ID: nht89-2.93

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 1, 1989

FROM: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights

TO: NHTSA, Department of Transportation

TITLE: Re Vehicle Signalling System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Louis F. Wilson (A37; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA (OCC 5747); Also attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA

TEXT:

As you know, an automobile is a necessity for most Americans. The automobiles on the road today comes equipped with indicator lights installed for safety, yet the number of accidents still seem quite numerous. We feel that our product, Instant Traffic Lights, will most likely make the road safer for all motorists.

How can we make that claim? If our product is installed on all auto- mobiles on the road, it will let the motorist behind know the intentions of the driver ahead. Whether the driver ahead is applying his accelerator or brake pedals or just coasting, th e motorist behind would know the exact intentions of the driver ahead. Benefits of knowing the intentions of the driver ahead are quite numerous. Some of the benefits are: it will probably reduce tail gating, sudden stops, skidding, and rear end collis ions.

Since every second counts on the road, we feel that our product will increase the safety factor for all motorists and perhaps for pedestrians as well. Like we said before, our product will let the motorist behind know the exact intentions of the driver ahead, perhaps a half a second or more sooner than the conventional lighting system on the automobiles on the road today. At 60 MPH, an automobile travels 88 feet per second. That half a second or more, which would be gained by having our product instal led, will give the motorist behind an excess of 44 feet more than the conventional lighting system to stop or to avoid the hazard.

On top of all that, our product would probably save wear and tear in the brakes and tires and most importantly, will save fuel in the long run, if, all motorists have our product installed onto their cars. All these claims that we are making have not be en tested on the road as of yet, but anyone with common sense can see that our claims are quite valid.

Our product would be used mainly for safety purposes only, but it also serves as an economical one as well.

So far, we have sent letters to all fifty states and to the Secretary of Transportation inquiring, "whether our product is legal in their state as of now." Sixteen states have answered our letter, of which, six states said, "yes", six states said, "no", and four states said that they will follow the Federal requirements.

What we would like to know is: 1) Would our product meet the standard of your office? 2) Would our product be "legal" in the United States and her territories? 3) Is it possible to replace (or provide an option to) the existing high-mounted stop light required on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 (Per Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard #108)? Please review the attached copy of our U.S. patent application and make necessary recommendations and/or comments. We would apprec iated if you would take a little bit of your time to reply these questions and send them back to us as soon as possible. Thank You.

ID: nht89-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/89

FROM: MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH

TO: R. VAN IDERSTINE -- NHTSA

TITLE: HIGH MOUNTED STOP LAMP

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/06/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRAU MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Iderstine,

Could you please answer to the following questions:

1. Is it allowed to use 6 wedge-base-bulbs (3cp) on one high mounted stop lamp?

2. SAE J186 Nov. 82 says that the effective projected luminous area shall not be less than 29 cm<2>.

How would you measure the projected luminous area of a lamp with 6 bulbs?

3. Must each bulb reach the required photometric values?

4. What will happen, if one bulb is defect?

Thank you very much in advance and all the best wishes,

ID: nht89-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TERRY HUDYMA -- VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/16/88 FROM TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES TO CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA; REF 49CFR 567, CERTIFICATION; OCC 2857; LETTER DATED 05/06/85 FROM JOFFREY R. MILLER CHIEF COUNSEL TO HAYLEY ALEXANDER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hudyma:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked about certification requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles that will be assembled in Italy and in Michigan. I apologize for the d elay in this response. The vehicles in question will be assembled in Italy to the extent that they will be "complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.), transmission and transfer case in Italy." These assemblies will then be imported into the United States where the vehicles will be completed. You state that both the operations in Italy and in Michigan will be performed pursuant to a contract with LAFORZA, who will have "complete co ntrol over the manufacturing process at all times."

It is your understanding that in the fact situation described above, LAFORZA is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore LAFORZA is responsible for affixing the certification label on the completed motor vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR P art 567. You asked us to confirm this interpretation. We cannot do so. Under our law and regulations, the company that completes the vehicles in Michigan is a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question. The information provided in your letter is inad equate to allow us to determine whether LAFORZA might also be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles.

The first issue to be addressed in our analysis is whether the products in question are "incomplete vehicles" when they arrive in the United States. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR @568.3 as:

. . . an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufact uring operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components,

such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Your letter states that the products that arrive in the United States will not have an engine or transmission, which means they will not have a power train.

Accordingly, @568.3 makes clear that these products would not be "incomplete vehicles" for the purposes of our regulations. In previous interpretations, we have referred to products that do not qualify as "incomplete vehicles" as an "assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment". In those previous letters, we have stated that the assemblage should be labeled as items of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States and that the importer of the assemblage must certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. See the enclosed May 6, 1985 letter to Mr. Hayley Alexander.

This finding also means that the Italian company that produces these "assemblages of items of motor vehicle equipment" is not a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles with respect to the vehicles in question. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor V ehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5); the Safety Act) defines a "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipme nt for resale." In this case, the Italian company producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment has not manufactured or assembled any motor vehicles, nor has it imported any motor vehicles. Hence, it does not fit the statutory definition of a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question.

After these assemblages are imported into the United States, the operations performed by the Michigan company will transform the items of motor vehicle equipment into a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Michigan company would be a "manufacturer" of these ve hicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Since @567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to include the name of the manufacturer, the vehicles could comply if the name of the Michigan company were shown on the certification lab el.

The information in your letter was inadequate to allow us to make even a tentative determination of whether LAFORZA may also be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. The agency discussed the issue of vehicles with more than one "manufacturer" at length in its proposal to establish rules of attribution for determining which of the manufacturers would be responsible for complying with the phase-in requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208). In that proposal, NHT SA said:

Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . ." to be sufficiently broad to

include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic princ iples of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles. 50 FR 14589, at 14596; April 12, 1985.

According to your letter, LAFORZA has a contractual relationship with the company in Intaly that is producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and a contractual relationship with the company in Michigan that is assembling the motor vehi cle. These contractual relationships led you to assert that ". . . LAFORZA Automobiles will have complete control of the manufacturing process at all times." If LAFORZA merely has contractual relationships under which it purchases products for resale fr om the companies in Italy and Michigan, LAFORZA would not be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles. If you can provide us with information about any role LAFORZA has in producing these vehicles besides contracting with other companies to assembl e the vehicles, we will review that information and offer our interpretation of whether LAFORZA could be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BOB BERGMAN -- COMMANDER U.S. ARMY MISSILE COMMAND AMCPM-FM-TM ALABAMA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/07/89 FROM JERRY L. DOOLEY -- US ARMY TO NHTSA; OCC 3833

TEXT: Dear Commander:

This is in reply to a letter of August 7, 1989, from Jerry L. Dooley, Deputy Project Manager, Non-Line of Sight, with respect to "safety standards of the military nature", in particular those that would apply to the M1037 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheel Vehicle (HMMWV), as well as the M993 Bradley Fighting Vehicle System (BFVS).

This agency has jurisdiction over all motor vehicles, defined as vehicles driven or drawn by mechanical power which are manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Our principal role is the issuance of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the monitoring of the notification and remedial campaigns of manufacturers upon the occurrence of noncompliances with the standards, or safety related defects in vehicles. We have never issued safety standards for military vehicles. Quite the oppo site; although we interpret our authority as covering military vehicles, the agency has always specifically exempted from compliance with the standards any motor vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in ac cordance with contractual specifications.

Frequently, military contracts for procurement of vehicles will call for their conformance with the Federal safety standards, when the nature of the vehicle is such (e.g. passenger car, bus) that conformance with the standards is not inconsistent with th e configuration required to accomplish their mission. None of our safety standards for civilian vehicles cover driver field of view, basic visibility requirements, or

ingress/egress. Our glazing standard does specify minimum levels of light transmittance, and our rearview mirror standard covers rear view mirror placement and rearward field of view. I am enclosing copies of these standards for your information.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Enclosures - Standards Nos. 111, 205

ID: nht89-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/08/89

FROM: ELIZABETH M. LUCAS -- MANAGER, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

TO: DELL RANDLE -- SHIKARI CONSULTANT FIRM, LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/1/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 125; LETTER DATED 10/17/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- D.O.T. OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS TO GEORGE MILLER, U.S. HOUSE OF REP RESENTATIVES; LETTER DATED 10/12/89 FROM GEORGE MILLER, U.S. CONGRESSMAN TO NANCY BRUCE -- D.O.T. OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS; LETTER DATED 10/4/89 FROM DELL RANDLE TO CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Randle:

The New Products Committee recently reviewed your Shi-Lite Holder. We are declining your offer to sell this product because it does not meet federal requirements as set by the Department of Transportation.

We wish you luck in your endeavors.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht89-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1989

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: TAYLOR HONG -- PRESIDENT, FAIR SUN INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., TAIPEI, TAIWAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Letter dated August 4, 1988 from Taylor Hong, Fair Sun Industrial Co., Ltd., to U.S. Dept. of Transportation is attached; [OCC-2718].

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter with reference to motor vehicle flashers that you wish to sell in the United States.

You have asked the following questions:

1. "How do we get DOT approval?"

2. "Should ask for an application forms from you and sent one lot of samples for your test?"

The Department has no authority to "approve' flashers, and no laboratory of its own in which it tests them. Under our law, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer of the flashers, not the Department, determines in the first i nstance whether or not they comply with the SAE materials incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. If the manufacturer is convinced that they comply, it certifies that the flashers meet Standard No. 108, either with a statement o n the container in which the flashers are shipped, a tag attached to each flasher, or a DOT symbol on the flasher itself. From time to time, the Department buys flashers for testing. In this manner, the Department has discovered that a number of those manufactured in Taiwan have not met Federal requirements, and lacked the required certification. In some instances, civil penalties have been imposed against the manufacturer or importer of the flashers.

3. "We may send samples to any other Laboratory and get an approval?"

To aid you in reaching a conclusion whether the flashers are designed to conform with Standard No. 108, you may send samples to any test laboratory you wish. Although the standard deems a flasher compliant if not less than 17 of 20 flashers tested meet the requirements, we caution you that you should not accept such a result as a guarantor of compliance. Because of the tolerances involved in production of flashers, we believe that a manufacturer wishing to ensure that at least 17 of 20 flashers will p ass whenever the government tests them should not be satisfied until 20 of 20 flashers submitted for test meet both the performance and durability requirements of Standard No. 108. Further, even obtaining this result on a single occasion is not a guarant ee that flashers will continue to meet Standard No. 108 over time. Accordingly, we urge flasher manufacturers to test their products periodically as an assurance that the flashers remain in compliance.

Although you have no obligation to obtain "approval" from the Department,

there are two requirements that manufacturers of flashers must meet before offering their products for sale in the U.S. You must designate an agent for service of process (49 CFR 551.45) and file an identifica- tion statement (49 CFR Part 566). I enclo se a copy of these regulations for your information.

If you have any further questions we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht89-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/89

FROM: S. WATANABE -- MANAGER AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY AND MOODY ENTERPRISES; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY AND MOODY ENTERPRISES TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; OCC 3 905

TEXT: Dear Sir,

We are now developing a Head Lamp equipped with VHAD, whose structure is shown in the attached drawing. Please give us the advice to the following questions about this Head Lamp.

1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2.(a).(1).(V)?

2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2.(a).(1).(V)?

Any information that might be of our interest when designing the Head Lamp with VHAD, as well as the answers to the above questions, would be highly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

ID: nht89-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1989

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JIM BOWEN -- VICE PRESIDENT OF QUALITY, SERVICE AND PARTS, GULF STREAM COACH, INC.

TITLE: N

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED APRIL 20, 1989 TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL FROM JIM BOWEN, GULF STREAM COACH, INC. ATTACHED.

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the installation of a television receiver in view of the driver of a vehicle. You asked whether the television is required to be off, when the ignition switch is turned on. I regret the delay in responding. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

I have enclosed a copy of a June 4, 1987 letter, addressed to Panasonic, which discusses a number of issues relating to the installation of television receivers in motor vehicles. The letter notes that NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifical ly covering television receivers. The letter also explains that is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

With respect to your specific question concerning whether a television receiver installed in view of the driver of a vehicle is required to be off when the ignition is turned on, I would like to draw your attention to one requirement of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Section S5.3.5 of that standard reads as follows:

Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (110.6 mm) rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to pr ovide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are n ormally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

The purpose of this requirement is to prevent glare visible to the

driver. If a television receiver installed in view of the driver is capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion, it would be subject to this requirement.

While NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers, the installation of a television receiver in view of the driver which is capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion would raise obvious safety concerns re lated to possible driver distraction. If you are considering such installation, we recommend that you carefully evaluate the safety implications of such action.

Finally, I note that state laws may cover the installation of television receivers in motor vehicles. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to provide information on that issue. Its address is: 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Sui te 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD

ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SADATO KADOYA --

MAZDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8/24/89, FROM SADATO KADOYA OF MAZDA TO STEPHEN WOOD OF NHTSA RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 108: LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1989, with respect to an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, as it applies to the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

The paragraph requires that no portion of the lens shall be lower than 3 inches below the rear window, if the lamp is mounted below the rear window. Your letter depicts two areas in which a lamp lens may be mounted, denoted "(A)" and "(B)". In both, th e lower edge of the rear window is curved. In "(A)", the boundary of the allowable area is curved, and follows the curve of the lower edge of the rear window at a parallel distance of 3 inches. In "(B)", the boundary of the allowable area is a straight line which measures 3 inches from the end of the lower edge of the rear window, but which is greater than 3 inches at all other points because of the curve of the window.

The initial requirement of paragraph S5.3.1.8 is that the highmounted lamp be "mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the rear." This means that the 3-inch distance is measured from the lower edg e of the rear window that is at the vertical centerline. Thus, your "(A)" is the correct location because the boundary line is 3 inches directly below the center point of the vertical centerline, and your "(B)" is not acceptable because its boundary line is more than 3 inches below that point.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989

FROM: J. DOUGLAS SMITH -- ENGINEERING MGR., DURALITE TRUCK BODY AND CONTAINER CORP. TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-25-90 TO J. DOUGLAS SMITH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108)

TEXT:

As an O.E.M. manufacturer of truck bodies, Duralite is responsible for final certification on literally thousands of new straight trucks. Recently however there has been some question regarding the interpre- tation of FMVSS 108 (lamps, reflective devices , and associated equipment). It is our understanding as well as industry standard that if a chassis cab is equipped with clearance and marker lamps, it is not necessary to add a second set of two lamps to act as clearance lamps to the front wall of the truck body. During the last week, a customer of ours received a warning for not having clearance lights in the proper location. Corporal Talbot of the Maryland State Police said that it was their interpretation that the cab mounted lights were sufficie nt and that a new officer had interpreted the meaning differently.

A change in the interpretation of this standard would effect many thousands of vehicles already on the road. Of all the major truck body manufacturers there is only one of which I am aware that has body mounted clearance lamps visible to the front. To revise the standard at this point would cost fleets a great deal of time and money.

As it is our responsibility to build and certify new units, your immediate attention and response to this situation would be greatly appreciated. If you have any question please feel free to contact me at (301) 727-6962.