ID: nht87-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Lynn Walker -- Sales Manager, Panamasia West Coast, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Lynn Walker Sales Manager Panamasia West Coast, Inc. 16205 Distribution Way Cerritos, CA 90701

This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1986, to Mr. Vinson this office asking whether a lamp you wish to import "is legal for highway use in the U.S." The lamp is an aftermarket auxiliary turn signal that is mounted on top of each front fender. The lens is green, but could be any color that is legal for highway use. The lens is visible "from all directions" but could be designed so that it is visible only to the rear, i.e. to the driver.

Federal motor vehicle lighting requirements do not currently apply to aftermarket lamps of this nature. Whether the lamp is legal, therefore, is a question to be answered under the laws of each State in which it will be sold and operated. While we are no t familiar with State lighting laws you nay find that there is a greater likelihood that the auxiliary turn signal lamp will be acceptable if it has a yellow lens, or if its green lens is visible only to the driver.

I hope that this is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

PANAMASIA WEST COAST, INC. 16205 Distribution Way Cerritos, CA 90701 (213) 926-5591

Sept. 17, 1986

Dear Mr. Vinson,

We are an Import-Export Company specializing in Automotive Parts and Accessories.

We are interested in importing the automotive lamp which is described on the following page.

We wish to know if this type of lamp is legal for highway use in the U.S. If any alterations are necessary to make this lamp legal, please advise us of them.

If we can give you more information please don't hesitate to contact us at the above address or telephone number.

With our best regards, PANAMASIA WEST COAST, INC.

Lynn Walker Sales Manager Auto Parts

DIRECTIONAL LAMP - 12 VOLT

APPLICATION:

THIS IS AN ADD-ON ACCESSORY FOR PASSENGER CARS.

INSTALLATION:

IT IS INSTALLED ON TOP OF THE FRONT FENDERS ABOVE THE HEAD LAMP. APPLICATION IS STICK-ON. THE WIRE CAN BE RUN INTO THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT AS IN THE ILLUSTRATION, OR THE INSTALLER MAY DRILL A HOLE IN THE FENDER DIRECTLY UNDER THE LAMP AND RUN THE WIRE THR OUGH IT.

VISABILITY:

THE LENSE IS VISIBLE FROM ALL DIRECTIONS. THE LENSE AREA IS THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IN DIAGRAM 1. ALSO, PLEASE ADVISE US OF THE LEGALITY OF THE SAME LAMP IF IT WERE VISIBLE ONLY TO THE REAR (VISIBLE TO THE DRIVER).

MATERIAL: THE BASE IS OF FLEXIBLE PLASTIC. THE HOUSING AROUND THE LENSE IS OF METAL. THE LENSE IS PLASTIC. LENSE COLOR IS GREEN, BUT COULD BE ANY COLOR THAT IS LEGAL FOR HIGHWAY USE.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

ID: nht87-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Phil Rounds

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Phil Rounds, Esq. Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable 2800 Fourth National Bank Building 15 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119

Dear Mr. Rounds:

Thank you for your letter of October 22, 1986, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 20B, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to a model year 1982 vehicle. The answers to your two specific questions are discussed below.

You first asked about the requirements of S4.1.2.3 of the standard. You asked whether a manufacturer that has chosen to meet that provision of the standard by installing a Type 2 safety belt at each front outboard designated seating position is required to crash test those safety belts. As explained below, S4.1.2.3 does not require the Type 2 safety belts installed in accordance with that requirement to be subjected to a crash test.

S4.1.2 of the standard sets forth the requirements for passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1973, and before September 1, 1986. Thus, those requirements would apply to a model year 1982 passenger car. S4.1.2 provides that a manufacturer s hall meet the requirements of either S4.1.2.1, S4.2.2.2, or S4.1.2.3. Under S4.1.2.3, a manufacturer has the option of installing "a Type 2 seat belt assembly with a nondetachable shoulder belt that conforms to Standard No. 209" at each front outboard de signated seating position. Although Standard No. 209 establishes performance requirements for a safety belt, it does not require the crash testing of the belt.

You also asked whether lap belts installed in accordance with the requirements of S4.1.2.3 in a vehicle's rear seat must be crash tested. The answer is no, rear seat safety belts installed in accordance with S4.1.2.3 do not have to be crash tested. S4.1. 2.3 (c) sets the requirements for rear seats. It provides that a manufacturer may install either a "Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. . . ." As explained above, Standard No. 209 does not require crash testing for safe ty belts.

As you requested, we are providing you with a certified copy of this letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: Interpretation Letter 49 CFR

Section 571.208 5.4.1.2.3

We are writing to request a certified copy of a letter of interpretation regarding conformity with FMVSS 208 as it applies to 1982 MY vehicles.

Specifically, please confirm that where a manufacturer of a 1982 MY vehicle has elected the third option (S.4.1.2.3) and employed type 2 seatbelts (i.e., three point belts), at each front outboard designated seating position, a dynamic crash test is not required. Further, that a 49 CFR Section 571.208 S 5.1 test is also not required with regard to lap belts in the rear designated seating positions where type 2 seatbelts are employed at each front outboard designated seating position.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be most appreciated. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $3.00 to cover administrative expenses.

Yours truly,

PHIL ROUNDS PLR/bv Enclosure

ID: nht87-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald P. Weiher -- Dirctor, Product Assurance, LTV Aerospace and Defense Company, AM General Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald P. Weiher Director-Product Assurance LTV Aerospace and Defense Company AM General Division P.O. Box 3330 Livonia, MI 48151-3330

This is in reply to your letter of September B, 1986, to Mr. Oesch of this Office asking whether certain military vehicles are "motor vehicles" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event they are discovered to have safety related defects.

Based on the information your letter provides, we must conclude that the tactical military vehicles in question are motor vehicles within the meaning of section 102 (3) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391 (3), and that they are subject to the defect notifi cation and remedy provisions of the Act, although, as military vehicles they are exempt from compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

You have described the vehicles in question as "all tactical vehicles designed for cross-country (40%), secondary (30%) and primary (30%) roads." Such vehicles include the M998 Series 1 1/4 ton truck, and other tactical military trucks such as the 2 1/2 ton M44 Series and the 5-ton M809 and M939 Series. You have noted that the Office of Defects Investigation has previously assigned campaign numbers for safety related defects on similar tactical military vehicles. You have also noted the agency's 1969 in terpretation on mini-bikes states, as you have quoted it, that "in the absence of clear evidence that, as a practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not be, used on the public streets, roads, and highways the operating capability of a vehicle is the most relevant fact in determining whether that vehicle is a motor vehicle."

Under the information you have presented, the tactical military trucks are designed to be used 60% of the time on primary and secondary public roads. In our view, they must then be considered as having been designed primarily for use on the public roads, and hence, "motor vehicles" under the Act.

We have conferred with our Office of Defects Investigation, and it appears to us that when that office responded to your inquiries on February 19 and March 5, 1986, it acted in the belief that the vehicles in question are intended primarily for off road use and that they lack an operating capability for substantial on road use. The fact that the vehicles are intended for use on roads 60 percent of the time indicates operating capability for such use.

We hope that this clarifies the status of these vehicles with respect to the definition of "motor vehicle" contained in the Act. We appreciate your having requested this further consideration of this question. If you have further questions concerning thi s matter, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson, an attorney in this office who can be reached by telephone at (202) 366 5263.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 8, 1986

Mr. Steven Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

- PETITION -

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Please provide concurrence with the attached interpretations from Mr. Philip W. Davis, Director, Office of Defects Investigation/Enforcement regarding military vehicles "not manufactured primarily for highway use."

A generalization would be that all tactical vehicles designed for cross-country (40%), secondary (30%) and primary (30%) roads such as the subject M998 Series 1 1/4 Ton Trucks (a.k.a. HUMM-V) would all be exempt by virtue of not being "manufactured prima rily for highway use" and therefore not considered to be a "MOTOR VEHICLE under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. (Title I, Part A, Sec. 102(3) Interpretation).

Our previous verbal direction from your office had been that although these vehicles may be exempt from compliance with the safety standards (Ref. 571.7(c) enclosed), they are not exempt from the Safety Act or the Regulations, further the enclosed interp retations dated October 3, 1969, 34 F.R. 15416 and published under Part 571.3 "Definitions" state "that in the absence of clear evidence that as a practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not be, used on the public streets, roads or highways the operating capability of a vehicle is the most relevant fact in determining whether or not that vehicle is a motor vehicle under the act", leaves us confused. Since the Office of Defects Investigation has previously assigned campaign numbers for safety re lated defects on similar tactical military vehicles, we solicit your official interpretation and guidance regarding safety related defects on tactical military trucks, such as the noted 1 1/4 Ton M998 Series, the 2 1/2 Ton M44 Series and the 5-Ton M809 a nd M939 Series.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Weiher Director-Product Assurance

DPW/tlb

Mr. Fred I. Masten Supervisor - Warranty/Safety LTV Aerospace and Defense Company AM General Division 701 W. Chippewa Avenue South Bend, IN 46680-2841

Dear Mr. Masten:

Thank you for your letter of February 19, 1986, concerning the recall of 1984-1986 AM General M998 Series trucks.

As the vehicles involved in this campaign are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use, we do not consider this to be a motor vehicle safety defect recall under the provisions of the Nationa l Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Therefore, no further reports on this matter are necessary.

Sincerely,

Philip W. Davis Director Office of Defects Investigation Enforcement

Mr. Fred I. Masten Supervisor - Warranty/Safety LTV Aerospace and Defense Company AM General Division 701 W. Chippewa Avenue South Bend, IN 46680-2841

Dear Mr. Masten:

Thank you for your letter of January 27, 1986, concerning the recall of 1984-1986 AM General M998 Series trucks.

As the vehicles involved in this campaign are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use, we do not consider this to be a motor vehicle safety defect recall under the provisions of the Nationa l Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Therefore, no further reports on this matter are necessary.

Sincerely,

Philip W. Davis Director Office of Defects Investigation Enforcement

Sec. 102 (cont.) (3) "Motor vehicle" means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

(4) "Motor vehicle equipment" means any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle, and any device, article, or apparel not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle (other than medicines, or eyeglasses prescribed by a physician or other duly licensed practitioner), which is manufactured, sold, de livered, offered, or intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers, and other highway users from risk of accident, injury or death.

s571.7 (cont.) (c) Military vehicles. No standards applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

(d) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstances provided in Section 108(b) (5) of the Act 15 U.S.C. 1397(b) (5)).

(e) Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

Interpretations

General. Compliance with Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is determined by actual date of manufacture, rather than model year designation.

Mini-bikes. A number of persons have asked the Federal Highway Administrator to reconsider his February 4, 1969, interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 concerning mini-bikes (34 F.R. 1909). In that interpretation, the Administrator concluded that mini-bikes are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the Act, and are regarded as "motorcycles" or "motor-driven cycles" under the Federal Highway Administration regulations (34 F.R. 1909). Under those re gulations, motorcycles and motor-driven cycles must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which imposes performance requirements relating to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.

The primary basis for the conclusion of the February 4 interpretation, as stated therein, was that "in the absence of clear evidence that as a practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not be, used on the public streets, roads, or highways the ope rating capability of a vehicle is the most relevant fact in determining whether or not that vehicle is a motor vehicle under the ACT * * *" It was stated that if examination of a vehicle's operating capability revealed that the vehicle is "physically capable (either as offered for sale or without major additions or modifications) of being operated on the public streets, roads, or highways, the vehicle will be considered as having been manu factured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways'." It was also stated that a manufacturer would need to show substantially more than that it has advertised a vehicle as a recreational or private property vehicle or that use of the vehicle on a public roadway, as manufactured and sold, would be illegal in order to overcome a conclusion based on examination of the vehicle's operating capability.

Petitioners have urged the Administrator to abandon the operating capability test. They have argued that many vehicular types, such as self-propelled riding mowers, have an "operating capability" for use on the public roads and yet are obviously outside the class of vehicles which Congress subjected to safety regulations. True as that may be, the Administrator has decided to adhere to the view that the operating capability of a vehicle is an important criterion in determining whether it is a "motor vehi cle" within the meaning of the statute. As the above-quoted portion of the February 4, 1969, interpretation states, however, the operating capability test is not reached if there is "clear evidence that as a practical matter the vehicle is not being used on the public streets, roads, or highways." In the case of self-propelled riding mowers, golf carts, and many other similar self-propelled vehicles, such clear evidence exists.

It is clear from the definition of "motor vehicle" in section 102(3) of the Act* that the purpose for which a vehicle is manufactured is a basic factor in determining whether it was "manufactured primarily or use on the public streets, roads, and highway s." However, this does n ot mean that the proper classification of a particular vehicle is wholly dependent on the manufacturer's subjective state of mind. Instead, the Administrator intends to invoke the familiar principle that the purpose for which an act, such as the p roduction of a vehicle, is undertaken may be discerned from the actor's conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Thus, if a vehicle is operationally capable of being used on public thoroughfares, and if in fact, a substantial proportion of the consuming public actually uses in that way, it is a "motor vehicle" without regard to the manufacturer's intent, however manifested. In such a case, it would be incumbent upon a manufacturer of such a vehicle either to alter the vehicle's design, con figuration, and equipment to render it unsuitable for on-road user or, by compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards, to render the vehicle safe for use on public streets, roads, and highways.

In borderline cases, other factors must also be considered. Perhaps the most important of these is whether state and local laws permit the vehicle in question to be used and registered for use on public highways. The nature of the manufacturer's promotio nal and marketing activities is also evidence of the use for which the vehicle is manufactured. Some relevant aspects of those activities are: (1) Whether the vehicle is advertised for on-road use or whether the manufacturer represents to the public that the vehicle is not for use on public roads; (2) whether the vehicle is sold through retail outlets that also deal in conventional motor vehicles; and (3) whether the manufacturer affixes a label warning owners of the vehicle not to use it for travel ove r public roads.

ID: nht87-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Ernst; Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ernst Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt GERMANY

Dear Dr. Ernst:

This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1987, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new headlamp manufactured by Hella that BMW has installed on a new car which it introduced in the United States around April 1, 1987.

The headlamp is of the replaceable bulb type, and as you describe it consists of two additional parts: "the housing, to which the cover lens is bonded by means of a two "component adhesive", and 'the optical module, consisting of the reflector and the convex lens, joined by the lens carrier...." In your words, "The two parts are held together by three screws", and you believe that "the two parts, firmly screwed together, are as effectively joined as would be the case if bonded".

Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 108 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" in pertinent part as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly. . . ." In the Hella design, the lens and reflector assembly are not bonded, and thus the headlamp is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp" that is permissible for use on motor vehicles sold and used in the Unite States. The intent of the definition is to ensure that the headlamp lens and reflector are an integral replaceable unit, since that is the only means to assure a mechanically aimable replaceable bulb headlamp which is capable of using any replacement standardized replaceable light source and meets the necessary photometric performance. The foundation of mechanical aimability is that the beam and aiming pads are manufactured to have a specific relationship. If this relationship is altered by replacement of the lens only, or of the reflector only, there is a high likelihood that the lamp may not meet minimum performance requirements when aimed mechanically.

ID: nht87-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z.Jones; NHTSA

TO: Diane LeMire

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Diane Le Mire Traffic Administrator Equus Products, Inc. 17291-B Mt. Herrmann Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Dear Ms. Le Mire:

Thank you for your letter asking how our regulations would affect the manufacturing, importing, and distribution of a shade device for a vehicle. According to the sales brochure included with your letter, your product, which is called "VENTSHADES," is a stainless steel shade that is designed to be installed on the top of a vehicle's window frame. The purpose of the device is to allow vehicle occupants to partially lower their windows when it is raining and keep the rain out. In addition, the brochure sa ys that the ventshade can reduce glare. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following information is helpful.

I believe some background information about the agency may be of assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under w hich each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a foreign company importing an item of vehicle equipment into the United States mus t designate an agent within this country for service of process.

We do not have any standards that directly apply to your product. The agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The performance and other requirements of the standard apply to any item of glazing material used in a vehicle, including a windscreen made of plastic or other glazing materials. Your product is not made of a glazing material, but is instead made of steel, and is thus n ot covered by Standard No. 205.

However, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, use of your product can be affected b y section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(n) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency enc ourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

MAY 19, 1986

Ms. Jones Office of Chief Counsel RM #5219 NHTSA 400 7th S.W. Washington D C. 20590

Please be so kind as to forward all discloseable information pertaining to the manufacturing, importing, and distribution of VENTSHADES.

I have enclosed a copy of a sales brochure for a definition. The shade mounts to the outside of the vehicle. Please see the attached photocopy for a more complete description.

Please forward all correspondence to:

EQUUS PRODUCTS, INC. 17291-B Mt. Herrmann St. Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attn: Diana Le Mire

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Diana Le Mire Traffic Administrator

ID: nht87-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Tackett

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Tackett 859 South Main Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Tackett:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of December 1, 1986, with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, affects the installation of trailer hitches on cars. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements to reduce fuel system spillage in a crash. If a trailer hitch is installed on a new-car prior to the car being first sold to a consumer, the person installing the trailer hitch would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed, Under Part 567.7, a vehicle alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards.

The installation of a trailer hitch on a used car would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an appli cable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, in installing trailer hitches on a used car, a commercial business must ensure that it has not knowingly compromised the integrity of the fuel system.

In addition, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as a trailer hitch, is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I hav e enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes how our defect regulations affect equipment manufacturers.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: nht87-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/87 EST

FROM: PETER MCINTOSH -- PRESIDENT. STARDOR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA

TITLE: REAR ENDER STOP LAMP

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/29/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO PETER MCINTOSH, REDBOOK A31, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/24/87 (EST) FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO HAL MCNAMARA

TEXT: Dear Mr Vinson,

Mr Kumbar of the A.A.M.V.A. suggested I write to you & inform you of our wishes to obtain approval for the marketing of our Rear Ender brake light.

This product was introduced into Australia in 1986 with great success and is now used by many corporations, government bodies & sporting groups to promote their product and incorporate a great safety device into their vehicles. With the statistics fr om the U.S.A. illustrating the reduction in rear end accidents by over 50% with the installation of a mid mounted brake light, acceptance of this concept was incredible with our promotional factor assisting to promote their use.

Due to the acceptance and the interest shown we decided to try and export the product to the U.S.A. where the market is so much larger and where so many millions of cars still lack this safety system. On showing the product to a number of interested parties in the U.S.A. it is evident that this concept should receive much the same acceptance. Apart from the promotional angle main selling feature to most end users is the big advantages offered in safety.

Our aim is mainly to introduce them to corporations for use in their own vehicles, used car sales for their stock and sporting groups for fund raising (support their team with endorsement on lights). Eventually we hope to introduce them onto the reta il market. With all new cars being factory fitted we do not see a market in this area, with the exception of 2wd vehicles and vans.

The size of the lens is 10" x 2 1/2" offers excellent visibility and the most important feature of the lens is the fact that the message dissapears when the brake light is illuminated, thus not interfering with the initial design characteristic requir ement of the light. This factor has gained acceptance by the police departments in Australia and has encouraged a number of insurance companies to offer bonuses to their clients utilizing the mid mounted lights, e.g. no loss of no claim in the event of a rear end collision.

The light has also been used by police and county vehicles to promote community messages such as "BUCKLE UP!", "SAY NOT TO DRUGS!" etc.

Please find enclosed a copy of our brochure and I trust this information will be of assistance to you in evaluating our product. Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to call me on (305) 3616908.

ID: nht87-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Adam A. Jorgensen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Adam A. Jorgensen Consultant to Advance Products and Training Company 915 Middle River Drive, Suite 415 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304

Dear Mr. Jorgensen:

This is in response to your letter of November 4, 1986, to this Office on behalf of your client, Advanced Products and Trading Company.

Your client wishes to develop a device "to be placed in the rear window of a motor vehicle." It consists of four lighted letters, arranged to spell the word "STOP." When the brake pedal is depressed, or the hazard warning signal flashers are on, the lett ers are lit, in sequence rather than simultaneously. This cycle is repeated as long as the brake is activated, or the hazard warning signals are activated. You have asked if the device is legal, and if so, whether there are any limitations on its use of sale as a product for the automotive market.

There are two relevant automotive markets, one for original equipment, and one for aftermarket equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment specifies requirements for original motor vehicle lighting equipment and equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment. Because there is a Federal requirement that a passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp, which is genera lly placed in the rear window area, a replacement lamp must meet the original equipment specifications of Standard No. 108. As Standard No. 108 makes no provision for sequential flashing of letters in the third stop lamp, your client's lamp does not conf orm to original equipment specifications , and therefore could not be legally sold as an intended replacement for third stop lamps on vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Further, any person other than the vehicle owner who removed an ori ginal equipment lamp and installed your client's device could be in violation of a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering safety equipment inoperative.

We assume that your client intends his device for the aftermarket, for installation on vehicles which were not originally equipped with the third stop lamp. Standard No. 108 does not cover this type of aftermarket equipment, and its legality would be det ermined under the laws of any State in which it would be sold or used.

If you have further questions we would be pleased to consider them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 407 Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Office of Chief Counsel

Dear Sir/Madam:

Would you kindly advise me on a traffic-related highway safety question, that is important for one of my clients, Advanced Products and Trading Company.

The client is pursuing as a business venture to develop a special brake-warning signal to be placed in the rear window of a motor vehicle. The special brake warning signal consists of four red lighted letters "S","T","O","P", arranged as the word "STOP". The letters are connected to a small light-flashing control unit that operates such that, when the brake pedal is activated, and/or the warning flashers are on, the lighted letters are turned on one at the time in the following rapid sequence of steps: Step 1, "S"; Step 2,"ST";Step 3 "STO"; and Step 4, "STOP"; after which the sequence is repeated again and again as long as the brake remains activated. The signal is intended to be seen clearly visible from the rear of the vehicle.

My client has a patent application pending on this product and has invested a not insignificant amount of money on this invention.

The question is, is such a sign legal, and if so, are there any special limitations on its use or sale as a pro- duct for the automotive market?

The question may alternatively be asked as follows: If such a signal is prima facie, not legal, are there any conditions that might mitigate its introduction as a new product?

An early response to that inquiry would be very much appreciated.

Yours very truly,

Adam A. Jorgensen Consultant to Advance Products and Trading Company

ID: nht87-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Norm Alexander

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Norm Alexander, Manager Engineering Customer Service Stratoflex, Inc. P.O. Box 10398 Fort Worth, TX 76114

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This responds to your two letters to me concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for air brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Before I begin to answer your specific questions, it might be helpful to explain that Standard No. 106 has separate sections setting requirements for hoses, end fittings, and assemblies used in hydraulic, air and vacuum brake systems. The section of the standard that you are concerned with is S7, the requirements for air brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. Section S7.2 sets forth the labeling requirements for those items of equipment, and is further subdivided into three par ts: paragraph S7.2.1 regarding hose; S7.2.2 regarding end fittings; and S7.2.3 regarding assemblies.

Your first question asks for confirmation of your understanding that air brake hose is labeled according to paragraphs S7.2.1(a) through (e). Your understanding is correct. Air brake hoses (that are not part of a brake hose assembly) must be labeled acco rding to the specifications of paragraph S7.2.1. Paragraphs S7.2.1(a) through (e) list the required information.

You asked whether end fittings that are to be attached by means other than crimping or swaging are labeled pursuant to S7.2.2(a) through (d). You are correct that paragraphs S7.2.2(a) through (d) list the information required to be labeled on the end fit tings you described. They are labeled in the manner specified in the lead-in sentence of S7.2.2.

Your next question concerned labeling requirements for end fittings that are to be attached by crimping or swaging. You asked whether you would label those end fittings pursuant to S7.2.3.1. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes, provide d that you also manufacture the brake hose assembly.

Paragraph S7.2.3.1 is part of the subparagraph which sets labeling requirements for assemblies. Thus, S7.2.3.1 describes an option for labeling air brake hose assemblies made with end fittings attached by crimping or swaging. A manufacturer of end fittin gs which are to be attached by crimping or swaging is not required to label the fittings if that manufacturer does not also assemble them. Such a manufacturer may voluntarily label its fittings. However, as explained below, if it voluntarily marks its fi ttings, the fitting manufacturer should keep records of its production lots showing whether the marking on a particular lot of end fittings is a voluntary label or whether it was made to identify itself as the assembler.

Because Standard No. 106 requires an assembler using crimped or swaged end fittings to identify itself as the manufacturer of the assembly, there is a chance for confusion if the assembler chooses to label by marking the end fittings pursuant to S7.2.3.1 and the fitting manufacturer had previously voluntarily marked the fittings with its own designation. In order to reduce the chances of confusion and facilitate enforcement efforts in determining who is responsible for the manufacture of the assembly, w e encourage manufacturers who voluntarily label their fittings to keep adequate records indicating whether they have sold the fittings separately to an assembler or whether they have used the fittings in assemblies they have produced themselves.

Your fourth question asked about labeling requirements for air brake hose assemblies that use end fittings that are not attached by crimping or swaging. You are correct that Standard No. 106 requires only that the end fittings be labeled and does not set a labeling requirement for the assemblies. These provisions were made in the standard because NHTSA believed labeling requirements for assemblies having renewable or reusable end fittings were impractical. NHTSA concluded that with reusable end fittings , the assembler's identity could be lost or misapplied by a persons reassembling the Bet at a later date, and the chances for confusion concerning the identity of the assembler would be great.

Your fifth question asked whether air brake hose assemblies made with end fittings attached by crimping or swaging, except those made and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in its own vehicles, may be labeled by means of a band pursuant to S7.2.3 or by marking the end fitting as specified in S7.2.3.1. The answer is yes. Standard No. 106 provides manufacturers of those types of assemblies the option of labeling their assemblies according to either S7.2.3 or S7.2.3.1.

The second part of your fifth question also concerned Standard No. 106's labeling requirements for air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. You asked whether your understanding is correct that a "component manufacturer's identi fication on a fitting is sufficient for hose assemblies fabricated by the component manufacturer: but bulk products procured and assembled by a second party (not vehicle manufacturer) must be marked by that assembler - tag or fitting."

Your understanding is correct. A manufacturer of crimped or swaged end fittings who also manufactures brake hose assemblies may satisfy the standard's labeling requirements by marking its identification on its fitting. A manufacturer of brake hose assemb lies who purchased its end fittings must label the assembly by a tag (pursuant to S7.2.3) or by labeling the end fitting (pursuant to S7.2.3.1).

Your next question asked whether standard No. 106 requires manufacturers to mark the date of assembly on their brake hose assemblies. The answer is no.

Your final question asked whether additional information may be entered on the hose assembly tag. The answer to your question is yes. NHTSA has interpreted Standard No. 106 as permitting the labeling of brake hose with optional information in addition to that required by the standard if, in order to avoid confusion with the required information, the optional information appears on the opposite side of the hose. Based on those interpretations, we conclude that you are permitted to label your assemblies w ith optional information if the labeling is done in a manner that avoids confusion with the required information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 25, 1986

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel Room 5219

Subject: FMVSS 106-74, as amended

Dear Ms. Jones:

Pursuant to my conversation with Ms. Deidre Hom on August 22, 1986; we respectfully submit our understanding of the marking/labeling requirements of Section S7, subject standard. We request written confirmation of this understanding or correction(s) as r equired. Stratoflex is a manufacturer of crimp and non crimp (screw together) fittings and hose to provisions of FMVSS 106.

1. Hose - per S7.2.1 (a) thru (e).

2. End Fittings (not crimped or swaged) - per 57.2.2 (a) thru (d).

3. End fittings (crimped or swaged) - per S7.2.3.1 (at least one fitting per assembly, assembler identification)

4. Hose assembly with non crimped/swaged fittings - No marking other than components (1 and 2 above).

5. Hose assembly with crimped/swaged fittings - Band per S7.2.3 (a) and (b) or fitting only per 3 above. (See note below)

NOTE: No marking required for hose assemblies assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer.

Item 3 above (and the alternate of item 5) indicates that component manufacturer's identification on a fitting is sufficient for hose assemblies fabricated by the component manufacturer; but, bulk products procured and assembled by a second party (not ve hicle manufacturer) must be marked by that assembler - tag or fitting.

Is the date of assembly (fittings to hose) required?

May additional data be entered on the hose assembly tag?

Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Please feel free to contact us if any additional clarification is required.

Very truly yours,

S T R A T O F L E X , I N C .

Norm Alexander, Manager Engineering Customer Service

ID: nht87-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Harry H. Kazakian -- President, Corleone International Traders, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Harry H. Kazakian President Corleone International Traders, Inc. P.O. Box 3417 Los Angeles, Calif. 90028

Dear Mr. Kazakian:

This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1986, to which was attached a "Magic Eyes Brake Light". This device consists of the small lamps whose primary functions are to flash automatically "upon catching light" within safety range and when the car's b rake is in use". The purpose of the device is to reduce rear end collisions. The artwork on the package shows the lamps mounted at the base of the rear window on either side of the vehicle's vertical centerline. You asked that your letter centerline as a petition for rulemaking to require the device as original equipment, or for the aftermarket.

I regret that we have decided to deny your petition that the device be required as original equipment. The agency's research has shown that the most effective device for reducing rear end collisions in the single center high-mounted stop lamp, and the ag ency now require that device to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars. You have presented no facts that demonstrate that an amendment of the nature you have requested is necessary. Although the agency has specified no requirements for afte rmarket supplementary stop lamps (other than those that replace original equipment), on the basis of the agency's research, we believe that aftermarket equipment should meet as closely as possible the specifications for original equipment. Therefore, we are also denying your petition for aftermarket equipment.

We would like to advise you that there are no Federal restrictions on the importation and sale of "Magic Eyes". However, any State may impose its own restrictions on the use of this lamp on roads within its borders, and you should consult these laws bef ore selling the device.

As a final note, the copy for model JA 201 on the package states "To comply with latest United States' regulations, this single lamp lights on automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use". Please delete the re ference to United States regulations on your packages. The single lamp required by the United States is steady burning and has but one function, to indicate application of the brake pedal. It cannot be combined with any other light or device. In comparis on, your lamp has two functions, and appears to flash in each.

As an accessory item of motor vehicle equipment, your lamp is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that if a safety related defect occurs in the lamp, the manufacturer or impor ter is obligated to inform dealers, distributors and purchasers to repair, repurchase, or replace the item. We are returning your device with this letter.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

APRIL 29, 1986 OUR REF. COR/030886 BANKERS: CALIFORNIA OVERSEAS BANK

INTERPRETATION CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Rm. # 5219 p 400, 7th St. South West Washington D.C. 20590

ATT: Erika Z Jones

Dear Erika,

In response to our conversation with Mr. Bob Nikelson in Department of Traffic Safety, after a long conversation over the phone about the "Magic Eyes Brake Lights" we were advised to get your attention with this safety device, which could reduce a large quantity of rear endings, help saving lives in U. S. highways an street roads and at the mean time be helpful financially. Therefore we would certainly appreciate to get your precious time and attention, if you would, to explain about this safety device after a small brief about our business.

Corleone International Traders Inc. is known as well established incorporation in U. S. A. with many satisfied customers. We have relations all over the world, we specialize medical items, auto accessories, foodstuff and many novelties. We also represent variety of manufacturers overseas on exclusive basis.

We would like to take this opportunity to introduce you one of our new sophisticated low coast brake light system which was invented and made with few of our engineers to reduce tail gating and rearending in U.S. highways. This magnificent system is "The Third Brake Light" of the car which has a built in sensor device. This system flashes automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use.

Our main goal is to see less rear endings in U.S. highways. Therefore we would like to have this sophisticated light activated sensors to be included in every auto's brake system is being built in U.S.A.

We sincerely would like to ask to have this "Safety Device" to be treated as a petition for rule making to require this device or permitted originally or after market "Vehicle Safety Standard Cod--108."

For your research and study we are including a sample of this device on the back of the carton explains product No. "JA 101 WARNING LIGHTS" and "JA 105 MAGIC EYE SENSOR".

Dear Chief Council, we are taking this opportunities very seriously and depending on your full research and your answer.

At the mean time we are at your disposal for any information you may need or any questions you may ask. We are sincerely thanking you for your time and your attention at this matter and hoping to hear from you soon about your opinion, until than we remai n HARRY H. KAZAKIAN PRESIDENT