresses a very different set of circumstances. School buses typically have one emergency door, located at or near the rear of the bus. The requirement in S5.5.3 that the designation be in letters at least two inches high "at the top of or directly above the emergency exit" is designed to ensure that school bus passengers will be able to locate this exit from any seating position in the bus. This is not the case for your company's buses, which feature several window exits located throughout the bus, in addition to the exit at issue here.

The second issue raised in your letter concerns the requirements of S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires that emergency exit "markings" be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity conditions set forth in S5.5.2. You suggested that the emergency exit "markings" referenced in S5.5.2 refers only to the designation of an exit as an emergency exit, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit. I disagree with this suggestion as well. As we noted earlier, S5.5.1 sets forth requirements for both emergency exit designations and emergency exit operating instructions. Immediately following these requirements, S5.5.2 specifies that "each marking shall be legible ..." (emphasis added). S5.5.2 nowhere draws any distinction between markings designating an exit as an emergency exit and markings setting forth operating instructions for the emergency exit. Neither is any such distinction inherent in the use of the term "marking." Accordingly, the ordinary meaning of the term "marking" and the background of this regulatory provision show that as used in S5.5.2, the word "markings" refers to both the emergency exit designation and the emergency exit operating instructions required by S5.5.1.

If you have any further questions concerning these issues, please feel free to contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:l/26/90

ID: 2282y

Larry S. Snowhite, Esq.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Showhite:

This replies to your letters asking for a determination "that the sale into the aftermarket as well as aftermarket installation of the Advanced Brake Light Device ('ABLD')...would not violate" any of this agency's statutes or regulations.

As you have described it, the ABLD "consists of a sensor attached to the accelerator pedal that senses the rate at which the foot releases the accelerator pedal. This signal is sent to a processor unit, which determines whether the brake lights should be turned on, and the duration of the illumination until the brake is applied. The ABLD is set so that the brake light will go off unless the brake is applied within one second of the ABLD's activation...." You believe that this avoids providing a misleading signal. You further indicate the manufacturer's willingness to alter the time interval if NHTSA's favorable opinion is required for it.

You have not defined the term "aftermarket", but we shall assume that you mean sales to vehicle owners of equipment for installation on their vehicles (as contrasted with sales to dealers for installation on new vehicles before their delivery). There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to the system described in your letter. This means that there are no Federal restrictions upon the importation, manufacture, or sale of the ABLD. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (specifically, l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), as you surmise, modifications to vehicles by a person other than the vehicle owner are permissible as long as they do not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device...installed on...a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...."

The essential question then is whether the installation of the ABLD renders partially or wholly inoperative the vehicle's stop lamps. As you know, in our interpretations on lighting equipment, we have noted a close relationship between the statute's rendering inoperative prohibition for the aftermarket with the standard's impaired effectiveness prohibition for supplementary original equipment. Primarily, maintaining that relationship is done in order to avoid regulatory inconsistency with interpretations under which installation of an item of aftermarket equipment might be deemed acceptable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while its installation as original equipment would violate Standard No. l08.

There are two types of supplementary original, or aftermarket, lighting equipment: those that operate independently of the lighting equipment that Standard No. l08 requires, and those that operate in connection with that equipment. A separate red rear fog lamp would be an example of the former. The ABLD is an example of the latter, because it has a direct effect upon the operation of the stop lamp.

An aftermarket device that has an effect upon the operation of required lighting equipment cannot be deemed permissible unless that effect is consistent with the operation and purpose of the required equipment. As you stated, the SAE defines a stop lamp as one whose function indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking". You have argued that "The ABLD is consistent because it "clearly and unambiguously indicates" an operator's intent to apply the brake. Your client, however, does not make that claim for the ABLD; it concedes that "there will be circumstances in which the brake will not be engaged after the ABLD is activated."

The heart of our concern is that while the standard requires the stop lamp to operate in only one particular circumstance, the ABLD causes the stop lamp to operate at an earlier time when the lamp is supposed to be unlighted. Further, the ABLD's activation of the stop lamp indicates only that the operator has released the accelerator. It does not necessarily follow that the brake pedal will later be applied. Under this fact situation, the stop lamps fulfill a purpose other than for which they are installed. This can only create the potential for confusion and dilution of the effectiveness of the stop signal. For the reasons stated above, we have concluded that installation of the ABLD in the aftermarket would render the stop lamps partially inoperative. Because this conclusion does not depend upon whether the ABLD would be acceptable using the different parameters of performance to which it is apparently capable of being adjusted, there appears to be no reason to discuss this matter with you before completion of this interpretation, which would further delay our response.

We would like to discuss several other points. You have stated that "Illuminations of the brake lights for one second or less occur frequently during normal driving without the ABLD", and have sought to allay our concerns with the manufacturer's willingness to reduce the stop lamp activation time from one second to something less if that is required for a favorable interpretation. You have also provided information that the ABLD comes into operation only when the foot is released from the pedal at a rate consistent with an intent to apply the brake, as in an emergency situation.

While we appreciate these arguments, we do not find them persuasive. The short periods of illumination to which you refer are occasioned by application of the brake pedal, no matter how brief that application is. The offer to reduce the activation time of the ABLD if it is not followed by a brake application would reduce but not eliminate stop lamp activation for purposes other than to indicate a stop or diminished speed. As for foot-movement time, there appears to be no indication in the University of Michigan study that you submitted that the ABLD was activated in traffic emergencies. The foot-movement time measurements seem consistent with removal of the foot from the accelerator under ordinary traffic situations, and thus there should have been no instances of ABLD activation.

Your most recent letter contained a copy of a report of an independent field study of the ABLD in Israel, which "found that rear-end accidents were reduced by 75 percent." However, the report states that the ABLD-equipped vehicles ("except a few") were also equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps. Since any reductions in rear-end accidents that were experienced by the test fleets cannot be attributed solely to the ABLD, the data must be viewed as inconclusive.

The acceptability for use of the ABLD must also be determined under the laws of the individual States. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you get in touch with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for further advice. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref: VSA d:l/25/90

ID: 22837ogm

Mr. James Arnold
MAC Trailer Manufacturing Inc.
14599 Commerce Street
Alliance, OH 44601

Dear Mr. Arnold:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You indicate that your company manufactures truck trailers for highway use. Your letter further indicates that a number of your dealers have asked that your company produce trailers equipped with a certain item of equipment to satisfy the antilock brake systems (ABS) requirements of FMVSS No. 121. The device in question, marketed by its manufacturer Air Brake Systems, Inc. (ABS, Inc.) as the MSQR-5000, is described in promotional material from ABS, Inc. as a "Differential Pressure Regulator Quick Release Valve." You have also attached a document from ABS, Inc. that contains a number of representations relating to the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 and concludes as follows:

Air Brake Systems Inc. hereby certifies that the MSQR-5000^TM anti-lock brake system fully satisfies the definition of anti-lock brakes as required by 49 CFR 571.121 and exceeds the performance requirements of 49 CFR 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii). (Warning light excluded thereto.) ABS Brakes, Inc. Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 USA

Based on the aforementioned materials, you ask if a trailer equipped with the MSQR-5000 "system" installed as means of meeting ABS requirements would meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 121.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicle 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 comply with applicable safety standards. With certain exceptions related to special configurations, FMVSS No. 121 applies to vehicles - trucks, buses, and trailers - with air brake systems.

As an equipment manufacturer, ABS, Inc., is not required to certify compliance of its product to FMVSS No. 121, but any vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that its vehicle complies with all the requirements of FMVSS No. 121. It is not uncommon for a vehicle manufacturer to request information from an equipment manufacturer. However, the responsibility for compliance with FMVSS No. 121 and for certification of compliance rests with the vehicle manufacturer. As we have stated before, it is our opinion that reliance by a vehicle manufacturer solely on "certification of compliance" provided by an equipment manufacturer, without more, is not legally sufficient. Moreover, should it be determined that a vehicle does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect, the recall and remedy obligations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would fall upon the vehicle manufacturer and not the equipment manufacturer which supplied particular equipment. See 49 CFR Part 579. Possible liability in tort under state law could fall upon both the vehicle manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer. A private attorney could advise you about this possibility.

The following represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter, the attachments provided with your letter and agency review of other data obtained from ABS, Inc.

In marketing and selling the MSQR-5000, ABS, Inc., has represented, in advertisements, promotional materials and in direct contact with potential customers, that the MSQR-5000 is an ABS whose installation in a vehicle will result in the vehicle meeting the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121). The configuration of the MSQR-5000 and the fact that the device has no electrical or electronic components has apparently led some potential customers of ABS, Inc. to ask NHTSA if the MSQR-5000 is a device which, if installed on a vehicle, would allow that vehicle to meet the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121. As discussed below, based on a review of the promotional materials describing the device and the principles involved in its operation, it is NHTSA's view that the installation of the MSQR-5000 alone would not allow a vehicle to meet FMVSS No. 121's ABS requirement.

Among other things, FMVSS No. 121 requires that trailers (S5.2.3) and trucks (S5.1.6) be equipped with an ABS. For the purposes of FMVSS No. 121, ABS is defined in S4 of the standard as follows:

Antilock brake system or ABS means a portion of a service brake system that automatically controls the degree of rotational wheel slip during braking by:

(1) Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels;

(2) Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular rotation to one or more controlling devices which interpret those signals and generate responsive controlling output signals; and

(3) Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more modulators which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those signals.

In addition, in order to ensure that vehicle owners and operators have knowledge of the status of an ABS system installed on a truck, truck tractor or trailer, FMVSS No. 121 also contains extensive and detailed requirements for malfunction indicators that illuminate a light when the ABS is not working properly. These requirements, found in S5.1.6.2, S5.1.6.3 and S5.2.3.2, specify that a truck, truck tractor or trailer must have an electrical circuit that is capable of signaling a malfunction in the vehicle's antilock brake system, and must have the means for connection of this antilock brake system malfunction signal circuit to a trailer or towing vehicle. Such a signal must be present whenever there is a malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of response or control signals in the antilock brake system. The signal must remain present as long as the malfunction exists, whenever power is supplied to the antilock brake system, and each message about the existence of such a malfunction must be stored in the antilock brake system whenever power is no longer supplied to it.

The ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 were incorporated into the standard by a final rule published in the Federal Register on March 10, 1995 (60 FR 13216). In the preamble to that final rule, the agency noted that 10 to 15 percent of heavy combination vehicle crashes involved braking induced instability or loss of control. These crashes resulted in significant property damage, injury and loss of life. In order to address the safety consequences of braking related instability, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 121 to require effective antilock braking systems.

One of the primary considerations in developing the new requirements was what, at a minimum, an antilock braking system must do in order to prevent or reduce crashes. The agency determined that due to the wide range of surfaces a vehicle may encounter in normal use, an effective ABS system must have the ability to determine if and when a braked wheel is momentarily locked as it passes from high to low traction conditions. Because of such varying conditions, the agency determined that any effective ABS must be a "closed loop" system - i.e., a system that continuously monitors the rate of wheel rotation, adjusts that wheel rotation when needed and reacts to ongoing changes in rotation caused by the operation of the system, changing road surfaces or both (60 FR 13217). Similarly, NHTSA determined that warning light requirements that established a minimum level of safety were also important for reducing crashes, deaths and injuries. The warning light requirements would inform operators of an ABS malfunction and both facilitate and encourage repairs of faulty ABS systems (60 FR 13244).

The MSQR-5000 appears to lack one or more features that an ABS must have to meet FMVSS No. 121. Based on literature provided to us, the MSQR-5000 does not seem to have any means of automatically controlling wheel slip during braking by sensing, analyzing, and modulating the rate of angular rotation of a wheel or wheels. The components identified and described in the MSQR-5000 promotional materials do not have a means for measuring wheel rotation, recognizing wheel lockup, controlling or modulating brake pressure to a locked wheel, or preventing one or more wheels from locking if a driver applies maximum brake pressure to the system. Therefore, standing alone, the MSQR-5000 does not satisfy the definition of ABS as set forth in FMVSS No. 121.

In addition, the MSQR-5000 also appears to lack any provision for illuminating a warning light providing notification of an ABS malfunction. In fact, the materials distributed by ABS, Inc., including the "Certification of Compliance, "indicate that the company believes that the ABS warning light requirements of FMVSS No. 121 are "excluded"by virtue of a decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit in the case of Washington v. Department of Transportation, 84 F.3d 1222 (1996).

The Washington case involved a challenge to the validity of FMVSS No. 121's ABS requirements on two grounds - that the requirements conflicted with existing Federal Highway Administration regulations governing motor carriers and that NHTSA exceeded its authority in issuing the rule by establishing that an ABS must have certain characteristics. Mr. Washington argued that the requirement that an ABS have certain minimum characteristics unduly restrained design choices. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NHTSA in regard to both of these claims. Moreover, while the Court's decision discussed the fact that manufacturers may apply for an exemption from an existing standard or petition the agency to modify an existing standard, the decision did not provide for any such exemption or "exclusion"for ABS, Inc., or any other manufacturer. The claims now made by ABS, Inc. - that the ABS warning light requirements of FMVSS No. 121 were "excluded,"or that ABS, Inc. is exempt from meeting this requirement - are incorrect. Similarly, any assertion that the Court of Appeals found that FMVSS No. 121 unduly restricted design choices is in error.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref.121
d.6/4/01

Addendum: 09/26/01

At the request of Air Brake Systems, Inc. ("ABS, Inc."), the opinions stated in the foregoing letter are under further consideration by the agency, based, in part, on additional materials that ABS, Inc. has provided, or may submit, to the agency in the near future. The agency is now undertaking further review, after which NHTSA will, if appropriate, issue a revised interpretation to MAC Trailer.

ID: 2283y

Tracey Powell
Legislative Coordinator
Government Relations
American Motorcyclist Association
P.O. Box 6114
Westerville, OH 43081-6114

Dear Tracey Powell:

This is in reply to your letter of November l4, l989, with respect to existing prohibitions in some States against the use of modulating headlamps on motorcycles. The apparent basis of the prohibition is that flashing lamps are generally reserved for emergency vehicles. You point out the distinction that Standard No. l08 makes between the two types of headlamps, and ask our "assistance in attaining uniform recognition of the legal use of modulating headlights through the United States . . . ."

As you note, there is a legal distinction in Standard No. l08 between a modulating headlamp (one that goes from a higher to a lower intensity within either the upper or lower beam) and a flashing one (one that goes from either the upper or lower beam to off). Further, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. l08 provides that "A headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate." The authority of States to regulate this aspect of motorcycle lighting is constrained by section l03(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)). This section provides in pertinent part that:

[w]henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State. . . shall have any authority either to extablish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle. . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle. . . which is not identical to the Federal standard."

The effect of this provision of the Safety Act with respect to lighting is to expressly prohibit a State from enacting a law that forbids a manufacturer from installing headlamp modulators on motorcycles.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:VSA#l08 d:2/l/90

ID: 22843

Mr. Matz Larsson
Sales Manager
Broderna Holmbergs Fabriks AB
Box 63
SE-334 21 Anderstorp
Sweden





Dear Mr. Larsson:

This is in response to your letter of March 7, 2001, asking whether the buckle release on your child restraint system meets the area requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." The answer is yes.

S5.4.3.5(c) of Standard No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209," which reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.

Since your buckle requires a sliding action to activate the buckle release, we consider your buckle release to be designed for slide application rather than pushbutton or lever application. Thus, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category.

Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), a buckle having other design for release must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release. You claim that your buckle release meets this requirement. We agree. All of our staff working on this response were able to place two fingers into your slide action release button to actuate release. Thus, we have determined that your buckle release meets the requirement of S4.3(d)(2).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213#209
d.4/10/01

ID: 2284y

Mr. Diana L.D. Regan
43 Rockwood Drive
Larchmont, NY 10538

Dear Ms. Regan:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of how our laws and regulations would apply to a product you have invented. Your product is designed to alter the alignment of the webbing of a lap/shoulder safety belt to improve the fit of the safety belt on children weighing between 40 and 85 pounds. According to your letter, the product is designed to be firmly attached to the webbing of both the lap belt portion and the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt. When the product is attached, it pulls down the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt so that it will pass across the child's chest and shoulder, instead of the neck. You asked whether this product would be considered a safety belt or a child restraint system for the purposes of our safety standards. The answer is that your product would not be considered to be either for the purposes of our standards, as explained below.

Section S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209) defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added). Your device is not itself designed to secure a child in a motor vehicle. Instead, your device is designed to alter the alignment of the existing safety belt in the vehicle, so that the existing safety belt system in the vehicle can be adjusted to better fit a child occupant. Therefore, your device would not be a "seat belt assembly" within the meaning of Standard No. 209.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213) defines a "child restraint system" as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (Emphasis added). As explained above, your device is not a Type I or Type II seat belt. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, your device is not itself designed to restrain, seat, or position children. The restraining of the child would be accomplished entirely by the safety belt system already installed in the vehicle. Your device would simply alter the alignment of that safety belt system for the child. Therefore, your device would not be a "child restraint system" within the meaning of Standard No. 213.

You also asked for information regarding your responsibilities as the manufacturer and seller of this product. I have enclosed an information sheet we have prepared for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed copies of a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick A. Boutin and a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These two letters describe how products intended to enhance the comfort of safety belt wearers could be affected by our laws and regulations. The information sheet explains how to obtain copies of our laws and regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:208#209#213 d:2/l4/90

ID: 22851ogm

Ms. Shannon Dunn
Lorensen Toyota
P.O. Box 427
Old Saybrook, CT 06475





Dear Ms. Dunn:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding modification of a 2001 Toyota Avalon for a passenger with a urologic condition. Your letter, which was accompanied by a letter from the vehicle owner's physician, indicates that the owner is unable to wear a seat belt due to the aforementioned disability. You request permission to remove or disable a warning light that illuminates whenever the front passenger seat is occupied while the seat belt for that seating position remains unfastened.

I would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Paragraph S7.3 of Standard No. 208 requires a seat belt warning system with a warning light and an audible signal to warn when the driver's lap belt is not fastened. However, S7.3 applies only to the driver's seating position and does not apply to the passenger seating position.

The seat belt warning light for the passenger seating position is not required by Standard No. 208 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business would be able to disable or remove the passenger seatbelt warning light described in your letter without violating Federal law. However, such a business could not disable the warning light applicable to the driver's seating position.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.6/1/01

ID: 2285y

Mr. Victor Crisci
70 Lenox Road
Wayne, NJ 07470

Dear Mr. Crisci:

This is in response to the telephone call you made to me after receiving the interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 furnished you on August 7, l989.

To summarize, you wished to know whether a "safety light flasher" to be installed on your motorcycle would conflict with DOT regulations. This device flashes a motorcycle headlamp between upper and lower beam for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light to the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. We advised you that Standard No. l08 allowed flashing headlamps only on vehicles equipped with turn signals (S5.5.10(c)), and that the provision applicable to motorcycle headlamps (S5.5.l0(d)) permitted only headlamp modulators, which must provide varying intensities within a single beam, and not between beams.

You have questioned this interpretation because motorcycles are required to be equipped with turn signals. We have reviewed Standard No. l08, and have concluded that your device is prohibited, albeit for reasons other than section S5.5.10(c). Section S5.5.1 requires that the means for switching between upper and lower beams conform to one of two SAE Recommended Practices, either J564a, or J565b. The first requires that the switch be operated by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. We do not interpret this as allowing automatic switching between upper and lower beams. Although the second provides for automatic switching, it is in the context of changing the upper beam to the lower one when oncoming traffic is approaching. Your device does not contain this feature.

We must also bring your attention to section S5.1.3. This section prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting devices if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. l08. In our opinion, a device that switches between upper and lower beam at times when the headlamp is illuminated would impair the roadway illumination that the headlamp is intended to supply. In addition, if the flasher caused lamps other than the headlamp to flash (such as the taillamp, which must be activated when the headlamp is steady-burning), that are required to be steady-burning in use, a noncompliance with section S5.5.11(e) would result.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d: 2/l4/90

ID: 22874.ztv

Mr. Markus Evans
PMA-Racine
Racine Operations
1733 90^th Street
Sturtevant, WI 53177





Dear Mr. Evers:

This is in reply to your fax of March 13, 2001, to Dave Coleman of this agency asking for an interpretation regarding whether it is necessary for a certain product to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

You state that Putzmeister is "one of the world's largest manufacturer of truck-mounted concrete pumps." You ask whether a contemplated model would need to be equipped with an anti-lock braking system (ABS), or "can it be regarded as construction equipment without need to be equipped with ABS?"

Your question indicates that you are familiar with the long-standing interpretations of this agency that mobile construction equipment vehicles are not motor vehicles which must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We are currently reviewing our position in this matter. I enclose a copy of a letter that we sent on March 21, 2001, to the Colorado State Patrol, as the latest expression of our opinion.

In brief, our interpretations have been in compliance with a Federal District Court decision of 1978. We are now concerned that mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment that the Court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. A later Supreme Court decision may provide us with a basis for deciding that mobile construction vehicles are, in fact, motor vehicles. If we decide that they are motor vehicles, your planned product might have to be manufactured with ABS and to comply with all other relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well.

However, we have not yet undertaken the analysis needed to address the issue. This means that your planned product need not be equipped with ABS. In the event that we decide that mobile construction equipment vehicles are motor vehicles, we will announce it publicly, and would establish an effective date that will accommodate the realities of manufacturing mobile construction equipment.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:571
d.4/19/01

ID: 22892twobarsfromonerod

Mr. Chris Tinto
Director, Technical & Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
Washington Office
1850 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036





Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your March 19, 2001, letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR '571.225). The standard requires the installation of child restraint anchorage systems consisting of two lower anchorages and a top tether anchorage. You ask about the configuration requirements specified in S9.1 for the lower anchorages.

Toyota would like to form the two lower anchorages by bending two bar segments from a long, continuous 6 millimeter (mm) diameter rod. According to the diagram you attached to your letter, each bar segment to which a child restraint would latch onto is approximately 35 mm long and parallel to the main portion of the rod. The rod is bent such that the bar segments protrude about 67 mm (about 2.5 inches) from the rest of the rod. You ask if forming the two lower anchorages from one continuous piece of rod would be permitted if the anchorages were so configured.

Our answer is yes, the bar segments are permitted to be configured as you described.

S9.1.1 of Standard No. 225 specifies that "[t]he lower anchorages shall consist of two bars that . . .  [a]re not more than 40 mm in length . . . ." ⁽¹⁾  Your question raises the issue of whether your anchorages consist of two bars. The bars are formed from one continuous rod. However, because the bars protrude 67 mm from the main portion of the rod and the part of the rod between the two bars would be in the seat bight and not visible to the consumer, two distinct bars are presented to consumers. A consumer is not likely to be confused about where a child restraint should be attached. We thus conclude that the lower anchorages consist of two bars, each of which is not more than 40 mm in length. We could have concluded otherwise had the bars not protruded 67 mm (or some other substantial distance) from the rest of the rod. For example, if they protruded only 10 mm from the rest of the rod, it would not be apparent that two bars are present. An anchorage system with such a design would not meet S9.1.1 of the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 3366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Ref:225
d.7/30/01






---

1. ¹ The agency has received petitions for reconsideration asking that the maximum limit ofm 40 mm be deleted or increased to 50 mm. See Docket No. 98-3390, Notice 2. NHTSA will be responding to the petitions in the near future.