ID: aiam4290

Dear Ms. Black: This responds to your December 11, 1986 to me concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we interpret Standard No. 206 to permit installation of a particular type of door locking system which you referred to as a 'child safety lock.' The answer to your question is yes.; You explain that a 'child safety lock' is a special locking syste installed in addition to the locking system mandated by Standard No. 206. You state that the required locking system (hereinafter referred to as 'the primary locking system') is operated by a vertical plunger located in the door top trim roll (window sill). The child safety lock (which I will refer to as a 'secondary locking system') consists of a lever that is located in the shut face of the rear door which can only be reached when the door is open. When the lever is set in the 'active' position, it renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door.; The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows: >>>S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a lockin mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism i engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpos passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.<<<; As you know, the standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include th door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadvertent door openings due to impact upon movement of inside or outside door handles. Other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.; Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1. through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the interior latch release controls (door handles) to operate the door latches when the door locking mechanism is disengaged. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past agency interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems which interfere with the *engagement* of the primary locking system. Since your child locking systems do not interfere with the manner in which the primary locking system engages, their installation on the vehicles you manufacturer is permitted.; The answer to your question about the child locking systems i dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of *Engaging* the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is *engaged*. Since we have determined that S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.; While the agency stated in its April 1968 notice amending Standard No 206 that one purpose of requiring an interior means of operating door locks was to allow a reasonable means of escape for vehicle occupants, the agency did not go further in facilitating escape by also including a provision to require in all circumstances that door handles be operative when the primary locking system are disengaged. Since the agency could easily have included such a provision to address this reverse situation, but did not do so, the implication is that the agency did not intend to impose requirements regarding that situation. In fact, the notice included a contemporaneous interpretation that the standard permits a secondary locking device which rendered the inside rear door handle inoperative even when the primary locking mechanism was disengaged. This affirms that NHTSA did not even intend to impose a requirement that the handles always be operative when the primary locking mechanism is disengaged.; In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 20 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to 'minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.' Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements of occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside operating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interferer with the engagement of the required door locking system.; Another issue related to your inquiry is whether the location of th operating means for the child locks is regulated by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no. Secondary locking mechanisms discussed in the final rule adopting the door lock requirements and in past agency letters all were designed so that the operating means for the secondary mechanism was inaccessible when the door was closed. In none of those documents did the agency take exception to that location of the operating means, much less suggest that those means, like the means for the primary locking mechanism, must be located in the vehicle's interior.; This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies pas agency statements concerning issues raised by secondary locking systems such as 'child safety locks.' To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations made by NHTSA in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.; Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 21281.ztv

C. Thomas Terry, Director
Safety Affairs & Regulation
General Motors North America
Safety Center (480-111-S56)
30200 Mound
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Terry:

On February 11, 2000, you wrote the Acting Administrator, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and petitioning for its amendment. This letter provides an interpretation of Standard No. 108. The Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards will inform you in due course whether he has granted your petition.

Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You asked "whether brake lamp illumination is required, prohibited, or allowed under other conditions." You set forth two such conditions where the brake pedal is not employed. The first condition is:

Service brakes applied with intent of decelerating the vehicle. An example in this category would be adaptive cruise control where the service brakes may be automatically applied (without driver application of the brake pedal) to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles.

We are providing an interpretation that covers only the system given as an example, an adaptive cruise control automatically applied "to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles." The SAE Standards on stop lamps that are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, J586 MAY84 and J1398 MAY85, define stop lamps as "Lamps . . . [which] indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Since you state that the intent of the brake application in this context would be "to slow the vehicle," which would "diminish speed by braking" within the meaning of the applicable SAE standards, we conclude that activation of the stop lamps would be required under these circumstances.

The second condition you set forth is:

Service brakes applied with no intent to decelerate the vehicle. The best example in this category would be traction control, where the intent is to help accelerate, rather than decelerate, the vehicle. Electronic stability control is another technology that can momentarily actuate the service brakes with minimal or no vehicle deceleration.

The intent of the brake application under the first part of the second condition is not to stop the vehicle or diminish its speed. Therefore, activation of the stop lamps, as defined in the applicable SAE Standards, would not be required. In addition, S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. In our view, activation of the stop lamps for a purpose other than to indicate stopping or slowing will create confusion for the driver following as to the meaning of the signal, with the potential of causing that driver to apply the brakes in his or her vehicle inappropriately. Thus, illumination of the stop lamp during traction control would be an impairment of the stop lamp function within the meaning of S5.1.3. We have therefore concluded that installation of traction control systems, or any other equipment, that activates the stop lamps for purposes other than to indicate that the vehicle is stopping or slowing is prohibited by S5.1.3 and would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Regarding the second part of the second condition, electronic stability control, the same interpretation would apply if the vehicle speed was not diminished by application of the service brakes (or any part). It would not apply if the application of the service brakes resulted in deceleration. In that case, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

We realize that, under some circumstances, the driver's application of the service brake system to achieve the same result, i.e. not actually achieving a reduction in speed, will cause the stop lamps to illuminate, but this is an unavoidable consequence of the technology available for driver application of the service brakes. With the advent of sophisticated electronic systems, such as those that you mention, there is no need for them to provide false signals.

Also, you have asked that we "for the near term . . . agree that FMVSS 108 allows, but does not require or prohibit, illumination of the brake lamps under the two conditions described above" because a "strict 'required' or 'prohibited' interpretation could have the effect of raising compliance issues with current production vehicles." We cannot adopt a different interpretation for the near term than for the long term. We encourage manufacturers to write us for interpretations before introducing new systems into production so that compliance issues will not arise, or to file petitions for rulemaking where appropriate. If a manufacturer constructs a noncompliant vehicle based upon a misunderstanding of what is required by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, it must accept the consequences of its actions.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/26/00

ID: nht76-2.5

DATE: 02/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Jeep Corporation's October 16, 1975, petition to initiate rulemaking to amend the present definition of "Unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR @ 571.3) which reads:

"Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

Jeep requests that the definition be amended to "indicate that the unloaded vehicle [weight] does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories." The Jeep petition argues that the impracticality of conducting some dynamic testing with "work-performing accessories" in place may force the discontinuance of some factory-installed accessories although factory installation may be more safe than a subsequent aftermarket installation.

The Jeep Corporation petition is denied. As a general matter, the NHTSA has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed. The NHTSA has evaluated the potential problems of dynamic testing with heavy or protruding accessories in place and concludes that a decision on the practicality and wisdom of so doing should be made on a "standard-by-standard" basis. As you noted, the NHTSA has provided for removal of work-performing accessories in conducting compliance tests under Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. If Jeep considers dynamic testing in other standards to be unjustifiably burdensome because of the necessity of testing with all accessories in place, it would be appropriate to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard in question.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

October 16, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: Petition For Rulemaking 49 CFR Part 571.3 - Definitions

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" contained in Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 571.3.

Currently, unloaded vehicle weight means the weight of the vehicle to be loaded with its maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for normal operation, but without occupants or cargo. This is the base vehicle condition used throughout the safety standards when vehicle dynamic performance is being evaluated. Jeep Corporation requests that this definition be revised to clearly indicate that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories. Currently, it is unclear whether a vehicle being subjected to a dynamic test should include such items.

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as "Jeep Special Equipment", are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modification which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle. Thus, it would be in the best interests of safety to allow Jeep Corporation to continue to provide approved special equipment.

This will not be possible, however, if future dynamic testing procedures in several safety standards require vehicles tested to be equipped with all types of special equipment accessories. To assure compliance to any Federal Standards with all possible vehicle equipment combinations would create a financial and testing burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which, as noted earlier, may not be in the best interest of public safety.

The NHTSA has, in the past, recognized the influence of certain work-performing equipment on vehicle dynamic performance. In Docket No. 73-29; Notice 1, published in 38 FR 33501, the NHTSA proposed the exemption of original equipment snow plows from vehicles being tested to the braking requirements of Standard (Illegible Word)

The concept of eliminating the effects of "work-performing accessories" from the unloaded vehicle weight was further confirmed by the NHTSA in its recent promulgation of Standard 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. In this standard, it is stated that, "(F)or the purpose of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR Part 571.3) such that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories.

Jeep Corporation submits that for the reason stated above, such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.

Stuart R. Perkins Director Vehicle Safety

ID: nht92-7.4

DATE: May 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Al Twyford

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Al Twyford to Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway Administration (OCC 7244)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1992, to the Federal Highway Administration, which has been forwarded to this agency for reply.

You wish to complain "about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4) which operate at the same time." If this agency plans to do nothing about it, you "plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators."

You are not alone in your concern about headlamp glare created by new motor vehicles. Other citizens have brought the subject to the attention of Members of Congress. I enclose a copy of a recent letter from the Deputy Administrator of this agency to Senator Cohen of Maine which is representative of our views on this issue. You will see that a number of factors may be responsible for creating a perception of glare. We note that you have already been in touch with the Department of California Highway Patrol, and that California has no periodic motor vehicle inspection.

With respect to the specific comments in your letter, the agency does not "approve" specific headlamp designs. Standard No. 108 sets forth photometric performance requirements to be met on both the upper and lower beam, and does establish maximum limitations at some of the photometric test points. Further, in a four-headlamp system, the upper and lower beams may be provided by all headlamps. Headlamp manufacturers must ensure that their products meet these requirements, and certify that each headlamp complies by placing a "DOT" mark on the lamp. There is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain permission from this agency before introducing the lamps into the market.

We appreciate your concern.

Enclosure

April 16, 1992

The Honorable William S. Cohen United State Senate Washington, DC 20510-1901

Dear Senator Cohen:

Thank you for your letter requesting information on the quality of automobile headlamps. Our information should help you respond to a letter from Mr.

Lowell Spicer, of Brunswick, Maine, who wrote you about headlamp glare and other issues.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects. One of these standards, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," addresses the safety requirements for vehicle headlighting.

Two of FMVSS No. 108's requirements standardize the beam pattern and light intensity of headlamps. All new headlamps must meet these requirements, which have remained essentially unchanged since 1978. Halogen headlamps may appear much brighter, but they meet the same minimum and maximum output requirements as normal incandescent headlamps. They appear much brighter because of the color spectrum of their light, i.e., they emit light which appears whiter than the light emitted by incandescent headlamp. Another of FMVSS No. 108's requirements allows headlamps to be installed or "mounted" in a proper ground clearance and ramp angles for heavy duty and other vehicles. Because of their size and other characteristics, trucks often have headlamps that are mounted higher than other vehicles.

Our headlamp compliance tests for beam pattern and light intensity show, that when properly aimed, recent model-year headlamps generally fall well within the limits established for glare brightness. However, our tests do not account for the effect of different mounting heights or misaiming. Headlamp replacement and vehicle loading can alter headlamp aim and are often the cause of glare complaints.

Another aspect of recent model-year vehicles that could be contributing to glare is the improper use, misaiming or improper installation of auxiliary fog or driving lamps. These are regulated solely by state law.

The agency has found that factors such as reduced night vision capabilities as people age can adversely influence driving performance. Headlamp glare resistance reduces with driver age. According to research, the headlamp glare resistance of the human eye at age 20 is twice as good as it is for the age of 72. Contrast sensitivity is also an important factor in night vision, and it reduces dramatically, requiring more illumination to see objects as drivers age.

Concerning vehicle headlamps and their brightness due to misaim, States regulate headlamp aim in motor vehicle use and inspection laws. Maine has an annual motor vehicle inspection law. Should Mr. Spicer want to contact his State on the matter of headlamp aim inspection he should contact the following:

Administration of Laws Mr. G. William Diamond, Secretary of State Department of Secretary of State Nash School Station, #148 Augusta, ME 04333

Enforcement of Laws Mr. John Atwood, Commissioner

Department of Public Safety 336 Hospital Street Augusta, ME 04333.

I hope that we have provided enough information to help you answer Mr. Spicer's concerns.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe

ID: 77-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fleming Metal Fabricators

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 3, 1976, letter concerning the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, and the fuel tanks that you manufacture for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Standard No. 301-75 applies to whole vehicles rather than to fuel tanks. Therefore, the responsibility under Federal law for compliance with the standard lies with the vehicle manufacturer. He must exercise due care in certifying that the vehicle will, if tested by the NHTSA as specified in S6 and S7 of the standard, meet the fuel spillage requirements set out in S5. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.

The vehicle manufacturer who installs a fuel tank manufactured by you may, in order to meet his duty to exercise due care, rely on assurances from you concerning the tank's performance characteristics, to the extent that such reliance is reasonable. Your assurances, in turn, need not necessarily be based on actual crash testing of vehicles equipped with your fuel tanks under the exact conditions prescribed in the standard.

You should both note, of course, that the ability of a vehicle to conform to the standard depends not only on the performance capabilities of the fuel tank itself, but also on other factors including the manner and location in which it is mounted. The fact that your fuel tanks conform with Federal Highway Administration requirements (49 CFR @@ 393.65 and 393.67), therefore, does not by itself imply that vehicles equipped with such tanks are capable of passing the crash test requirements of Standard No. 301-75.

Similarly, the fact that your company's manufacturing procedures and its mounting and installation instructions conform to established industry practices is not sufficient evidence of due care, unless it is reasonable to conclude from it that the vehicles will conform.

SINCERELY,

FLEMING METAL FABRICATORS

3 December, 1976

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council Dept. of Transportation SUBJECT: 571, 301-75 Fuel System Integrity with certification per Part 567 -- by auxilliary gasoline tank installers (Truck Body Builders, New Truck Dealer, Truck Repair Facility, Etc.). To discover bases for responsible certifying to Safety Standard 301 without performing actual tests or without reference to factory vehicle tests.

Pursuant to our telecon of 2 December, 1976, we present the following information hoping that some answer can be found to this very perplexing problem.

We are strictly manufacturers, and if you will make reference to FMF 76 Minilog our total product line will be clearly presented.

Many of FMF customers are bogged down by the Safety Standard 301 (they currently will not install tanks on vehicles 10,000# or less); and, their attitude is that FMF is responsible for providing a certification basis to them (which of course is not true). Many large manufacturers in the east are providing their dealers (installers) with installation diagrams and stating that a product once installed per their instructions may be certified by the installer. It is highly doubtful that these manufacturers actually performed barrier impact tests, but, rather are relying on the Truck Manufacturers Test Information (Ford, Chev., Etc.), and this information is not available to FMF or to our customers.

It appears to us that by furnishing our customer with a fully representative installation diagram (which would parallel factory procedures), it would provide a clear cut basis to the tank installer to provide a responsible certification. (It should be noted that the installation of an auxilliary gasoline tank does require connecting into existing lines for the supply and vent lines, but it is difficult to see that such additions would in any way create a situation that would be less safe than the vehicle as originally certified by the Truck Factory.

As you probably noted, all of FMF tanks are made to comply with FHWA 393.65 & 393.67; further, the mounting of these tanks has been statically tested far beyond the traditional 5 to 1 safety factor. Our products are in many cases deliberately overdesigned and we do not have product failures. Product failures cannot be tolerated in today's marketplace -- if a company's product liability insurance was every used, it is doubtful that replacement insurance would be available -- even at vastly increased premiums.

Many of our customers are Mom & Pop organizations with up to 10 employees; This type of organization as well as many much larger companies are not able to get involved with extensive testing because of the following reasons; economic, personnel, time and inadequate facilities -- to name just a few.

Since all truck chasses (some with bodies mounted and some without) must be certified by the truck manufacturer -- It would seem reasonable that installers of component parts or auxilliary parts to the truck chassis or body (knowing that their additional certification is to be on that vehicle) will proceed responsibly and especially if fully representative installation diagrams are provided.

Your immediate attention to this letter will be greatly appreciated, & we remain,

Robert I. Fleming, Pres.

ID: 77-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack Gromer -- Vice President, Timpte

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTSA regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, Certification and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As you are aware, Part 567 of regulations requires a statement by the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (@ 567.4(g)(4)). The term "GAWR" is defined in @ 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire-ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.

Standard No. 120 specifies that "each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements]" (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.

In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.

With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty new trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and @ 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.

SINCERELY, TIMPTE, INC.

JANUARY 11, 1977

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

AS MANUFACTURERS OF SEMI-TRAILERS, WE ARE CERTIFYING VIRTUALLY 100% OF OUR PRODUCTION TO ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. ONE PROBLEM DEVELOPS OCCASIONALLY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN INTERPRETATION ON THIS MATTER.

THE CONDITION IS ONE WHERE WE HAVE BUILT A SEMI-TRAILER FOR A PARTICULAR CUSTOMER AND THAT CUSTOMER CHOOSES TO FURNISH THE TIRES. IN OUR MANUFACTURE, WE WILL SPECIFY THE AXLE SUSPENSION AND OTHER COMPONENTS AS WELL AS INDICATING THE TIRE SIZE WHICH THE CUSTOMER WILL FURNISH. OCCASIONALLY, THE NEW TIRES ARE NOT SENT TO OUR MANUFACTURING FACILITY HERE, BUT RATHER, TIRES ARE INSTALLED BY THE CUSTOMER AT THE TIME HE TAKES THE TRAILER TO HIS OWN FACILITY. PICK UP OF THE TRAILER IS ACCOMPLISHED BY A DRIVER WITH A TRUCK TRACTOR BELONGING TO THE CUSTOMER AND HE MAY BRING WITH HIM ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES WHICH ARE ON THE "RUN OUT" VARIETY. THEY REQUEST US TO INSTALL THESE ON THE VEHICLE AND CHAIN UP THE REAR AXLE OF THE TANDEM SO THAT THE DRIVER CAN THEN TAKE THE NEW TRAILER EQUIPPED WITH ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES IN LIEU OF EIGHT BACK TO HIS FACILITY. NOW, OUR CERTIFICATION WOULD NORMALLY BE FOR THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF TIRES AND THE GAWR RATINGS AS WELL AS THE GVWR RATINGS WOULD BE STAMPED ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL AS IF THE TRAILER WERE EQUIPPED WITH THE INTENDED RUBBER.

BY COMPLYING WITH THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST AND INSTALLING OLD TIRES AID FEWER TIRES THAN INTENDED FOR THE TRAILER AND ALLOWING HIM TO TAKE DELIVERY FROM OUR PREMISES, ARE WE MAKING OURSELVES LIBEL IN ANY WAY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CERTIFICATION REGULATIONS OR WHATEVER? UNDERSTAND PLEASE, THAT THIS WOULD BE DONE AT CUSTOMER REQUEST AND INSTRUCTION WITH HIS FULL INTENTION BEING TO EQUIP THE TRAILER WITH A FULL SET OF GOOD TIRES, POSSIBLY RECAPS, AT THE TIME THAT HE GETS IT TO HIS FACILITY.

CERTAINLY, WE DON'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN A COMPROMISING POSITION AND IT WOULD NOT BE OUR INTENT TO DEVIATE OR BE IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE NHTSA REGULATIONS; AT THE SAME TIME WE WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMODATE OUR CUSTOMERS SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE AN OPINION FROM YOU REGARDING THIS TYPE OF CONDITION. IT IS AN INFREQUENT ONE; HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS TYPE OF REQUEST.

JACK GROMER VICE PRESIDENT - ENGINEERING

ID: nht89-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: BYUNG M. SOH -- TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM BYUNG M. SOH TO TAYLOR VINRON; OCC 2648

TEXT: Dear Mr. Soh:

This responds to your letter of October 5, 1988, inquiring whether your "Starrace" hub cap violated Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @ 571.211) or any other of our safety standards. You explained that your self lighting hu b cap includes a motion activated LED light whose intensity varies according to the speed of the vehicle. You further noted that the LED, which has a maximum intensity of 40mmAmp, is designed for cosmetic rather than illuminating purposes. As explained below, your device would not appear to violate Standard No. 211. However, this device may present problems of compliance with Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR @ 571.108).

Standard No. 211 prohibits winged projections on wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. This prohibition extends to these items of motor vehicle equipment both as items of original equipment on new passenger cars and multipurpose vehicles and as items s old in the aftermarket as replacement parts for use on such vehicles. Judging by the picture enclosed with your letter, it does not appear that this hub cap has any winged projections. Nothing in Standard No. 211 explicitly prohibits LEDs on hub caps, wheel nuts, or wheel discs. Accordingly, your product does not appear to violate any provision of Standard No. 211.

However, the self lighting nature of your hub cap may raise questions under Standard No. 108. If this hub cap is marketed as original equipment to be installed before the initial sale of a motor vehicle, the vehicle with these hub caps installed must be certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 provides that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." As I stated in my September 13, 1988 letter to you with respect to different equipment, we interpret this requirement as follows:

"Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or ab ove the maxima permitted by the standard." (emphasis added)

Your product might impair the effectiveness of the required lighting by causing motorists to confuse its signal with the signal emitted by headlamps, stoplights, brakelights, taillights, side marker lamps, and other lighting devices. Such confusion is p ossible since your product is located on the wheels at approximately the same level as the lights required by Standard No. 108. This impairment of effectiveness would be especially likely if the hub cap lights were the same color (red, amber or white) as the lights required by Standard No. 108.

As for the aftermarket sale of your product, under @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, an element of design, s uch as lighting equipment, installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Again, if these lighted hub caps would impair the effectiveness of the lighting required by Standard No. 108, we would consider each aftermarket installation of the hub c aps by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to be a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the "render ino perative" provision. Please note that the Safety Act does not restrict a vehicle owner from modifying his or her own vehicle, even if the modification resulted in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108. Such modifications may, however, b e prohibited by State law.

Additionally, you should be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with defe cts related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and either:

1. repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

In either case, the manufacturer must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Sally P. Tate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Sally P. Tate Adaptive Driving Service 2818 Ronco Drive San Jose, CA 95132

Dear Ms Tate:

This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1987, with reference to the following problem: an owner of a 1987 Toyota Corolla has multiple sclerosis, and instead of walking must use a powered scooter. The scooter is transported by a lift platf orm mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. However, this lift unit "obstructs direct view of -- the factory installed high rear brake light." You propose to install another stop lamp on the post of the lift "so that it will be in dir ect view of the drivers behind....," leaving untouched the original center highmounted stop lamp. You have informed us that California will not sanction the additional lamp unless this agency authorizes it. Vehicles in use are subject to the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard may not be rendered inoperative, in whole or in part, by a person other than the vehicle owner. Installation of any equipment that obstructs the light output of a highmounted stop lamp would render it partially inoperative in our opinion. Because photometric compliance of the lamp is determined from a distance of not less than 10 feet, and b ecause the distance between the Toyota rear lamp and lift unit would appear to be less than that distance, it is probable that one or more of the requisite photometric test points might be obscured by the device.

However, it appears that the prohibition against rendering inoperative may not be violated by the modification you propose. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment allows an exception for modifica tions made during the manufacturing process or before sale. Under Paragraph S4.3.1.1, if motor vehicle equipment prevents a lamp from compliance with photometric requirements, an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements shall be provided. Wher e a standard provides alternative methods of compliance, alteration of a vehicle or item of equipment so that it meets a different alternative from the one which it originally met does not constitute rendering inoperative within the meaning of the prohib ition.

We believe that your situation is sufficiently similar so that your addition of an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements would not violate the prohibition. In this instance the fact that the new lamp would not be located directed on the rea r vertical centerline of the vehicle, but slightly to the left of it, would not be of great concern to us. In conclusion, we have no objection to the proposed installation of the lamp.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 13, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel F.M.V. #108, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SouthWest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones,

As per my conversations with Mr. Kevin Cabey and Mr. Taylor Vinson, I have been advised to write directly to you to have you assist us with our request.

I will try to be as brief as possible. I work with Physically Disabled individuals and I have been contracted by the State of California to work with a client who has Multiple Sclerosis. She purchased a 1987 Toyota Corolla liftback which obviously has th e high center rear brake light feature. This light in itself poses no problem. However, our client uses a powered scooter since her ability to ambulate is minimized and this scooter can only be transported through the means of a special lift unit mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. (Please refer to the brochure of Tiger Lift enclosed.) When this lift unit is mounted on the car, it abstracts direct view of the factory installed high rear brake light. We have come up with a solution of moun ting another high rear brake light" on the post of the lift so that it will be in direct view of the drivers behind our client. Our State Chief of Automotive Inspection insists that this rear brake light be visible.

Our snag hinges on the fact that the California State Department of Automotive Inspection will not sanction any location of the high rear brake light (only factory installed), in our case on the post of the lift, unless we receive a letter of authorizati on directly from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

We are therefore requesting and greatly appreciate your efforts in assisting us with this client's need. Our automotive chief has stated that this unit will not be installed unless we are able to receive a written letter of authorization addressing the a cceptance of the installation of another high rear brake light, which can be mounted on the post of this lift unit. The factory installed unit will remain untouched.

Thank you for your prompt attention in this unusual request.

ID: nht88-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/88

FROM: LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER -- SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, VEHICLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

TO: TAYLOR VINSON--ATTORNEY ADVISOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/15/88 TO LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) has been asked to help determine the desirability of adding a "deceleration" or "pre-braking" warning light to the light configuration which is normally used on automobiles. As presently envisioned, this light woul d be amber in color and would be illuminated when the driver removes pressure from the accelerator pedal sufficiently to cause the automobile speed to start to decrease, due to the effect of engine compression, and would be extinguished automatically whe never the driver reapplies pressure to the accelerator pedal.

SwRI considers that a "deceleration light" of this type has the potential to reduce the incidence of automobile rear-end collisions (see Attachment 1) and that this potential is maximized if the light is located in as conspicuou a location as possible . The "best" location is considered to be immediately adjacent (or as close as possible) to the location of the "high-mounted stoplamp" since this location appears to offer the highest degree of visibility and would also serve to attract attention to th e high-mounted stoplamp area.

This location appears to have already been considered by NHTSA for this purpose, since it is mentioned as a consideration in FMVSS No. 108 on page PRE 137, and the principle is in widespread use on schoolbuses which use a manually activated flashing a mber light to warn that the red stop lights are about to be turned on and that all traffic must stop.

A review of FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) has failed to locate any requirement which would preclude locating an additional light adjacent to the high-mounted stoplamp; however, this type of requirement was conside red at one time (FMVSS 108, pages PRE 132-133 and PRE 135) and SwRI would like to find out if any requirement exists now, or is contemplated for the future, which would prevent the use of this location.

If I can provide further information or answer any questions which might expedite the answer to this question, please call (512) 522-3017.

Sincerely,

DECELERATION LIGHT MAXIMUM BENEFIT SITUATIONS The following three categories of driving situations are considered to be the situations in which deceleration lights would be of maximum benefit in reducing rear-end collisions.

HEAVY TRAFFIC (High speed/high traffic density with decreased vehicle separation distances)

High traffic density, with the associated decrease in visibility and increased need for enhanced reaction time, leads to a situation where reaction times become additive and eventually reach the point where a following driver is placed in a situation where his vehicle has exceeded its physical capability of stopping in time to avoid an accident. Deceleration lights offer the potential for minimizing this progressive lengthening of reaction time and thereby permitting long strings of cars to stop saf ely. Deceleration lights would also provide valuable information about adjoining lane driver intentions, particularly in lane change situations where an apparent opening in an adjoining traffic lane may be about to vanish if the driver of the vehicle at the front of the opening has decided to slow down and has taken his foot off the accelerator preparatory to stepping on the brakes.

MERGING TRAFFIC (Converging situations between vehicles entering or leaving limited access roadways)

A particularly volatile and rapidly changing situation occurs when two streams of traffic merge and the driver of the vehicle with the right-of-way is often forced to guess whether or not a merging driver is going to yield, speed up, or slow down. Th is guess is made harder by the fact that most drivers control their merging maneuver by use of the accelerator pedal only, and thus leave only the rate-of-change of their speed as a clue to their intentions. The driver with the right-of-way is almost al ways driving the faster, overtaking, vehicle and would be able to see a deceleration light which could furnish valuable clues about the other driver's intentions. A deceleration light would also furnish valuable information to drivers following the vehi cle with the righ-of-way if that driver decides to "let up on the gas" and give a merging vehicle more room to complete the merging maneuver.

DECREASED TRACTION (Braking situations where low traction may cause skids or other loss of control situations if brakes are applied too heavily)

Many drivers fail to realize the need for increased spacing between car during slippery conditions (rain, snow, ice, etc.). At the same time most drivers are taught that the proper way to slow down in slippery conditions is to let up on the accelerat or and allow the vehicle to decelerate gradually. This combination is likely to cause accidents involving following cars which do not realize that they are following a car which is slowing down until it is too late for them to make a controlled stop. A deceleration light would provide this information for following drivers and allow them to initiate their own stop, or speed reduction, in time to remain in control.

ID: nht88-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM K. BALDWIN,

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-7-88, "THE BALDWIN REAR-VIEW MIRROR SAFETY SYSTEM" PARTLY COVERED BY U.S. PAT #3,667,833

TEXT: This responds to your May 7, 1988 letter, concerning the "Baldwin Rear-View Mirror Safety System." You stated that this mirror system contains both a flat mirror of unit magnification and a convex mirror, and stated your belief that this mirror system "o ffers the latest in technology and safety." You requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) evaluate and approve your mirror system. We have no authority to approve any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, as explaine d below.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety s tandards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance . In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product; the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary performance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1 403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this provision in the law, NHTSA cannot approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111; copy enclosed). As you will see, Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that vehicle manufacturers must certify

that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. Standard No. 111 does not apply to rearview mirrors as items of equipment. The effect of this is to place the certification responsibility for original equip ment rearview mirror systems entirely on the vehicle manufacturer. You as the manufacturer of the mirror are not required to certify that your mirrors comply with Standard No. 111 or any other standard.

With respect to your new mirror system, NHTSA has said in many previous interpretations that vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself comp lies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle type on which the mirror system is installed.

Assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on new vehicles of that type.

Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on such installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section p rohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirro r system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with Standard No. 111. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that removed a complying system and replaced it with the noncomplying system would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) speci fies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the "render inoperative" provision.

Again assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on used vehicles of that type. If y our mirror system does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for a vehicle type, it cannot be installed on used vehicles of that type by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they want to their own vehicles, regardless o f whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

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

ENCLOSURE