ID: 11116a

Mr. Robert R. Brester
Director of Product Engineering
Velvac Inc.
2900 South 160th Street
New Berlin, WI 53151

Dear Mr. Brester:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning how Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, affects the brake products you sell. According to your letter:

Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking.

The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached catalogue drawings . . . .)

You stated that Mr. Richard Carter of this agency advised you that different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the braking performance requirements of Standard No. 105, and that the responsibility of certifying vehicles to Standard No. 105 lies in the hands of your customers. This information is correct. However, you should be aware that some of the components listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with that standard. A further discussion of the issues raised by your letter is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new

motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue several vehicle and/or equipment standards related to braking performance. These standards include the aforementioned Standards No. 105 and No. 106, as well as ones on air brake systems, motorcycle brake systems, and motor vehicle brake fluids.

You specifically asked about Standard No. 105. That standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems.

If your brake products are installed as original equipment on a new vehicle subject to Standard No. 105, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the products installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of that standard (as well as all other applicable safety standards). If your brake products are added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" under our regulations, and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If your products are installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a repair shop, the repair shop would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as the hydraulic brake system.

Assuming you do not manufacture or alter new vehicles, you do not have a responsibility to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105. However, I note that some of the brake products listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106. That standard specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, end fittings and assemblies. Standard No. 106 applies not only to new vehicles, as is the case with Standard No. 105, but also to brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies that are sold individually or in kit form. Manufacturers of these items must certify that the equipment complies with Standard No. 106, and persons selling these items must sell only certified items.

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety- related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to statutory requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes various responsibilities of motor vehicle manufacturers under our regulations, and information on how you can obtain copies of our standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref: 105, 106 NCC-20 EGlancy:mar:9/29/95:62992:OCc 11116 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron concurrence: NPS, NSA U:\ncc20\interp\105\1116a.jeg The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSSs. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

ID: 11118

Ms. Nancy Tavarez
Bietrix Industries

FAX 201-956-7070

Dear Ms Tavarez:

This is in response to your FAX of August 8, 1995, with respect to the importation of "Phoenix Halogen Auto Bulbs H4 series, H3, H1 and 9000 series-HB1 for the USA market." We understand that you presently have a shipment of these awaiting entry. You state that "Mr. Taylor Benson recently informed us that these lights required DOT approval."

Taylor Vinson repeatedly informed you on the phone that DOT does not approve bulbs or any other kind of equipment. If there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect covering an item of equipment, the manufacturer (or importer for resale) is responsible for certifying that the equipment complies with that standard. The certifier does not need DOT permission or approval for that action.

The appropriate Federal regulations in this instance are Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment and 49 CFR Part 564 Replaceable Light Source Information.

There is no Federal regulation that applies to the H4 bulb. Although the H4 bulb is legal for use only in motorcycle headlamps, neither Standard No. 108 nor Part 564 applies to motorcycle headlamp bulbs, and it is not necessary for H4 bulbs to be certified in order to enter the United States. H4 bulbs may not be used in headlamps for motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, the HB2 bulb, based on the H4, is legal for use in headlamps for all types of motor vehicles.

If the H1 and H3 bulbs are to be used for auxiliary lamps such as fog lamps, there is no Federal regulation that requires their certification either.

However, if the H1 and H3 bulbs are intended for use in headlamps (the markings on their boxes may indicate this), they are subject to both Standard No. 108 and Part 564. What we require is that the bulb be marked with (1) the name and/or trademark registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of its manufacturer or of its importer (Bietrix); (2) the ANSI number, ECE identifier, and manufacturer's part number,

individually or in any combination; and (3) a DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is the certification by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the H1 or H3 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications for these bulbs that are on file in Part 564. We believe that Phoenix should be aware of these specifications. For your information, "(1)" is required by paragraphs S7.7(h) and S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108, "(2)" by paragraph S7.7(h) and section VIII of Appendix A of Part 564, and "(3)" by paragraphs S7.7(g) and (h) of Standard No. 108. I am FAXing a copy of paragraph S7.7 and Part 564 for your information.

The HB1 light source is required to be marked with the same information as the H1 and H3 as indicated above, but the authority for this is paragraph S7.7(f); this also requires the base to be marked "HB1". However, the DOT symbol in this instance would represent the certification by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the HB1 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications of paragraph S7.7(a) and Figure 3 of Standard No. 108. Again, we believe that Phoenix should be familiar with the specifications for the HB1 light source.

If the HB1 light sources (or H1s and H3s for headlamp use) you wish to import bear all these markings, you may import them under Box 2A of the HS-7 Declaration Form as equipment certified as meeting the standards. If they do not bear these markings, they may not be imported until marked and certified by Phoenix or by Bietrix according to the regulations discussed above.

If you have further questions, please call Mr. Vinson at (202)366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:108 d:8/30/95

ID: 11120

Ms. Karey Clock
Moriden America, Inc.
915 Western Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46241

Dear Ms. Clock:

This responds to your inquiry about testing procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. In particular, you asked whether certain materials, which you list as flat woven, double raschel, tricot, and moquette, should be tested by using support wires. The short answer is that during NHTSA compliance testing, support wires may be used in testing any specimen that "softens or bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning." However, the agency cannot specify, outside of the context of a compliance test, whether a given type of material falls in this category.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

You ask about Standard No. 302, which specifies requirements for the flammability resistance of materials in the occupant compartment of new vehicles. Along with specified performance requirements, Standard No. 302 sets forth conditions and procedures under which NHTSA tests materials for compliance with the standard. Section S5.1.3 of the standard states, in relevant part, that

The test specimen is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames of metal stock 1-inch wide and 3/8 of an inch high. The interior dimensions of the U-shaped frames are 2 inches wide by 13 inches long. A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an additional U-shaped frame, wider than the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 1--mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

You ask whether certain specific types of materials could be tested using the supplemental wire described in S5.1.3. The agency uses supplemental wires when there is a reasonable expectation

that a test specimen will soften and bend while burning. The agency bases its determination about the likelihood of softening and bending on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with components that are highly similar to a test specimen. However, since a decision to use wires is made only in the context of compliance testing, we regret that we cannot tell you at this time whether support wires will be used to test the materials you listed.

Vehicle manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its compliance testing. Thus, a vehicle manufacturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to soften or bend. However, vehicle manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying that their product will meet Standard No. 302's requirements when tested by NHTSA according to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a vehicle manufacturer has met that due care standard when using support wires in situations other than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:302 d:9/25/95

ID: 11135r

Mr. Charles de Saint Martin
Project Manager
The Fairchild Corporation
P.O. Box 10803
Chantilly, VA 22021

Dear Mr. de Saint Martin:

This replies to your letter of August 10, 1995, with reference to "Securiflash". Taylor Vinson of this Office phoned you on August 21 for a clarification.

We understand that, in the event of a deceleration of 0.8 g, such as caused by emergency braking, "Securiflash" automatically activates a vehicle's hazard warning system lamps; after 5 seconds, the lamps go off.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter that we sent Saline Electronics on April 24, 1995, which provides our views that a deceleration system that operates through the hazard warning system is impermissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

However, we are interested in your remark that the product "was developed after different European studies showed that 60 percent of rear end collisions would be avoided if the brakes had been applied one second earlier." We are unaware of such studies, and would like to receive copies of them so that the agency may enhance its knowledge of the conditions under which rear end collisions occur.

If you have any further questions, please call Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure NCC20:Vinson:6-2992:9-6-95:Lyn OCC# 11135 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron NCC-20 Vinson Interps. 108; Redbook (3) U:\ncc20\interp\108\11135r.ztv

ID: 11153-3

Mr. Saburo Inui, Vice President
Toyota Motor Corporate Services
of North America, Inc.
1850 M. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to Toyota's August 22, 1995, letter regarding the test procedures in this agency's June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (60 FR 30006). You were concerned that the test procedure seems to say that the service brake should be applied at two different steps during the test procedure, without specifying when the service brake should be released in between those two steps. You suggested a revised procedure that specifies a step for releasing the service brake, and asked if that procedure conforms with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) test requirement.

After reviewing the issues raised by your letter, we have concluded that a technical amendment should be issued to clarify the test procedure. We expect to issue such an amendment shortly.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:114 d:10/13/95

ID: 11154

Karen Coffey, Esq.
Chief Counsel
Texas Automobile Dealers Association
1106 Lavaca
P.O. Box 1028
Austin, Texas 78767-1028

FAX: 512-476-2179

Dear Ms. Coffey:

This responds to your letter asking whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state,

"a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable."

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor.

By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .

It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law.

In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Glancy of my staff at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208#VSA d:8/31/95

ID: aiam1696

Dear Mr. Dvorachek:#This responds to your letter of October 25, 1974 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 106-74, *Brake hoses*, as it applies to the labeling of air brake hose end fittings which use sacrificial sleeves.#>>>S7.2 states:#In the case of an end fitting intended for use in a reuseable assembly, 'AI' or 'AII' shall indicate use with Type I or type II hose respectively.<<<#Since an end fitting which uses a sacrificial sleeve is defined by S4 to be a permanently attached end fitting, it does not fall into the classification 'End fitting[s] intended for use in a reuseable assembly.' Therefore, it must be labeled with the designation 'A' rather than any of the following: 'AI', 'AII', 'AI-AII'.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2813

Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your April 27, 1978, letter asking whether a sampl certification label that you submitted complies with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Part 567, *Certification*.; Military vehicles are exempted from compliance with Federal safet standards. Therefore, the application of the safety standards to these vehicles is a matter of contract between a manufacturer and the military. Since the NHTSA does not mandate Federal safety standards for these vehicles, it is not necessary to put certification labels on them. If you choose to include a label with a vehicle, the label would not be required to comply with any Federal regulations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3701

Dear Mr. Negro: This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of m staff with respect to conformance of a planned stop lamp design with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; The design comprises two compartments separated by a reflex reflector One of the compartments will meet the photometric requirements for a stop lamp, in your judgment. The other will not, but in conjunction with the first compartment 'the requirements can be met.' You have asked if this arrangement is acceptable pursuant to paragraph S4.1.1.6 which allows photometric requirements to be met by a combination of compartments or lamps.; Paragraph S4.1.1.6 is intended to cover replacement stop lamps fo vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1973, and September 1, 1978, when the SAE standard for stop lamps incorporated into Standard No. 108 was SAE J586b, September 1966. As such, its requirements are not relevant to your concerns.; However, SAE J586c, August 1970, whose requirements do apply to sto lamps, appears to permit your design. Under paragraph 3.1, where the distance between filament centers of two stop lamps does not exceed 22 inches (presumably your design) the photometric readings of both lamps must be combined to meet the photometric requirements of Table 1 of J586c applicable to two lighted sections. However, the combined candela must not exceed the specified total of 360 for two lighted sections.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4210

Dear Mr. Gough: This is in reply to your letter of August 19, 1986, to this Office asking for confirmation of your understanding 'that other light sources can be added to a replaceable bulb headlamp, such as a parking lamp or signal lamp function, as long as the lamps operate independently of each other and are in full compliance with FMVSS 108.'; Your interpretation is essentially correct, and I am enclosing a cop of a recent letter that we sent to Ichikoh Industries on the same subject. In order to be in full compliance with Standard No. 108, if a replaceable bulb headlamp also incorporates a turn signal lamp, the requisite separation distance or candela ratio specified by the standard must be met.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel