ID: nht90-3.85

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1990

FROM: Wayne Trueman -- Plant Manager BX-100 International

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawings of Brake Equalizer, Quick Release Valve, and Relay Valve (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 11-20-90 from P.J. Rice to W. Trueman (A36; Std. 106; Std. 121); Also attached to NHTSA Information Sheet entitled I nformation For New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, dated 9-85 (text omitted)

TEXT:

I would like to thank you for your prompt response to my previous information request.

We are presently in the research and development stage of producing two (2) new products that will have the BX-100 Brake Equalizer integrally combined with a Quick Release valve and another with a Relay valve. We have completed prototype testing with bo th of these units and have proven them to be very reliable. What I would like to know from your department is if there are any design, manufacturing criteria, tests, or any other requirements that must be met in order to satisfy all local, state and fed eral regulations for items to be placed into a truck's air brake system.

I would appreciate any information that your office could provide or assistance in insuring compliance with all appropriate regulations and expectations of the regulating bodies.

Enclosed, to provide clarification on the above mentioned products, are functional view drawings on (1) BX-100 Brake Equalizer, (2) BX-100 & Quick Release Valve Assembly, (3) BX-100 & Relay Valve Assembly.

ID: nht90-3.86

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1990

FROM: Carol C. Verenes -- District Transportation Supervisor, Aiken County Public Schools

TO: Joseph J. Levin, Jr. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 to Carol C. Verenes from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance in providing our school district with written correspondence relative to the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, adopted safety standards effective April 1, 1977, whic h applies to vans transporting school children. Additionally, our district is considering modifying several of our existing vans for the purpose of transporting school children to school sponsored events and would like information pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 220, 221, and 222.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation regarding our request. Please contact me at (803) 648-1311, ext. 246, if you have any questions.

ID: nht90-3.87

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Loughran -- V.P. Engineering, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-13-90 from T.J. Loughran to J.R. Curry; Also attached to article entitled It's the Law - Rear Amber Reflector (Text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to the Administrator of August 13, 1990, in which you point out an error in an interpretation of Standard No. 108 furnished The Bargman Company on February 26, 1990.

The interpretation intended to refer to an amber turn signal lens, not an amber taillamp lens, as you surmise. We regret the confusion that we have inadvertently caused; the agency does not intend to allow an amber taillamp lens.

Nevertheless, tbe interpretation correctly stated that use of an amber reflex reflector with an amber lamp on the rear is permissible, providing that it does not impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting and marking equipment, but that it is nevertheless subject to State and local laws regarding vehicles in use. This is consistent with long-standing interpretations on the use of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment other than those that Standard No. 108 requires.

ID: nht90-3.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rembert Ryals

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 from R. Ryals to S. Krapzke (OCC 5063); Also attached to letter dated 9-12-79 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to F. Pepe (Std. 209)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff in which you asked for an interpretation of tbe requirements of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.208 and S571.209, respectively). Specif ically, you asked whether manufacturers were required to install a lap belt at seating positions equipped with automatic belts certified as complying with the occupant protection requirements in Standard No. 208. Your letter indicated that you were part icularly interested in the requirements that applied to 1980 model year cars. The answer to your question is no.

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating posit ions, safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that, those positi ons comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a safety belt at every seating position, h ave automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be certified as complying with Option 1.

However, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 contains an important proviso. This provides that an automatic belt system may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option set forth in S4.1.2 and in place of any safety belt system that would othe rwise be required by that option.

I have enclosed a copy of the December 14, 1971 rule (36 FR 23725) that added the current version of S4.5.3 to Standard No. 208.

In telephone conversations with you, Mr. Kratzke has explained that there is no requirement in the Federal safety standards that seating positions equipped with automatic belts include a lap belt either as part of the automatic belt or as a separate manu al belt. Your letter indicates that you believe that two regulatory provisions appear to require a lap belt in 1980 Volkswagens at seating positions equipped with an automatic shoulder belt and knee bolsters.

First, you suggested that Option I (S4.1.2.1) of Standard No. 208 requires automobiles to meet lateral and rollover crash protection requirements, in addition to providing automatic protection in frontal crashes. This is an erroneous reading of S4.1.2.1 (c). Manufacturers have the cboice of certifying compliance with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements (S4.1.2.1(c)(1)) or of providing manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that the vehicle meets the protecti on requirement with a test dummy protected by both tbe safety belt and the automatic protection system (S4.1.2.1(c)(2)). When this latter option is chosen, the vehicle manufacturer could use the automatic safety belt in place of the specified manual saf ety belt, in accordance with the provisions of S4.5.3. Hence, a manufacturer could certify compliance with Option I without providing a manual lap belt at seating positions equipped with an automatic shoulder belt and knee bolsters.

It is not clear, however, that Volkswagen chose to certify that its cars complied with Option I in Standard No. 208. In a January 30, 1974 notice (39 FR 3834; copy enclosed), NHTSA indicated its understanding that the Volkswagen automatic belts were cer tified as complying with Option 2. In that notice, the agency stated that S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 "permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of option two and to replace the require d seat belt assemblies." If Volkswagen certified its vehicles as complying with Option 2, the requirements of Option 1 would not be relevant.

Second, you noted that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CPR S571.209) specifies that a seat belt assembly "shall provide pelvic restraint (i.e., a lap belt) whether or not upper torso restraint is provided, ..." You suggested that t he Volkswagen belt system without a lap belt does not appear to comply with this requirement of Standard No. 209.

As Mr. Kratzke explained to you in your telephone conversation, the applicability of Standard No. 209 to crash-tested automatic belts is addressed in S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208. That provision in Standard No. 208 provides that automatic belts that are not required to meet the crash protection requirements shall conform to the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The agency explained this provision as follows in the 1971 notice that added this langu age to Standard No. 208, "On reconsideration, the NHTSA has decided tbat relief from Standard No. 209 should be afforded if a passive belt is capable of meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 in a frontal perpendicular impact and amen ds S4.5.3 accordingly." 36 FR 23725; December 14, 1971. Thus, automatic belts that are certified as complying with the occupant crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not generally subject to the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In a September 12, 1979 letter from this office to Mr. Frank Pepe (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that automatic belts must meet the adjustment requirements of S7.1 of Standard No. 208 and those parts of Standard No.

209 that are incorporated by reference in S7.1 of Standard No. 208. That letter also noted that automatic belts installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are exempted from all other requirements of

Standard No. 209 by virtue of S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208. Since S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is not incorporated by reference in S7.1 of Standard No. 208, seating positions equipped with automatic belts that are certified as complying with the frontal crash protection requirements are not required to provide lap belts either as part of the automatic belt or as a separate manual belt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve Pickering -- Valley Sales Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to undated letter from S.W.A. Pickering to S.R. Kratzke (OCC 4846); Also attached to photos (graphics omitted); Also attached to Report on Test of Sofa Bar according to FMVSS No. 210, submitted by Kenneth Lauer, P.E., April 1986 (text omitted); Also attached to Test Report Number 096441-89 dated 12-15-89 (Text omitted, test results are available in the file)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking how our safety standards would affect a product you are seeking to patent. This planned product is a molded plastic insert intended to be installed on the cargo bed of pickup trucks near the cab, and consists of two rear-facing seats. Throughout the rest of this letter, I will refer to this product as a "crossbed seat." You asked this agency to comment on the extent to which this crossbed seat would comply with several safety standards . I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

Before addressing your specific questions, some background information might be helpful. This agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) establishes a process under which this agency is authorized to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Every manufacturer must then certify that each of its motor vehicles and each item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards.

Since your product would be used as a seating position in a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the crossbed seat would be considered a "designated seating position" within the meaning of S571.3. Thus, if your product were to be installed as an item of original equipment on a pickup before its first sale to a retail purchaser, the designated seating positions on your product would have to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You indicated in your letter that you plan to install Type 1 (lap-only) safety belts at these seating positions to comply with Standard No. 208. This would be consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 208, which permits these designated seating positions to be equipped with either Type 1 or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) safety belts.

Your letter did not indicate that you had considered Standard No. 207 in your examination of the relevant safety standards. If you have not already done so, you should consider whether the seating positions on your planned crossbed seat would comply wit h the requirements of this standard.

You also identified two standards that you had considered with respect to your crossbed seat. The first of these was Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. S6 of Standard No. 111 provides that pickup trucks may either meet the rearward visibility requirem ents applicable to passenger cars or have outside mirrors on both sides of the vehicle that provide visibility to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. These requirements would not necessarily preclude the installation of your crossbed seat in new p ickups.

The second standard you identified was Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. S4.3 of Standard No. 202 requires each "outboard front designated seating position" to be equipped with head restraints that meet the specified performance criteria. The seating p ositions on your crossbed seat are rear seating positions. Since Standard No. 202 does not require rear seating positions to be equipped with head restraints, you are free to choose whetber or not to install head restraints for your crossbed seats.

You should note that you would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment if you begin to manufacture these crossbed seats. As such, the Safety Act would make you responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if you or the a gency were to determine that this product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or fails to comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet briefly describing these responsiblities and explaining how to obtain copie s of our regulations is enclosed.

If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1990

FROM: Jeffrey P. Henderson -- Project Supervisor, Toy Laboratory, ACTS Testing Labs, Inc.

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeffrey P. Henderson (A37; Std. 213; Std. 302)

TEXT:

This letter is regarding whether plastic pouches that contain instruction sheets are applicable to the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 302 (MVSS 302).

In a conversation with Dee Fajita of N.H.T.S.A, she stated an interpretation has been made regarding instruction sheets as being not applicable to the requirements of MVSS 302, however, she was unaware of an interpretation regarding plastic pouches (simi lar to plastic sandwich bags).

Can you please determine whether a plastic pouch which may or may not be permanently attached to a child's car seat is applicable to the requirements of MVSS 302.

Thank you for your time and response.

ID: nht90-3.90

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harold Williams

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-3-90 from H. Williams to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 4640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements on marketing your product, an aftermarket mirror wiper for truck mirrors that hooks into the truck's air system. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had requ irements for materials to be used with such a product. You also requested the agency send any regulations about such a product. The following discussion and the enclosed information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Equipm ent" explain your responsibility under NHTSA's regulations.

As way of background information, 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 standards 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 or particular materials; the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary perf ormance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) 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 cann ot approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

Although NHTSA has no safety standard directly about a mirror wiper, the agency has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR S571.111; co py enclosed). This means that vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 111.

As for installation of your device on mirrors in the aftermarket, such installations are limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair b usiness from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as Standard No. 111. If installation of your mirror wiper resulted in a vehicle no lon ger complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed the mirror wiper would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed on the vehicle in compliance Cwith Standard No. 111. To a void a "rendering

operative" violation, you should examine your product to determine if installing your mirror wiper would result in the mirror no longer complying with the Standard's requirements.

Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the "render inoperative" provision.

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 device they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whethe r that device renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

Other statutory provisions in the Safety Act could affect your product. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your mirror wiper are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) on the recall and remed y of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of th e safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

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.

ID: nht90-3.91

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kent D. Smith

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-27-90 from K.D. Smith to S.P. Wood (OCC 4761)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 27, 1990, to Stephen P. Wood of this Office, as a follow-up to his letter of March 22 replying to your request for an interpretation on January 26.

Your device activates the backup lamps for a period of one second or less as a signal to the driver of a following car that (s)he should lower the headlamp beam. Mr. Wood informed you that use of backup lamps for any other than their intended purpose co uld be viewed as an impairment of the backup signal function, and would thereby be prohibited under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You now ask two further questions.

The first question is "What steps would have to be taken in regard to (SAE Standard J593e, Backup Lamps) which would permit me to test market this product?" You have cited paragraph 4.2 which states that "Backup lamps shall not be lighted when the vehic le is in forward motion." As a minor correction, let me note that the SAE Standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 is J593c, February 1968, and the paragraph cited appears with the identical wording as paragraph 2 under "Installation Requi rements." We have no specific authority under which an inventor can install a device on motor vehicles in use for test marketing purposes when the installation might result in a noncompliance. In fact, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a vehicle pursuant to a Federal safety standard. Because the instal lation would result in a noncompliance by operation of the backup lamps while the vehicle was in forward motion, its installation for test market purposes on vehicles in use appears precluded by the statutory prohibition.

However, a manufacturer of motor vehicles may petition for a temporary exemption from paragraph 2 on the basis that an exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Such exemptions may be granted for a p eriod of up to two years, and they cover up to 2500 vehicles a year while the exemption is in effect. I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which contains our exemption procedures. Thus, to test market your device you would have to persuade a manufacture r of new motor vehicles to petition for its use.

Your second question is whether you would be in violation of Federal law by manufacturing and selling this device. The answer is no. This device is outside the coverage of Standard No. 108, and no one is prohibited from either selling the device or buy ing it. However, as noted earlier, its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle

repair business on a vehicle in use, would be prohibited by the Act.

Attached is a copy of 49 CFR Pt 555 (text omitted).

ID: nht90-3.92

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David G. Dick Acts Testing Labs, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from D.G. Dick to NHTSA (OCC 4452)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the head impact protection requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.3.2(a) of Standard 213, Child restraint systems. I regret the delay in responding.

Paragraph S5.2.3.2(a) states that certain energy absorbing material used to cover child seat surfaces must have a 25 percent compression-deflection resistance of not less than 0.5 and not more than 10 pounds per square inch (psi). You ask whether a valu e slightly less than 0.5 (such as the 0.47 psi example you provided) would be rounded to 0.5 psi. If rounding were permitted, you point out that the rounded value would meet the 0.5 psi requirement of S5.2.3.2(a).

The answer to your question is no, NHTSA would not round the value to 0.5 psi when testing the child seat. Rounding is generally not used in the safety standards. The standards expressly specify when rounding is appropriate. Standard 222, School bus p assenger seating and crash protection, specifies that the number of seating positions in a school bus bench seat (S4.1) is determined by rounding. In view of the express reference to rounding in some safety standards, and since S5.2.3.2(a) does not expr essly state rounding is appropriate, the value for the compression-deflection resistance would not be rounded.

You also ask whether there is any situation in which a value of less than 0.5 psi would be acceptable. The answer is "no." The minimum of 0.5 psi is required by S5.2.3.2(a) for restraints (other than a harness) recommended for children weighing less th an 20 pounds. Any value less than the minimum required value is a noncompliance.

Your last question asks about the reasons for the 0.5 psi minimum. In the agency's notice adopting the compression-deflection requirements, the agency indicated that those requirements would allow the use of a wide range of materials which should enable manufacturers to provide protective padding without cost increases. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ID: nht90-3.93

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-22-90 from L.F. Henneberger to P.J. Rice (OCC 4927); Also attached to Ford Bulletin number 10 dated 12-15-89 entitled Splicing Into The Stop Lamp Electrical Circuit, signed by R.R. Chestnut; Also attached to memo date d 6-6-90 from Tekonsha Engineering Company; Also attached to letter dated 8-31-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 5-2-84 from F. Berndt to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 11-30-81 from F. Berndt to K.G. Moyer (A23; Redbook 3; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1990, on behalf of your client, Tekonsha Engineering Company, a subsidiary of Echlin, Inc., asking for confirmation of your interpretation that a provision of the California Vehicle Code conflicts with, and is preempted by, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

Tekonsha has developed the "Commander Electronic Brake Control", which will allow the driver of a vehicle-trailer combination "to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to control swaying." The system has been designed specifically to avoid splicing into the stop lamp switch circuit. This eliminates electrical interference which can deactivate anti-lock brake system operation, or prevent the speed control from disengaging upon braking. The hand control activates only the trailer brakes, and not the service brakes of the towing vehicle.

You state that the California Highway Patrol has taken the position that the towing vehicle's stop lamps must be activated when the Commander Electronic Brake Control manual trailer brake override is used, even though the service brakes of the towing veh icle are not applied. Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code provides, in pertinent part:

Stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the service (foot) brake and the hand control head for air, vaccuum, or electric brakes...

You believe that this is in conflict with section S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108, which requires:

The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stop lamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes.

You argue that California is incorrect because the use of the device is not intended to and usually does not result in diminished vehicle speeds, does not involve application of the service brakes, and would provide an

"unsafe", false braking signal if connected to the stop lamp system.

In further support of your argument you cite past interpretations of this agency, specifically our letters to you of August 31, 1978, and May 2, 1984, with respect to the Jacobs device, and a letter of November 30, 1981 to Kenneth Moyer. I appreciate th e fact that you enclosed copies for our reference.

In reviewing this matter, I can understand the basis for a conclusion by California that section 24603(f) is not preempted by section S5.5.4. The second sentence of S5.5.4 restricts operation of the center stop lamp to application of the service brakes, but no such restriction exists in the first sentence. Although the first sentence requires operation of the stop lamps upon application of the service brakes, when considered in conjunction with the restriction stated in the second sentence, it can be read as implying that there may be other conditions under which activation of the stop lamps is permissible. However, the reason for the difference in the two sentences is otherwise. Commonly, in red rear combination lamps, the same filament serves bot h the stop and turn signal functions. If the turn signal is functioning when the brakes are applied, tbe first sentence of S5.5.4 ensures that the stop signal overrides the turn signal.

The meaning of the first sentence of S5.5.4 has been set forth and explained in long-standing letters of interpretation. These letters demonstrate that the agency's clear intent is that stop lamps be activated only when fulfilling their definitional pur pose. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J586 FEB84 Stop Lamps, which defines a stop lamp as one that gives "a steady light to the rear of a vehicle to indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Most recently, in a letter of January 25, 1990, to Larry S. Snowhite, the agency stated that an aftermarket device that activated the stop lamps when it sensed that pressure was being released from the accelerator did not necessarily indicate that the operator would subsequently apply the brake pedal, and that, therefore, it would render the stop lamps partially inoperative within the prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) applicable to vehicles in use. This is consistent with the Moyer inte rpretation of 1981 where the stop lamps were activated when all pressure had been released from the accelerator and the agency expressed its opinion that the use of required lighting equipment for a purpose other than the defined one created an "impairme nt" within the original equipment prohibition of section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 (now S5.1.3). To the same effect is our 1978 letter to you which held that activation of the stop lamps by use of the Jacobs brake foundation control device was permissi ble as the effect of the device was to diminish the speed of the vehicle by braking it.

For the reasons expressed above, we confirm your interpretation that section S5.5.4 of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment preempts section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code to t he extent that it may be read as requiring stop lamps to be activated on motor vehicles equipped with the Commander Electronic Brake Control, when the Control is hand activated in an emergency mode to provide sway control. The authority for our conclusi on is Title 15, United States Code, Section 1392(d) which states

in pertinent part:

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State . . . shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard."

With best regards.