David Robertson, Manager
Environmental & Safety Engineering
Mazda North American Operations
1500 Enterprise Drive
Allen Park, MI 48101-2053

Dear Mr. Robertson:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the requirements for heating/air conditioning controls specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. In particular, you asked about the identification requirements that apply to two controls that can be rotated indefinitely to increase or decrease fan speed and temperature inside the vehicle.

Based on your letter, and the presentation of Mr. Masao Fujisaki, Overseas Certification Group, Environmental and Safety Engineering Dept., Mazda Motor Corporation, at a February 7, 2001 meeting with the agency, we understand that the two controls are located on the lowest part of a three-part control panel. The panel consists of the following:

(1) at the top, an integrated digital display,
(2) in the middle, the audio system controls, and
(3) at the bottom, the fan/temperature controls.

The digital display provides information about the audio and fan/temperature systems. Among other things, it shows fan speed and temperature. The digital display shows the fan speed by means of a right angle triangle labeled with the fan control symbol specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 101. The digital display shows temperature by means of a number followed by F, above which is the term "TEMP." We understand that the digital display is capable of providing "at least two levels of brightness."

The fan/temperature controls consist of three round dial controls, placed in a horizontal row. The dial control on the right regulates temperature. The control is labeled at the top half by the ISO symbol for temperature (a thermometer). A plus sign (+) appears to the right of the temperature symbol and a minus sign (-) appears to the left of the temperature symbol. On the lower half of the right control appears the term "AUTO", under which "A/C" appears. The temperature control is turned on (or off) by pushing on the control. A warmer temperature is provided by turning the control to the right (clockwise); a cooler temperature is provided by turning to the left (counter-clockwise).

The middle control consists of two adjoining, independent semi-circle pushbutton controls, which control the heating, cooling and defogging vents in the vehicle. The semi-circle at the top is labeled with the Table 1 symbol for the windshield defrosting and defogging system (by which air is directed towards the windshield), below which the word "Front" appears. The semi-circle at the bottom is labeled with the ISO symbol indicating upper and lower vents towards a passenger, above which the word "Mode" appears. One can tell whether a particular vent is actuated because the control stays pushed down when the vent is actuated. The windshield vent and passenger vents can either be operated independently or together.

The control on the left is the fan control. It is labeled with the fan control symbol specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 101. To the right of the fan symbol is a plus sign and to the right of the fan symbol is a minus sign. Under the fan symbol is the word "OFF." The fan control is actuated by pushing on the control. To make the fan speed faster, the control is turned to the right (clockwise); to make the fan speed slower, the control is turned to the left (counterclockwise).

On each of the three controls, all symbols (including plus and minus signs) and words are illuminated when the headlights are on.

You are interested in how the S5.2.2 requirement that identification be provided for the "extreme positions" of controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range applies to the left and right controls. Because the controls rotate indefinitely, there are no extreme positions, in the traditional sense, that can be marked. However, the driver can know when the extreme positions have been reached by means of a digital display that shows the fan speed and temperature selected. You believe, based on your reading of an interpretation letter we issued on June 8, 2000, that use of a digital display is an acceptable means to identify the "extreme positions" of controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range.

You noted, however, that the digital display in the design at issue is separated from the fan/temperature controls by the audio control portion of the panel. You asked whether this design meets the S5.2.1 requirement that identification of controls be "on or adjacent" to the control.

The issues you have raised are addressed below.

I note that S5.2.1(a) states in part:

[a]ny hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated in column 3 ... or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table. ... Any such control for which column 2 of Table 1 and/or column 3 of Table 1 specifies "Mfr. Option" shall be identified by the manufacturer's choice of a symbol, word or abbreviation, as indicated by that specification in column 2 and/or column 3. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. (Emphasis added.)

Further, S5.2.2 states in part:

Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed system control and any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Table 1 or Table 2, it shall be in word or symbol form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue.

In our June 8, 2000, interpretation letter addressing the use of digital displays to identify the extreme positions of controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range, we stated that it was our opinion that the requirement to identify the extreme positions is met as long as there is a means by which the driver can know when the extreme positions have been reached. However, we did not conclude that the "means by which the driver can know when the extreme positions have been reached" (i.e., the relevant displays) must be on or adjacent to the controls. In fact, your letter is incorrect in assuming, with respect to the system that was the subject of our earlier interpretation, that the relevant displays for both the fan and the temperature control system were located immediately below the digital display. While this is correct for the fan control (the fan was controlled by one of the push button switches), our letter states that the temperature controls (the outer rings around buttons labeled "PUSH A/C") were located away from the row of push button switches.

Standard No. 101 does generally require that identification of controls be on or adjacent to the controls. Otherwise, there would be no logical connection between the identification and the control. This is why we made it clear, for the push button switches we addressed in our June 8, 2000, letter, that there needed to be close proximity between the switches and the images/identification.

For traditional controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range, e.g., dials, levers or buttons that move only within a limited range, it makes obvious sense to require identification of the extreme positions to be located on or adjacent to the controls. This is the logical way for a driver to be able to identify the extreme positions.

However, such a requirement does not necessarily make sense for new kinds of controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range, but do not have extreme positions in the traditional sense. For example, dials that can be rotated indefinitely are sometimes associated with a visual display. In a sense, the control consists of both the dial and the display. While it is obviously important that identification of the dial itself be located on or adjacent to the dial, there is no extreme position (in the traditional sense) to identify. And, whether for the system we addressed in our June 8, 2000, letter or for your system, we see no reason to interpret the standard to require the "means by which the driver can know when the extreme positions have been reached" (i.e., the relevant displays) to be on or adjacent to such dials.

We note, however, that if the relevant displays are separated from the dials, there must be sufficient independent identification for both the dial and the separate display that the driver can understand both items. Our review of your proposed design does not indicate any problem in this area. For example, the dial for the fan control is marked with the fan symbol to indicate function and (+) (-) signs to indicate how fan speed is increased and decreased, and the display for fan speed shows the fan symbol to identify function and a triangle to indicate relative speed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:101
d.2/28/01

Mr. Anthony Breau
T.M.C. of America
105 110^th Street, Suite 1
Treasure Island, FL 33706

Dear Mr. Breau:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 2000, asking for this agency's comments on your Mirrorcal Wiper mirror and wiper assembly. I note that your letter does not ask any specific questions as to whether your mirror and wiper assembly complies with Federal standards. Thus, I will give you some general information on the functions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the responsibilities of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The Mirrorcal Wiper assembly may be subject to several NHTSA standards. The first is FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR '571.111). FMVSS No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 111.

Please note that since FMVSS No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under NHTSA's enabling statute, the agency considers the mirror to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to our statute's requirements concerning the recall of products with safety-related defects. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Since it operates off the same air compressor as the vehicle's air brakes, the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly also may affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). FMVSS No. 121 specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on trucks, buses, and trailers that are equipped with air brake systems. FMVSS No. 121 does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for wiper assemblies such as the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly, but doing so could affect the vehicle's braking performance and, hence, compliance with the standard.

Finally, since the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly operates off the air compressor, any hoses connected to the assembly could be subject to FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), if they transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, i.e., if a failure of a hose attached to the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this is the case, the hoses attached to the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly are "brake hoses" and must comply with FMVSS No. 106. However, if a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the brake air pressure and would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 106.

Note that if the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS Nos. 111, 121, and 106. If the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly is added to a previously-certified new vehicle, the person so modifying the vehicle would be required to certify that, as modified, the vehicle continues to comply with all FMVSSs.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. ' 30122, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." If the installation of your mirror and wiper assembly resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, 121, or 106, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced the complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have made inoperative a device (the mirror system, air brakes, or brake hoses) installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 111, 121, or 106. The law permits NHTSA to impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation of the make-inoperative provision.

Section 30122 does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors and brake systems. In addition, individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of mirrors vehicles must have to be registered in that State.

Finally, since the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly is designed for heavy vehicles, it may be subject to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations. The FMCSA is the agency within the Department of Transportation responsible for safety regulations concerning the operation of heavy trucks and buses in interstate commerce.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any specific questions as to whether your mirror and wiper assembly meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, 121, or 106, please feel free to contact Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992, or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at (202) 366-2519.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Ref:111
d.7/16/01

Monsieur Jean-Yves Le Bouthillier
Standards Manager
Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil Inc.
304 12^th Avenue
Laurentides, Quebec JOR 1C0
CANADA

Dear Monsieur Le Bouthillier:

This responds to your request for an interpretation addressed to Mr. Charles Hott, of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regarding S5.3.1, Head protection zone, of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. Our answer is provided below.

You provided three photographs of a school bus interior showing views between the driver's seat and the first row of passenger seats behind the driver's seat. One photograph shows the view from behind the first row of passenger seats toward the front of the bus. In this photograph is depicted a small partition that is attached to the left side of the school bus between the driver's seat and the first row of passenger seats. The partition appears to extend only partially over the driver's seat. No measurements are provided for this partition. Two photographs show a side view of the driver's seat, to the school bus interior roof. There appears to be a storage area covered by a door on the left wall of the bus above the driver's seat.

On one photograph are placed two white squares (obscuring the driver's storage area) that apparently show where in the bus it is 58 1/4 inches (1479.5 mm) to the floor and 40 inches (1016 mm) "over the seating reference point" and where it is 30 inches (762 mm) "in front of the seating reference point." We will assume that these measurements are in relation to the seating reference point of the first row of passenger seats. The other photograph shows what the interior actually looks like (i.e., does not include the obscuring white squares). You wish to know whether the closed driver's storage area and the side partition must meet S5.3.1 of Standard

No. 222. Based on the available information, the answer is yes.

S5.3.1 of Standard No. 222 states, in relevant part: "Any contactable surface of the vehicle within any zone specified in S5.3.1.1 shall meet the requirements of S5.3.1.3. . . ." ⁽¹⁾

S5.3.1.1 states that the head protection zones in each vehicle are "the spaces in front of each school bus passenger seat which are not occupied by bus sidewall, window, or door structure and which, in relation to that seat and its seating reference point, are enclosed by the following planes;"

(a) Horizontal planes 305 mm and 1016 mm above the seating reference point:

(b) A vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard (aisle side) edge of the seat;

(c) A vertical longitudinal plane 83 mm inboard of the outboard edge of the seat;

(d) Vertical transverse planes through and 762 mm forward of the reference point.

The issue you raise is whether the storage area and side partition are considered "bus sidewall" and thus excluded under S5.3.1.1. The storage area does not qualify for the exclusion. The closed storage area over the driver's seat is an overhead projection from the bus interior. NHTSA's longstanding position has been that "[t]he roof structure and overhead projections from the interior are included in [the head protection] area of the zone." (Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration; 41 FR 28506, 28507; July 12, 1976; emphasis added.) Accordingly, we consider the storage area as not per se excluded. If the driver's storage area is located within horizontal planes 305 mm and 1016 mm above the seating reference point of the first row of passenger seats, the storage door must meet S5.3.1.2 and S5.3.1.3 of Standard No. 222.

In addition, we do not consider the partition between the driver's seat and first row of passenger seats to be "bus sidewall." In a letter of April 28, 1978 to Wayne Corporation (copy enclosed), NHTSA interpreted "sidewall" to include "those surfaces that run parallel to the outboard edge of the forward facing seat." Based on your photographs, the partition appears to be perpendicular to the outboard edge of the forward facing seat. The partition also appears to be completely in the head protection zone, in which case, all surface areas of the partition (including the side of the partition facing the driver's seat) must meet S5.3.1.2 and S5.3.1.3.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:222
d.8/2/01

1. ¹ "Contactable surface" is defined in S4 of Standard No. 222 as "any surface within the zone specified in S5.3.1.1 that is contactable from any direction by the test device described in S6.6, except any surface on the front of a seat back or restraining barrier 76 mm or more below the top of the seat back or restraining barrier."

Mr. Paul DeStefano
Optical Engineering Supervisor
Valeo Sylvania L.L.C.
1231 'A' Avenue North
Seymour, IN 47274

Dear Mr. DeStefano:

This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 2000, asking for an interpretation of S7.5(g) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S7.5(g) requires in pertinent part that the lens of a replaceable bulb headlamp be marked with the bulb marking designation provided in compliance with 49 CFR Part 564. In the hypothetical you present, the same headlamp lens would be used for two similar headlamp systems. The lower beam of one system would include a type H7 halogen bulb. The other system's lower beam includes a high intensity discharge (HID) D2S light source. You would like to mark the lens in front of the lower beam with both "H7" and "D2S," either one positioned above the other, or side by side. In a third variant, the marking could read "H7 or D2S." You state that it would not be possible to interchange the H7 and D2S light sources due to the different mechanical designs and electrical connections. You ask that we concur in your belief that this dual marking satisfies the intent of Standard No. 108.

We cannot concur. The lens marking must indicate only the light source that is behind the lens. The purpose of the marking is to ensure that there is a proper replacement for the light source if required. The aftermarket has begun to offer equipment that can convert filament lamps into HID lamps. This results in significant increases in intensity to the extent that the headlamps may no longer comply with the maximum candela restrictions of Standard No. 108. Dual marking of the lens could be interpreted as countenancing the replacement of an H7 filament type light source with a D2S HID type light source. In addition, local law enforcement officers are aware of the importance of complying lighting equipment to safety in their jurisdictions, and depend upon unambiguous lens marking to assist them in enforcing local lighting laws.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/19/01

Mr. Takashi Yoshie
General Manager
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Yoshie:

This is in response to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Specifically, you state that you believe that S7.11, Brake Power Unit or Brake Power Assist Unit Inoperative (System Depleted), of Standard No. 135 does not require a human test driver to apply the brake during the test, and that a brake testing unit may be used by vehicle manufacturers for in-house testing and by NHTSA for compliance testing. The issues you raise are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. 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.

We expect manufacturers to have some basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Under current law, certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, or computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written; i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for service and parking brake systems in order to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency driving conditions. It applies to passenger cars manufactured for sale in the United States on or after September 1, 2000, and to multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less manufactured on or after September 1, 2002. The test procedures for vehicles equipped with one or more brake power units or brake power assist units

are set forth in S7.11 of the standard. These procedures specify that the load applied to the brakes is less than or equal to 500 N (112.4 pounds).

You state that Toyota has observed large testing variability between test drivers with respect to the load that is applied during the S7.11 test. To reduce this variability, Toyota has developed a brake testing unit (BTU) that applies a pre-determined load onto the brake pedal to allow for consistent and repeatable brake applications. You state that for purposes of the test specified in S7.11, the BTU can be programmed to apply a load of, for example, 490 N to ensure that the 500 N limit is not exceeded. You believe that the use of a BTU complies with the test procedures set forth in S7.11 of Standard No. 135.

You are correct that Standard No. 135 does not specify that a human test driver be used to apply the brake during the S7.11 test. I note, however, that NHTSA does not currently have any plans to use a BTU in conducting compliance tests.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:135
d.3/8/01

Mr. J. R. Butcher
President
Portableacher Corp.
P.O. Box 402540
Hesperia, CA 92340

Dear Mr. Butcher:

This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 2000, asking for an "interpretation" regarding your product, "portableachers." You state that you "first got a determination on Portableachers about 24 years ago." You relate that at that time they were classified in the same category as a 'farm wagon.' You now would like "an up-to-date interpretation."

Jack Risin of your company informed Taylor Vinson of this office by e-mail that you do not have a copy of the earlier interpretation. We presume that it was an interpretation issued by this office but we, too, have been unable to find a copy after searching all relevant interpretations from the 1970s on file in this Office. For this reason, we cannot presently confirm that Portableachers are in the same category as farm wagons; i.e., that they are not "motor vehicles" subject to the regulations of this agency.

Your product appears to be a trailer which carries seats that erect into a grandstand for spectators. Your product literature states that the product has been used by "Cities, Universities, Parks and Recreation Departments, Government Bases, Circus companies, and Rental Dealers." This description is insufficient for us to judge whether your trailer has or has not been "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways," which is the definition of a "motor vehicle." See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). Although it seems evident to us that Portableachers are towed over the public roads for erection and use on sites that are off the public roads, we do not know the frequency with which Portableacher trailers are moved from site to site.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which we have little or no information about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

3. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as on-road vehicles.

4. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

If you wish to provide us with answers to these questions, we will be glad to advise you further.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.1/22/00

Mr. Donald Myers
Haldex Brake Systems
10930 North Pomona Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64153-1297

Dear Mr. Myers:

This is in response to your letter of November 3, 2000, requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, "Air Brake Systems." Specifically, you describe the following situation:

Haldex Brake Systems discovered that an internal component to the valve that controls the trailer supply pressure and the tractor parking brakes (made in 1997) was breaking after being in use for several years. This broken component resulted in the lack of separation of the two brake circuits. Haldex determined that this broken component resulted in the air brakes no longer complying with FMVSS No. 121, and that this broken component combined with a major leak in the brake system could result in total loss of the service brakes. Haldex initiated a recall and has been replacing the valves. Haldex has sought reimbursement from its supplier for the cost of the recall, but the supplier has refused, stating that FMVSS No. 121 applies to new motor vehicles only, not to "in service" motor vehicles.

You ask whether FMVSS No. 121 applies to "in service" motor vehicles. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 121 applies only to new motor vehicles. Operational regulations and requirements applicable to "in service" vehicles are administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). In addition, individual states may have their own requirements setting minimum "in service" equipment and performance standards for heavy trucks.

Moreover, and with direct applicability here, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment has an obligation to remedy safety-related defects in its products. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. '30118(c), a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement must notify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as well as owners, purchasers, and dealers if the manufacturer:

(1) learns the vehicle or equipment contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety; or

(2) decides in good faith that the vehicle or equipment does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In addition, the manufacturer must remedy the defect or noncompliance free of charge (49 U.S.C. ' 30120(a)). In this case, the failure of the Haldex brake systems constitutes a defect that is related to motor vehicle safety.

The notification and remedy requirements of Chapter 301 are not generally applicable to suppliers of component parts that are then incorporated into items of motor vehicle equipment by an equipment manufacturer. In such instances, the responsibilities of the supplier are not governed by Chapter 301 and would be determined under other applicable law, such as contract law and the terms of any agreements between the supplier and the equipment manufacturer.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke in the Office of the Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.7/16/01

Mr. Paul Michelotti
PM Technology
2850 Banyan Blvd. Circle NW
Boca Raton, FL 33431

Dear Mr. Michelotti:

This is in reply to your letter of November 27, 2000, with respect to your system that activates hazard warning system lamps. You have asked for an interpretation that the system "does not conflict with existing regulations."

Your system automatically activates "vehicle hazard warning lights under circumstances of heavy braking or sudden stoppage." A substantially similar system was brought to our attention recently in which the hazard warning system lamps would be activated when a vehicle's anti-lock braking system (ABS) was engaged. We replied that this would not be permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated equipment. In order that you may understand the reason for our opinion, I enclose copies of our letters of October 7, 1999, to Mark Steele, and of May 9, 2000, to Senator Richard Lugar who expressed an interest in Mr. Steele's invention.

As you might imagine, the agency is frequently presented with new lighting ideas intended to enhance safety. Many of these are not allowable under Standard No. 108 because of deviations from the performance of the lighting equipment mandated by the standard. Virtually all these ideas are submitted without proof of their effectiveness. On December 13, 1996, we published a Federal Register notice that articulated the agency's general policy regarding new signal lighting ideas and how that policy would apply in the case of four specific brake signaling ideas (61 FR 65510). In a subsequent notice, published on November 4, 1998, (63 FR 59482) we expressed our intent to participate in efforts to develop an international consensus of how to handle new signaling ideas. We went on to say that, until a new international consensus emerges, we will follow the policy described in the December 1996 notice. I enclose a copy of both the 1996 and 1998 notices.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:108
d.1/05/01

William D. Cowan, CEO
Eflare Corporation
3731 West Warner Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92704

Dear Mr. Cowan:

This responds to your request for an interpretation on whether your battery-operated LED-based warning device, the "Eflare 2000," must meet Standard No. 125, Warning devices, or any other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirement. As explained below, because the Eflare 2000 has a self-contained energy source, Standard No. 125 does not apply to this product. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company, Eflare Corporation, is subject to NHTSA's requirements as the manufacturer of the equipment.

You write that you expect the "Eflare 2000" to be carried in all types of vehicles, and that "[t]hey will be used to warn approaching traffic when vehicles are disabled and stopped in or by the side of the road." Your website at www.eflarecorp.com provides the following information. The "Eflare 2000" was designed to meet "professional" demands for a device to replace pyrotechnic road flares and supplement road safety reflective triangles. To deploy the device, one has to insert batteries, turn the device on, and set it on the side of the road. The website describes the "Eflare 2000" as a "highly visible flashing light," with the following features:

• visibility up to one mile (2 kilometers) in darkness, with 360 radial visibility
• effective in fog and smoke
• available in red, blue, amber and white
• fluoro-colored base is easy to see in daylight
• does not impair night vision

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. l25 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) Moreover, Standard No. 125 specifically applies to "devices, without self- contained energy sources." (See S1. Scope.) Since the Eflare 2000 is battery-powered, it has a "self-contained energy source." Therefore, Standard No. 125 does not apply to the Eflare 2000.

Please note, however, that even if not covered by Standard No. 125, we have determined that the Eflare 2000 is "motor vehicle equipment," and is subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, "Motor Vehicle Safety." "Motor vehicle equipment" is defined at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(7) as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;

(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or

(C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury or death.

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory ... to the motor vehicle," NHTSA analyzes two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of a product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. NHTSA determines expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify).

Applying these two criteria to the Eflare 2000, NHTSA concludes that although the device may have non-motor vehicle-related applications, a substantial portion of the expected use of the Eflare 2000 is related to motor vehicles. Your website shows that the Eflare 2000 is marketed for use primarily in conjunction with motor vehicles, to be deployed on the side of the road in the event a vehicle is disabled. Further, you are marketing the product to ordinary motor vehicle owners and drivers for their purchase. For these reasons, we conclude that your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you or NHTSA should determine that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility would be borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the Eflare 2000 devices are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

You should also note that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. FMCSA was established on January 1, 2000, and was formerly a part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You should contact the FMCSA for an opinion as to whether that agency's requirements apply to your product. You may contact:

John McGowan, Director
Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3107
Washington, DC 20590
Telephone: (202) 366-4012

In addition, the states regulate the use of vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Some states may regulate the warning devices that operators of vehicles may or must use when a vehicle is stopped. Each state in which you sell your product can provide information on whether there are any requirements in that state for warning devices to be used with motor vehicles.

Lastly, we have the following comments clarifying several of your statements. You write that "in explaining the regulatory situation to our U.S. customers," you wish to state the following about the Eflare 2000:

1. Have been designed to ensure that they do not conflict with the standards and regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

2. May be used in the U.S. as warning devices for vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings under 10,000 pounds, when the vehicle is disabled or stopped.

3. May be used in the U.S. as supplementary warning devices for trucks and buses over gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds, provided they are used with triangles, fusees, or liquid-burning flares as required in DOT Safety Standard No. 125.

We are concerned that these statements and others in your literature give the impression that the product meets NHTSA standards. As previously explained, even though the Eflare 2000 falls within our statutory definition of "motor vehicle equipment," none of the FMVSSs apply to it. In your marketing efforts, you must avoid implying that your product is subject to or meets Standard No. 125 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) or NHTSA regulation. Further, you must avoid any impression that NHTSA has approved your product.

Regarding the second and third statements, as noted above, simply because Standard No. 125 does not apply to your product does not mean that the product "[m]ay be used in the U.S. as a warning device." We urge you to check with the FMCSA and review the laws of the various states to determine whether use of your product would be permitted.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:125#VSA102(4)
d.1/12/01

Mr. Johnny Cathey
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
2600 South 2nd Street
Duncan, OK 73536-0431

Dear Mr. Cathey:

This is in response to your letter of December 15, 2000, in which you ask whether we consider the trailer described in your letter to be a "special purpose vehicle" or a "low chassis vehicle" as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, "Rear Impact Protection," and thus excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 224. Your trailer does not meet the definition of special purpose vehicle, but does meet the definition of low chassis vehicle. Thus, the trailer described in your letter is excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 224 as a low chassis vehicle.

Special Purpose Vehicles

A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3." You believe that your trailer meets this definition because "an extension must be welded to the trailer frame to accommodate the reel storage area." The reels located in the reel storage area "will be manually spooled and un-spooled from the rear of the trailer while parked on location." For your trailer to be excluded, the reels would have to be considered work-performing equipment and would have to reside in or move through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard while the vehicle is in transit.

There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971). Taken together, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something. This is a long-standing position of the agency.

The reels that will be welded to your trailer do not meet NHTSA's interpretation of "work-performing." The reels merely serve a storage function. In your letter, you state that the reels "will be manually spooled and un-spooled while the trailer is parked on location." Thus, they do not exert force or move anything by themselves. We conclude, consequently, that the reels do not perform any work, and that your trailer is not excluded as a special purpose vehicle.

Low Chassis Vehicles

A low chassis vehicle is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 require the guard to extend to within four inches of the side extremities of the vehicle, be no higher than 22 inches across the full width of the guard, and be located within 12 inches of the rear extremity of the vehicle.

The only part of your trailer that meets these configuration requirements is the extension that will be welded to the trailer frame to accommodate the reel storage area. According to your letter, the extension extends the full width of the rear of your trailer, is 22 inches above the ground, and is located at the rear extremity of your trailer.

Therefore, the question becomes whether the extension is considered to be part of the chassis of your trailer. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure."

To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support a load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit.

To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components.

The agency also considers the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load.

Applying these principles to the extension that will be welded to your trailer, we conclude that it is part of the chassis. The extension contributes to supporting the cargo load (the reel storage area) when the trailer is in transit, so it is considered load-supporting. The extension is similar in size, and presumably in strength, to the other frame members. The extension conforms with and helps to define the outline of the trailer. Moreover, the extension is welded to the trailer frame. Thus, it is considered part of the frame structure. For these reasons, we conclude that the extension is part of the chassis and that your trailer is a low chassis vehicle excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 224.

To ensure that this interpretation is properly construed, we wish to point out that any manufacturer of a trailer with a design that is close to the dimensional limits specified for exemption from the requirements of this standard should consider all the variables that could cause variance from the trailer's nominal design values. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) regularly conducts field inspections for possible noncompliances with Standard No. 224. Through these inspections, OVSC has discovered that some manufacturers may have failed to account for design aspects - such as adjustable suspension settings (for alignment purposes), optional tire sizes and equipment, and design tolerances - in assuming that their trailers are covered by an exemption from Standard No. 224. Manufacturers must ensure that the trailer satisfies the required dimensional limits throughout the range of tolerances and equipment options inherent in the trailer design.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:224
d.1/30/01