ID: 11342-2PJA

Mr. Ken Towsley
President
All-Rite
1500 Shelton Drive
Hollister, CA 95023

Dear Mr. Towsley:

This responds to your letter requesting information on whether you must have a "DOT stamp" (which the agency refers to as a manufacturer's code mark) stamped on each recreational vehicle aftermarket replacement window you produce. I apologize for the delay in responding. As I understand it, you are merely cutting larger, marked, sheets of glass into smaller sheets that no longer show the code mark. The short answer to your question is that you do not have to have a code mark if you are merely cutting larger sheets of glass into smaller sheets. I will explain your marking responsibilities more fully below.

Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR '571.205, copy enclosed) has different marking requirements depending on whether a manufacturer is producing glass or cutting glass produced by someone else. First I will explain the marking responsibilities of a manufacturer that produces aftermarket replacement glass. When I say Aproducing,@ I am referring only to a Aprime glazing manufacturer,@ defined as one who "fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material."

Marking requirements for prime glazing manufacturers are in S6.1 and S6.2 of Standard No. 205. S6.1 requires the manufacturer to mark the glass in accordance with the marking requirements (section 6) of American National Standard (ANS) Z26, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205 (these marking requirements are described in detail later). In addition, S6.2 requires the manufacturer to affix the letters DOT, followed by a manufacturer=s code mark assigned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The requirement to affix a manufacturer's code mark applies only to prime glazing manufacturers.

Requirements for manufacturers cutting glass produced by someone else are in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. S6.4 requires the manufacturer cutting the glass to mark the glass in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. I have enclosed a copy of those marking requirements, but basically the following information is required: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS" [we note that the sample label you enclosed does not comply with this requirement],(2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the [prime glazing] manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the [prime glazing] manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. In addition, S6.5 requires each manufacturer or distributor that cuts a section of glazing material to certify the glazing as meeting the performance requirements of the standard. However, the certification of equipment such as glazing may be shown by a label or tag on the equipment or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered--it need not be printed on each piece of equipment. In conclusion, you have to transfer all of the information, except for the prime glazing manufacturer=s DOT certification and code mark, to the window sections that you cut.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ANS Z26 49 CFR 205

ref:205 d:4/23/96

ID: 11345WKM

Mr. Lance Tunick
Manager, Special Projects
Vehicle Science Corporation
Post Office Box 1015
Golden, CO 80402-1015

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter asking whether your rear side door locking system would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (49 CFR 571.206). The answer is a qualified yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You stated that on your locking system, the first pull of the inside rear door handle unlocks the door but does not release the latch to open the door. The second pull releases the latch to open the door. These features are in addition to a "child safety lock." You asked whether your rear side door locking system would comply with the requirements of S4.1.3 and S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 206.

Paragraph S4.1.3, FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

We have interpreted S4.1.3 to require the following features. Each door must have a locking mechanism, and there must be an interior operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. (See April 10, 1987 letter to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW, copy enclosed.) In your letter, there is an implication that your system has an interior means for engaging each door lock. Assuming such a means is provided, the requirement of S4.1.3 would appear to be met. Because the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 is that the interior operating means for the door locks be capable only of engaging the door locking mechanism, S4.1.3 does not address what means must be provided to unlock the locking mechanism, and thus does not prohibit unlocking a locking mechanism by means of the "inside rear door handle."

Paragraph S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Side Rear Door Locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

Your letter did not specifically state that when your locking system is engaged both the inside and outside latch release controls would be inoperative. Assuming that they would be, the question is whether the inside door handle on your system is "inoperative" when the handle can still operate to disengage the locking mechanism. We conclude that the answer is yes. This issue was addressed in an October 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Ziwica of BMW (copy enclosed), concerning a side rear door lock and latch mechanism similar to yours. The BMW system consisted of a door handle that served the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, the door handle would be pulled once to disengage the locking mechanism. The handle would be pulled a second time to open the side rear door.

In NHTSA's response to BMW, the agency stated that S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertent door openings due to impact on or movement of inside or outside door handles. Thus, the agency concluded that "inoperative," as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door, rather than that of disengaging the lock. Accordingly, NHTSA determined that the BMW system met the requirement of S4.1.3.2.

The door handle of your system serves the same "dual function" as that of the BMW system, and thus would be permitted. The door handle of your system cannot open the door when the locking mechanism is engaged.

You asked whether the second pull unlatching the door could occur at any time after the first pull, or only within a specific time frame after the first pull. The standard does not specify that a door can only be unlatched after a certain amount of time from disengagement of the door lock. The second pull unlatching the door can thus occur at any time after the first pull.

Finally, you stated that you were concerned about the final rule of April 27, 1968, 33 FR 6465, which promulgated the rear door lock requirements discussed today. You quoted that portion of the preamble to the final rule which stated that the requirement for rear door locks was a child-protection device because it prevents opening the rear door by movement of the inside rear door handle by children. You asked us to "address this issue."

As explained above, your locking system would meet S4.1.3.2 because, when the locking mechanism is engaged, the inside door handle cannot open the door. Since the inside door handle cannot open the door when the door is locked, that aspect of performance serves as a child protection measure. However, we agree with your decision to equip the door with a child safety lock. A child safety lock, when engaged, renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door. The lever deactivating the child safety lock is typically inaccessible to the child passenger. A child safety lock may be appropriate as an added child protection measure.

Notwithstanding the foregoing discussion, the system you describe raises serious safety concerns, in that a child could disengage the lock and then open the door by playing with the handle. The fact that your proposed system would also be equipped with a Atraditional child lock@ reduces but does not eliminate such concerns.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or desire additional information, please feel free to contact this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206 d:3/28/96

The capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks must not be interfered with by any additional door locking device.

ID: 11348

Jane Thornton Mastrucci, Esq.
Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair
4699 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
Coral Gables, FL 33146-2188

Dear Ms. Mastrucci:

This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet "all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars." As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the only way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are presently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies.

Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs.

In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars.

However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but specifies different requirements for each vehicle type.

There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, you should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN), which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position.

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:vsa#571 d:12/26/95

ID: 11349Atxt

Sgt. Stephan C. Turner
Commander
Bus Inspection Unit
Michigan Department of State Police
300 North Clippert
Lansing, MI 48913

Dear Sgt. Turner:

This responds to your letter asking how Federal regulations apply to full-size passenger vans used for school transportation. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask us specific questions about information a local dealer provided you. You also pose hypothetical situations about how Federal law regulates the sale and lease of new vehicles with different seating capacities and configurations.

Some background information may be helpful in understanding our regulations. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress amended this statute (then called the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) to direct NHTSA to issue FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. The Act requires each person selling or leasing a new Abus@ for pupil transportation to ensure that the vehicle is a certified school bus.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture, sale and lease of new school buses, this agency does not regulate used vehicles, or the use of vehicles. The requirements that apply to the use of school vehicles are set by the State.

Your specific questions are set forth below, followed by our answers.

QUESTION #1: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to used vehicles, including 12-passenger vans?

ANSWER: No. While NHTSA has a statutory provision relating to the repair and modification of used vehicles, our statutory provisions and standards generally apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Since our standards do not apply to used motor vehicles--vehicles that have been purchased for the first time in good faith for purposes other than resale--sale or lease transactions involving used school buses are not covered by Chapter 301. Thus, there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling or leasing any used vehicle for school purposes, even if the vehicle does not comply with the school bus standards.

QUESTION #2: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to vehicles used only occasionally for school purposes (not for regularly scheduled pupil transportation)?

ANSWER: Our answer depends on how Aoccasionally@ the vehicle is used for pupil transportation. NHTSA does not prohibit the occasional rental of a van or other vehicle that does not meet the school bus standards. However, when the arrangement involves more than a one- time or very occasional rental for a special school activity, the use of the vehicle has to be examined to determine whether the bus is Aused significantly@ to transport students.

The starting point of our answer is section 30125 of Chapter 301, which sets forth the Congressional directive on school bus safety. That section defines Aschoolbus@ as:

a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school. (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has not defined the term Aused significantly@ as it is used in this statutory provision. Instead, we answer whether a motor vehicle is Alikely to be used significantly@ for transporting students on a case-by- case basis. Use of a vehicle to carry students Aseveral times a week@ to school-related events, as mentioned in your letter, appears to constitute a long- term relationship between the dealer and the school to provide school transportation, which may require a school bus. I have enclosed a copy of a July 22, 1985 letter to Mr. D. Leeds Pickering that discusses the issue of bus leases and rentals.

QUESTION #3: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to full-size passenger vans which have had a seat removed, reducing seating capacity from 12 to 8?

ANSWER: It may be helpful to keep in mind that anytime a dealer sells or leases a new Abus@ (a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a school, that bus must be a certified school bus.

If a dealer permanently reduces the seating capacity of a bus to less than 11, the modified vehicle is no longer a Abus.@ Because the dealer would not be selling a bus, the requirement to sell a school bus does not apply. However, a dealer modifying a new vehicle in this manner would have other responsibilities as a vehicle Aalterer@ under our regulations (49 CFR '567.7). The dealer would be changing the vehicle=s classification to that of a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and would have to certify that the vehicle complies to the MPV standards.

Hypothetical situations. You ask whether a dealer would be violating NHTSA=s school bus requirements in two hypothetical situations.

Hypothetical #1: A dealer leases or sells a new full size passenger van to be used for occasional use for high school sports teams transporting players to games. The full size van comes standard with 5 seating positions. The identical van (same length, width, and manufacturer) can also be ordered with 8 or 12 seating positions. Would there be any federal violations in this scenario with 5, 8, or 12 seating positions? Would it make any difference if the vehicle in this scenario were used for regularly scheduled pupil transportation to and from school? Would it matter if the vehicle was a used 1995 van?

ANSWER: The main issue raised by this hypothetical is whether a 12-passenger van is a Aschool bus@ when ordered with five or eight seating positions.

Anytime a dealer sells or leases a new bus to a school, the vehicle has to be a school bus. The 12-passenger van is a Abus@ (capacity of 11 or more persons, driver included) and thus any new 12-passenger van sold to a school would have to be a school bus.

If the van=s seating capacity were permanently reduced to less than 11 before the vehicle=s sale, the van is no longer a Abus@ and thus is not subject to our school bus standards. The modified vehicle is considered an AMPV@ instead. While the dealer may sell or lease a new MPV to the school, the dealer altering the vehicle from a bus to an MPV must certify the vehicle as an MPV and ensure that it complies with the MPV standards, or face substantial penalties under our statute.

My discussion in the first part of this letter should answer the issues you raise relating to Aused@ vehicles and the Aoccasional@ use of the vehicle for pupil transportation.

Hypothetical No. 2: The dealer reduces the number of passenger seats in the van from 12 to 8 by removing the back (last) seat in the vehicle. Would it matter whether the extra seat in the back is easily removable on a track or is permanently bolted to the floor?

Our answer is yes, the ability to easily remove the extra seat affects whether the van is a Abus@ (and subject to the school bus standards) or an MPV. A person who removes a seat that is designed to be readily removable is not an alterer under our regulations, and would not be changing the vehicle type from a bus to an MPV. Thus, the dealer would be selling or leasing a Abus@ which is subject to the school bus standards. If the dealer were permanently removing seats that had been bolted to the floor, our answer to hypothetical #1 applies.

You also ask additional questions about the meaning of certain terms in the Congressional school bus definition. "Designed to carry" refers to the number of seating positions in the vehicle, which the vehicle manufacturer generally determines. "Events related to such schools" includes any activity connected to a school whether on or off school grounds, including sports events, band concerts, field trips, and competitions such as debate or chess tournaments.

For your information, I am also enclosing an August 1995 question-and-answer sheet about school bus issues of interest to school districts. If you have any further questions regarding Federal school bus requirements, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#571.3 D:4/2/96

ID: 11357

Mr. Patrick Holmes
22235 Frontier Road
Clovis, CA 93611

Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, if you manufacture a motorcycle helmet for personal use, and ensure that your helmet meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 Motorcycle helmets, you may certify the helmet. Subject to qualifications explained below, the answer is yes.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the FMVSSs is Standard No. 218. In 49 U.S.C. section 30115, a self-certification system is established whereby the vehicle or equipment manufacturer is responsible for exercising "reasonable care" in certifying the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. Section 30115 states: "A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect."

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities for manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note the discussion on page two concerning manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, as noted on page two, Part 566 of our regulations requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., motorcycle helmets) to submit identifying information to NHTSA, with a description of the items they produce. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 and of Standard No. 218 for your information.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:218 d:12/8/95

ID: 11361RWKM

Ms. Linda Stroud
Used Motor Vehicle and Parts Commission
Louisiana Department of Economic Development
3132 Valley Creek Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Dear Ms. Stroud:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff in which, referring to previous telephone conversations with Mr. Myers, you asked for written confirmation of several statements. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You requested confirmation that a dealer can sell new trailers either with new tires or no tires, but not with used tires. You also sought confirmation that if a manufacturer ships trailers with used tires to dealers, the dealer would have to remove the used tires prior to retail sale and the purchaser would be responsible for installing his/her own tires. You also asked certain other questions which I will discuss below.

Pursuant to your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on October 5, 1995, Mr. Myers sent you a copy of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, and copies of the interpretative letters previously issued by this office that are listed and synopsized in the Appendix to this letter.

By way of background, in general, paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that tires installed on new vehicles other than passenger cars, which includes trailers, must meet the requirements of either FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. As an exception, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120 provides that instead of tires that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 119, new trucks, buses, and trailers may be equipped with used or retreaded tires owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser and installed at the place of manufacture of the vehicle. Paragraph S5.1.3 also requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2 and further requires that the tires were originally manufactured to comply with FMVSS No. 119 as evidenced by the DOT symbol. There is no requirement, however, that a vehicle subject

to FMVSS No. 120 must be equipped with tires and wheels at the time of sale (see letter to Mr. Steve Thomas, dated April 14, 1993, listed in Appendix).

Your letter stated that your main problem seems to be manufacturers who ship new trailers equipped with used tires. Assuming the conditions of S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120 are not met, that act is prohibited by 49 U.S. Code '30112 (copy enclosed), which provides in pertinent part:

[With certain exceptions] a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title.

Thus, manufacturers cannot ship and distributors and dealers cannot sell vehicles or equipment that do not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. As provided in paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120, used or retreaded tires can only be installed at the place of manufacture of the vehicle and only if owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser.

With respect to used or retreaded tires, distributors and dealers cannot install such tires whether or not the tires are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser. If a distributor or dealer receives a trailer from the manufacturer equipped with used or retreaded tires that were installed not in accordance with paragraph S5.1.3, the distributor or dealer must either replace those tires with new tires or sell the trailer without tires, leaving tire installation to the vehicle purchaser.

Turning now to your specific questions, I will answer them in turn:

1. What is the definition of a trailer manufacturer? A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S. Code '30102(a)(5) as a person:

(A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or

(B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.

We define a "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle.

Under these definitions, a trailer manufacturer is one who manufactures or assembles trailers, as distinguished from a distributor who primarily sells and distributes motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment for resale (in other words, a wholesaler), or a dealer, who primarily sells and distributes motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment at retail.

2. Is a Utility Trailer included in this safety standard [FMVSS No. 120] or does it relate only to certain size trailers? Paragraph S3, Application, of FMVSS No. 120 provides that the standard applies to "multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles, . . ." (emphasis added). Neither the standard nor the trailer definition limits its application to trailers. Accordingly, all new trailers of any size, use, weight, or configuration, including new utility trailers, are subject to the requirements of the standard.

3. Could you indicate those trailers which are governed by this regulation? As indicated in the answer to question 2 above, all new trailers, including utility trailers, are included in the requirements of FMVSS No. 120.

4. Is there a specific length or width that falls under this safety standard? The answer is no. As indicated above, trailers are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 120 without limitation.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:120 d:2/8/96

ID: 11368DRN

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen
Mail Code 4F02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a single coil spring consisting of multiple strands of wire twisted together would meet the Standard No. 124 Accelerator Control Systems requirement that the control system have "at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3." Since we do not agree that each wire strand constitutes a separate source of energy, the answer is no.

Under specified temperature conditions, S5. Requirements, of Standard No. 124 states that the vehicle shall meet the following requirements when the engine is running under any load condition:

S5.1 There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

In your letter, you expressed your belief that a single coil spring consisting of multiple strands of wire twisted together would constitute the "two sources of energy" capable of returning the throttle to the idle position. You stated: "Assuming in the spring consisting of three strands of wire, that if only one strand is broken, the remaining two would have sufficient force to return the throttle to idle, we believe such a spring would comply with S5.1." You stated that a seven wire spring would provide even greater redundancy as the spring would have sufficient force to return the throttle to idle if up to three of the wire strands were broken.

We do not agree that a single spring consisting of multiple strands of wire meets Standard No. 124. A spring consisting of multiple strands of wire may be more resistant to fatigue than a spring consisting of a single strand, but the spring remains a single component. S5.1 requires two sources of energy that are separate, independent components. I note that the purpose of the requirement for "two sources of energy" was explained in a September 23, 1972 Federal Register document, in which NHTSA concurred with a petitioner's statement: "The intent of paragraph S5.1 is to eliminate the driver's dependence on a single accelerator return spring." (See 37 FR 20033, at 20034).

The components must also be independent of each other in order to meet S5.2, which specifies a return to idle if "any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point." (Emphasis added.) The disconnection of a single spring consisting of multiple strands of wire would make the accelerator control system unable to meet S5.2.

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:124 d:1/19/96

ID: 11371

Mr. Richard L. Russell
12475 Central Avenue
Suite 352
Chino, CA 91710

Dear Mr. Russell:

This responds to your FAX of November 15, 1995, to Blane Laubis of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal lighting regulations as they may affect your plans to modify your 1956 Jeep.

You wish to add two additional auxiliary lights to supplement your upper beams, and you ask whether these lights are "required to be DOT approved." The answer is no; the DOT regulation on motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe requirements for lamps intended to supplement the headlamps, and thus the lamps of which you speak do not have to be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. As a matter of information, your use of the words "DOT approved" reflects a common misconception. We have no authority to approve or disapprove lighting equipment. Under our statute, a lighting (or vehicle) manufacturer is required to certify that its equipment (or vehicle) meets Standard No. 108 (if it is replacement equipment included in the standard), and the use of the DOT symbol on the item is the most frequently used method of certification. This means that the "DOT approved" headlamps on your 1956 Jeep are probably replacement sealed beams with DOT markings on them.

You ask whether there is any limitation to bulb wattage for auxiliary lamps used to supplement the headlamps when used on the upper beam. There is no wattage limitation; however, if auxiliary lamps were installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before its first sale, we would regard the vehicle manufacturer's certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver's ability to perceive the front turn signals.

Although your Jeep was manufactured long before the effective date of Standard No. 108 (January 1, 1969), we ask you to

consider this safety concern when adding auxiliary lamps. We do not know the local laws on this subject, and recommend that you seek advice from the Department of California Highway Patrol.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will answer them for you (phone 202-366- 5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/22/95

ID: 11372

Mr. Kenneth W. Easterling
Plan B Engineering, Inc.
26399 The Old Road 14-106
Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381

Dear Mr. Easterling:

This responds to your letter of November 16, 1995, asking for our opinion of "G-Lamps", ("proportional deceleration indicator lamps) intended as a rear end collision avoidance device. Your system would flash the stop lamps proportionally to the rate of deceleration.

Over the years, the agency has received many requests for interpretations of the laws which it administers as they relate to deceleration warning systems. Our reply has been that it is impermissible to wire the stop lamp system so that it flashes, no matter what the purpose of the flashing. I enclose for your information, as a representative reply, a copy of our letter of July 30, 1993, to Wayne Ferguson of the Virginia Department of Transportation, which fully sets forth our views and interpretations.

If you have questions about these matters, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this office at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108 d:12/22/95

ID: 11373JEG

B. Michael Korte, Esq.
Law Firm of John Schwabe II
St. Louis Office
The Locust Building--Suite 900
1015 Locust Street
St. Louis, MO 63101

Dear Mr. Korte:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal standards concerning the deployment of air bags. You asked whether AFederal regulations establish a minimum speed that vehicles must be traveling, below which an air bag will not deploy.@

The answer to your question is no. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, establishes a number of performance requirements for air bags and air-bag-equipped vehicles. However, neither that standard nor any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifies that air bags must not deploy in crashes below a specified vehicle speed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:208 d:1/29/96 NCC-20 Eglancy:mar:1/3/96:OCC 11373