ID: 11293b

Mr. Ken Van Sciver
Sciver Corporation
Post Office Box 1283
Broomfield, CO 80038

Dear Mr. Van Sciver:

This responds to your letter of October 3, 1995 to this office requesting information on any safety standards applicable to the Auto Bib, a new product you are developing and marketing. From the promotional material you furnished with your letter, your Auto Bib can be described as a portable cover, of Naugahyde fabric, that clips between the window and door molding of a vehicle's door. The Auto Bib unrolls downward to cover the door, and is intended to protect the door's upholstery from damage caused by children, pets, and the sun.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing and testing motor vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, or grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

Turning now to the Auto Bib, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S.Code (U.S.C.), '30102(7)(B) as any "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." Specifically, the Auto Bib is an accessory if it meets two tests:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing the product literature you enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the Auto Bib is an accessory. The Auto Bib was designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor vehicles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the promotional literature makes it clear that the Auto Bib is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as distinguished from professional vehicle repair businesses, since its stated purpose is to preserve motor vehicle upholstery from damage by children, pets, and the sun.

While the Auto Bib is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the manufacturer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. '' 30116 - 30121 which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

You asked about state or local requirements that may apply to your product. NHTSA has no information on such requirements. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information in that regard from:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0145; Fax (202) 898-0148

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Ref:206 d:12/8/95

ID: 11294

Ms. Rita Cola Carroll
Chairperson, Bus Safety Committee
Great Valley School District
275 W. Central Avenue
Paoli, PA 19301

Dear Ms. Carroll:

This responds to your question whether a child sitting on a school bus seat with part of his body extending into the aisle, is afforded the compartmentalization protection of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection.

We have addressed this issue in an October 26, 1994, letter to Ms. Debra Platt of Stuart, Florida, and have enclosed a copy of our response for your information. In the Platt letter, NHTSA agrees that it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, rather than face forward. We are enclosing a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, which is referenced in the Platt letter. Guideline 17 uses specific wording with regard to seating of school children. It says: "Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat intended by the vehicle's manufacturer to provide accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.208."

We are also enclosing a copy of a report prepared by this agency entitled School Bus Safety Report, and a copy of a Report Summary prepared by the Transportation Research Board in May 1989. The latter two reports give a good overview of school bus safety issues, and they and Guideline 17 contain recommendations to the various states in developing their own pupil transportation safety programs.

As noted in the Platt letter, since the States regulate school bus use, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Pennsylvania Governor's highway safety representative is:

Mr. Michael Ryan Governor's Highway Safety Representative Deputy Secretary Highway Safety Administration Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1220 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Telephone: (717) 787-6815

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:222 d:11/21/95

ID: 11295ADRN

Charles A. Grandy, Esq.
Baker & Daniels
300 North Meridian Street
Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204-1782

Dear Mr. Grandy:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation that OEM passenger car wheel manufacturers have no certification responsibilities.

In your letter, you explain that your client is "an automobile wheel manufacturer that exports wheels to certain automobile manufacturers in the United States to be used in the production of passenger cars." You state your belief that your client does not have to certify its wheels, since neither Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims, nor 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, "appears to apply to automobile wheels and we find no other Safety Standards applicable to automobile wheels."

You are correct that Standard No. 110 does not apply to your client's product. A motor vehicle wheel is comprised of a wheel rim and wheel disc. While Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements for passenger car rims (section S4.4), it is a "vehicle" standard with which the completed vehicle must comply, rather than an "equipment" standard for wheel components. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not your client, would be responsible for certifying compliance with this standard.

With regard to Standard No. 211, we wish to clarify an issue about the applicability of the standard. Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to passenger car equipment. S4, Requirements, of the standard states:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections that extend beyond the plane that is tangent to the outboard edge of the wheel rim at all points around its circumference. ***

Standard No. 211 defines "winged projection" in S3.2, and shows an example of a "winged projection" in Figure 1.

Your letter does not provide enough information to enable us to determine with certainty whether your client's wheels comprise components subject to Standard No. 211. The term "wheel discs" used in S4 typically refers to a component that is a part of a wheel in the same manner as a center-mounted wheel nut or hub cap. Your client's wheels may or may not include such components.

Please note that NHTSA is considering rescinding Standard No. 211, based on our tentative conclusion that it is unnecessarily design-restrictive. (60 FR 31947, June 19, 1995.) The public comment period closed on August 3, 1995. NHTSA is reviewing the public comments and expects to make a final decision on the matter in the near future.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:110#211 d:1/30/96

ID: 11303

Mr. Jim Young
Wheeled Coach
P.O. Box 677339
Orlando. FL 32867-7339

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your FAX of October 17, 1995, asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as in relates to "customer specifications for options incorporated into, or in addition to FMVSS lighting." You have described these options as:

"Brake override circuit for rear facing warning lights. The rear warning lights flash as warning lights until the brakes are applied, at which time they become steady burn. This option is in addition to the standard brake lights. If this is acceptable, should the lights be required to meet all requirements of stop lights? (ie.; maximum luminous intensity, color, etc. . .)"

As you clarified in a phone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on November 2, the "rear facing warning lights" are part of the ambulance lighting system which is not a system required by Standard No. 108. This option is permissible. Although there is no Federal legal requirement that governs the performance of ambulance warning systems, we recommend that the rear facing warning lights be red, the required color for stop lamps, inasmuch as the intent seems to be to provide an additional indication that the brakes have been applied.

"Brake Enhancer. Standard or additional stop lights are made to flash on/off several times before going steady burn."

This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be steady burning.

"Back -up alert strobes. Rear facing high intensity strobe lights that are activated when the gearshift lever is placed into reverse gear."

Optional equipment is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. You have not indicated the color of the strobe lamps. If they are red or amber, they could cause confusion in the eyes of an observer when operated simultaneously with the steady burning white backup lamp. There is a lesser possibility of confusion if they cast a white light, as long as they do not mask the steady burning backup lamp. In that event, the strobes could be fitted to the ambulances.

"Taillight flashers. Taillights or brake lights are flashed alternate to backup lights until brakes are applied, at which time they go steady burn. The option at times may be requested to only work if the rear doors on the ambulance are open."

This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires taillamps as well as stop lamps to be steady burning, under all circumstances.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/17/95

ID: 11305

Mr. Edward Mansell
Chief Engineer
Polar Tank Trailer, Inc.
12810 County Road 17
Holdingford, MN 56340-9773

Dear Mr. Mansell:

This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1995, to Philip R. Recht, former Chief Counsel of this agency. You seek an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to some Food Grade Tank Trailers (FGTTs).

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires conspicuity sheeting to be placed "across the full width of the trailer" and "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." You indicate that for many trailers the rear bumper is the closest practicable location (approximately 500 mm), but that, on some FGTTs, the load/unload ports are directly above the center portion of the rear bumper. The hot water to which the bumper is exposed degrades the conspicuity sheeting. "Since installation of sheeting subject to frequent hot water run off is not practicable", you interpret this paragraph to allow the sheeting to be "applied from the extreme ends of the bumper to points no more than 6 inches (150 mm) to the left or right of the area directly below the load/unload area." You also state that "otherwise, the center section of the sheeting should be located on the tank, above the load/unload area."

We believe that this interpretation meets the intent of the standard. Under paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a), the mounting height of the conspicuity material is based upon practicability, but the application "across the full width of the trailer" is absolute. We interpret "across the full width" to mean that the sheeting must cover the entire width of the vehicle, though not necessarily on the same plane or continuously. Thus, mounting above the load/unload area would be acceptable as a practicable location. Generally, the agency defers to a manufacturer's determination of practicability and will not question it if it is not clearly erroneous. It is not the intent of the standard that manufacturers "redesign trailers to redirect the flow of wash water."

You also believe that, for FGTTs which use a cabinet to enclose the load/unload area, "conspicuity sheeting should be

mounted on the cabinet doors to augment the sheeting on the bumper." Although you did not enclose a drawing of this configuration, it appears acceptable. We assume that, when viewed from the rear, the sheeting has the appearance of extending across the full width of the vehicle, even if the section on the cabinet doors is not on the same plane as that on the bumpers. This, too, is acceptable as a manufacturer's determination of practicability.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/1/95

ID: 11308

Mr. A.D. Fisher
308 Lolly Lane
Jacksonville, FL 32259

Dear Mr. Fisher:

This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1995, asking for our comments on the relationship of your lighting invention, "The Enlightener," to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108.

The Enlightener is intended to replace the center highmounted stop lamp. The lens has two colors, divided between amber at the top and red at the bottom. The amber portion is lit in a steady burning mode when both the accelerator and brake are not depressed, and in a flashing mode when the transmission lever is in Reverse. The red portion is lit when the brake pedal is depressed and amber is extinguished.

This device would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. The center highmounted stop lamp must stand alone; the lamp cannot serve another function, and paragraph S5.4(a) prohibits combining it with any other lamp.

In addition, the backup function on motor vehicles is furnished by a steady burning white lamp, required by FMVSS No. 108. The presence of a flashing amber lamp operating simultaneously would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp by sending a conflicting signal.

I am sorry that we cannot provide you a more positive response. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office by calling (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:11/21/95

ID: 11316

The Honorable Bob Clement
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4205

Dear Congressman Clement:

Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr Pommer has been told that this cannot be done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how the modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture.

After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC '30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as

complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position.

A "designated seating position" is defined by NHTSA regulations as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion...Any bench or split- bench seat ...having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions.

Since the 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts.

The "make inoperative" prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt, it is possible that the existing belts and

anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without "making inoperative" the compliance of those belts and anchorages.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208#209#210 d:11/14/95

ID: 1132

Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Re: Headlamp System Containing Fog Lamp

Dear Mr. Matsui:

This replies to your letter of August 11, 1995, with reference to possible headlamp systems that produce a fog lamp beam, as well as upper and lower beams. According to your letter, "the fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex.; HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be lit simultaneously." You refer to paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and conclude that "such a combination will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp."

We agree, with respect to the headlamp itself, that a fog lamp operating simultaneously with the lower beam will not impair the effectiveness of the lower beam's photometrics and ability to illuminate the roadway. We view this as a supplement to the lower beam. However, under S5.1.3, the question is whether the fog lamp, either operating alone or when the lower beam headlamp is activated, will impair the effectiveness of any front lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The responsibility for the determination of compliance with S5.1.3 is not Stanley's, but that of the manufacturer of the vehicle in which the combination headlamp is installed, who must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The other front lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 consists of parking lamps and turn signal lamps. The amber parking lamps serve to mark a vehicle, a function incidentally served by white fog lamps. Thus we do not believe that the Stanley headlamp would impair the effectiveness of parking lamps in any position in which the headlamp may be installed on the front of a vehicle.

The situation differs with respect to turn signal lamps. A vehicle manufacturer must take care to ensure that a vehicle on which the combination headlamp is installed conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 108 and to paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE Standards J588 NOV84 or J1395 APR85, the two turn signal standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.4 treats the relationship between luminous intensity and photometrics "where the front turn signal is mounted in close proximity to the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the low beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp." It does this by establishing luminous intensity multipliers based upon the distance that separates the lamps. For example, if the space between the front turn signal and the lighted edge of the fog lamp is 75 mm to less than 100 mm, the photometric requirements for a front turn signal lamp are 1.5 times more than those required when the spacing is 100 mm or more (Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 requires the multiplier at this distance to be 2.5 when the lamp is a lower beam headlamp rather than a fog lamp).

Finally, as a cautionary note, we believe that Stanley should evaluate the glare potential of the headlamp when the fog lamp and lower beam are operating simultaneously, as it is important to safety that oncoming drivers not be distracted or discomforted in the operation of their vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:9/20/95

ID: 11322MLS

Mr. Alfred Kozak
Product Engineer
Acts Testing Labs, Inc.
25 Anderson Road
Buffalo, NY 14225-4928

Dear Mr. Kozak:

This responds to your inquiry about testing procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, AFlammability of Interior Materials.@ In particular, you asked how section S5.1.3, which specifies the use of support wires in certain situations, would apply to fabric material used in a car seat. The short answer is that during NHTSA compliance testing, support wires would be used in testing any specimen that "softens and 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 applicable statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) 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.

Please note that NHTSA uses supplemental wires when there is a reasonable expectation that a test specimen will soften and bend so as to cause erratic burning. The agency bases its determination about the likelihood of this condition 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 would be used to test the materials about which you are concerned.

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 and bend so as to cause erratic burning. However, vehicle manufacturers are expected to exercise reasonable 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 reasonable care standard in a particular case involving a noncompliance with the standard is a matter that is determined by the agency only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

You first ask whether the phrase "softens and bends" applies to plastic materials which sag due to heat and specimen weight or to all materials regardless of composition. Section S5.1.3 specifies the use of a supplemental wire support for "a specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning." Plastic materials are the most commonly used material that can soften and bend. Nevertheless, the agency emphasizes that the procedure would be used for any material that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning.

You then ask whether the wire supports are used if the material softens and bends without erratic burning. The test condition noted above should be read as a whole. Therefore, the supplemental supports are only to be used if the specimen (1) softens and bends at the flaming end (2) so as to cause erratic burning.

Your third question asks whether wires are used where the flame front cuts or destroys the specimen in such a way as to allow the specimen to sag similar to the sagging experienced with unsupported specimens. According to the test conditions, supplemental support wires are to be used if the flame front causes the specimen to soften and bend so as to cause erratic burning. Data you provided in your letter showed a wide variation of burn rates between the unsupported and supported specimen tests. The agency would not use support wires in situations of erratic burning alone. The agency would use such support wires only in situations in which the softening and bending occurred prior to erratic burning.

Your fourth question expresses your view that the use of supplemental support wires eliminates Adirectional effects@ and orientation, as discussed in S5.2.2. That provision states that AThe specimen is produced by cutting the material in the direction that provides the most adverse test results. The specimen is oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant compartment air space faces downward on the test frame.@ While it is true that the use of supplemental support wires did reduce the burn rate in your testing of certain material, we interpret the requirements in S5.2.2 as a separate test condition. Thus, the requirements in S5.2.2 are not relevant in determining if a supplemental support wire should be used under S5.1.3.

Your fifth question expresses your view that, by allowing the use of supplemental supports, this test procedure introduces potentially flammable materials into automobile interiors. Specifically, you state that your testing indicated that the burn rate was between 11.5 and 13 inches per minute without supports and 1.8 to 2.1 inches per minute with supports. Please note that the use of support wires is intended to increase the consistency and repeatability of the test procedure, thereby providing a uniform basis for assessing the burn rates of different materials. This is accomplished by reducing sagging which results in erratic burning. Accordingly, we believe that the provision in S5.1.3 relating to the use of support wires provides a reasonable test condition for evaluating the flammability resistance of materials used in motor vehicles.

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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref: 302 d:4/16/96

ID: 11326

Ms. Alison Vredenburgh
Vice President
Research and Development
Error Analysis, Inc.
Suite 205
5811 Amaya Drive
La Mesa, CA 91942-4156

Dear Ms. Vredenburgh:

This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1995, to Kenneth Hardie of this agency, with respect to the Motorcycle Conspicuity Enhancement System (the "System") described in your letter. You understand "that this system may only be used during daylight hours and may not affect the headlight", and you ask if there are any other regulations of which you should be aware.

We understand that the System is still under development, and that the intent is to offer it both as original and aftermarket equipment. Two Systems will be tested, at a flash rate of 60 to 80 per minute, one at an intensity of 35,000 candlepower, and the other at 50,000 candlepower. One System will have three bulbs, and another, four. Each System will be activated when the headlamp is on. We note that motorcycle headlamps are wired to be activated when the ignition is on because many States require that headlamps be operating at all times.

As you know, each motorcycle must be manufactured and certified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 prescribes no requirements for supplemental equipment such as the System. However, additional lighting equipment may not be installed by the manufacturer or dealer before sale if the supplemental equipment impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3).

You are therefore correct when you say that the System "may not affect the headlamp." One way in which the System could impair the effectiveness of the headlamp is if it continued to operate at a time when the headlamp is required to provide sufficient illumination of the roadway (as you recognize in your comment that "the system may only be used during daylight hours"). You have not described the method by which the

System will be deactivated. We believe that this should not be a manual operation, left to the discretion of the motorcycle operator. In establishing the specifications that allow optional installation of modulating headlamp systems for improving the conspicuity of motorcycles, this agency requires that they be equipped with a sensor that will deactivate the modulation when a certain low ambient light level is reached. Also, the modulation rate is regulated to prevent seizures in susceptible individuals. I enclose a copy of paragraph S5.6 of Standard No. 108 which discusses these light levels.

The System must also not impair the effectiveness of the motorcycle's front turn signals. That is to say, it must not mask the signal or detract from its detectability by oncoming drivers. Whether this might occur will depend upon the color and brightness of the System and its proximity to the turn signal lamp.

If a motorcycle manufacturer is satisfied that the installation of the System on its product would be permissible under S5.1.3, then it may certify that the motorcycle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not question a determination of non-impairment unless it appears to be clearly erroneous.

Satisfaction of Federal new vehicle requirements means that the System is acceptable for sale in the aftermarket under Federal regulations. However, supplementary lighting equipment, whether original or aftermarket, that is not specifically covered by Standard No. 108 remains subject to regulation by the States. We note that many States have vehicle equipment and use regulations regarding auxiliary amber flashing lamps, Many States also prohibit blue as a color for lamps, reserving it for police, fire, and emergency vehicles. We are unable to advise you on the specifics of State laws, and urge you to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/8/95