ID: 2652o

Ms. Joanne Salvio
Fire Research Corporation
26 Southern Blvd.
Nesconset, NY 11767

Dear Ms. Salvio:

This responds to your November 10, 1987, letter asking whether the "Guardian Gate" your company manufactures for firefighting vehicles is subject to Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. The answer to your question is yes, if the Gate is installed on new vehicles and if the area into which the door leads contains one or more seating positions.

The advertising material you enclosed states that the Guardian Gate "is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus [sic]." The advertisement said that the unique feature of the Guardian Gate is its locking mechanism which enables the gate to be locked "on both its sides to the vehicle; the cab side, as well as the pump panel side." The advertisement said this "dual locking" feature is intended to minimize the likelihood that the gate will be opened either unintentionally or because of "hazardous conditions" (an explanation of which the advertisement did not include).

Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 206 states: "Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. ..." (S4 exempts certain types of doors from Standard No. 206, but these are doors that are readily removable or that are not provided for retaining occupants. Since the Guardian Gate falls into neither of these two categories, the exemptions are not relevant to your inquiry.)

From the information you provided in your letter and in telephone calls between you and Ms. Hom of my staff, we understand that the standing area on the firefighting vehicle enclosed by the Guardian Gate contains a jump seat. Because "seating accommodations" referred to in S4 include jump seats, a Guardian Gate that is installed to enclose a jump seat area on a new firefighting vehicle must comply with Standard No. 206. This determination is consistent with an August 13, 1980 letter from NHTSA to Mr. L. Steenbock of the FWD Corporation (copy enclosed), in which this agency stated that a door leading to a standing area that contains no seating position would not have to comply with Standard No. 206. Because Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks (e.g., firefighting vehicles), and not to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types, you may sell the Guardian Gate to vehicle owners without regard as to whether the Gate complies with the performance requirements of the standard. However, we urge you to consider meeting those requirements voluntarily, to ensure that the Gate will perform to specified levels for the safety of firefighters riding in the "jump seat area" of the vehicle. You should also be aware that you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to ensure that your product contains no defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:206 d:2/11/88

ID: 2702y

Mr. William D. Rogers
President
SportsCar America, Inc.
400 South Elliott Road
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

Dear Mr. Rogers:

We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCar America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below.

SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an "Exclusive Distribution Agreement" ("the Agreement") with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a prototype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards.

The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the "Manufacturer." Under Section l of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with "those modifications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation" of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CFR Part 567, the Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles.

Although you identify SportsCar America as the "distribution agent", we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale in the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition.

Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it would like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar figure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is available to the agency in its determination.

If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:555 d:l0/9/90

ID: 2708y

Mr. William D. Rogers
President
SportsCar America, Inc.
400 South Elliott Road
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

Dear Mr. Rogers:

We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCar America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below.

SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an "Exclusive Distribution Agreement" ("the Agreement") with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a prototype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards.

The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the "Manufacturer." Under Section l of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with "those modifications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation" of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CFR Part 567, the Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles.

Although you identify SportsCar America as the "distribution agent", we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale in the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition.

Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it would like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar figure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is available to the agency in its determination.

If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:555 d:l0/9/90

ID: GF001071

Mr. David Regan
Trecan Combustion Limited
4049 St Margarets Bay Road
Hubley, Nova Scotia B3Z1C2
Canada

Dear Mr. Regan:

This responds to your February 10, 2004, letter and phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether snow melting machines manufactured by your company would be classified as "motor vehicles." You manufacture three different machines with the primary function of melting large quantities of snow. In order to move from location to location, these machines are equipped with wheels and function much like a trailer. As explained below, based on the information you provided us, we would not consider these machines to be motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations.

Title 49 U.S.C Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

In the present case, your letter states that your snow melting machines are designed primarily for use by airports and other large facilities, such as parking garages. While these machines are capable of highways travel, you state that in all likelihood such travel will be limited to reaching permanent or semi-permanent job sites (i.e specific locations where large snow piles are continuously accumulated). Based on this information, it appears that these machines are akin to airport runway vehicles or items of mobile construction equipment that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the snow melting machines described in your letter are not "motor vehicles." Because these machines are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to our regulations and requirements, including the requirement to meet all applicable FMVSSs.

We note that our finding is limited specifically to the equipment described in your letter, and is largely based on your representation of its intended use. In your correspondence, you state that some snow melting machines may be sold to large cities, but you do not elaborate further. We presume that snow melting machines purchased by large cities would also remain mostly at some single location designated for snow melting activities. However, we wish to caution that our finding does not apply to snow melting equipment that is intended to be used extensively on public roads on a recurring basis.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.3/12/04

ID: GF006103

Larry C. Dickinson, Ph.D.
Manager, Engineering & Technology
Martin Marietta Composites
PO Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622

Dear Mr. Dickinson:

This responds to your phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff and subsequent e-mail asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (FMVSS No. 223), S5.2.2 allows for "elastic deformation" as opposed to plastic deformation. Specifically, you ask whether the requirement that the energy absorption be accomplished by plastic deformation would preclude a material that returns to its original shape (i.e., elastic material).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

FMVSS No. 223 requires that underride guards fitted to new trailers and semitrailers provide a certain amount of energy absorption to lessen the crash forces on a passenger vehicle colliding from the rear. In creating FMVSS No. 223, the agency sought to balance concerns associated with rear impact guards being overly rigid and non-yielding in rear impact crashes against those associated with the guards being insufficiently rigid to prevent intrusion of a trailer into a vehicle occupant compartment. Accordingly, the standard requires that a certain minimum amount of force be absorbed through "permanent yielding" or plastic deformation of the guard. [1] S5.2.2 of the standard states:

" [a] guard  . . .shall absorb by plastic deformation within the first 125 mm of deflection at least 5,650 J of energy at each test location P3."
(emphasis added).

The standards energy absorption requirement cannot be met by elastic deformation for two reasons. First, the language of the standard calls for plastic deformation. Second, the prescribed method of measuring the required energy absorption greatly restricts any elastic qualities of the rear impact guard. Specifically, any energy that the guard returns to the force application device when the load is removed (i.e., the elastic component of the deformation) is subtracted from the total energy absorption for purposes of meeting the requirement.

The requirement that guards absorb energy by plastic deformation was to ensure that the guard did not subsequently return the absorbed energy to the colliding vehicle, because that energy return could increase the chance of death or injury to the occupants. Any immediate rebound occurring after the crash event could pose a threat to passenger vehicle occupants.

In an August 4, 1998, letter to Mr. Toms of Power Brace (copy enclosed), NHTSA stated that the plastic deformation requirement of S5.2.2 does not preclude use of certain elastic materials that return to their original shape very slowly (approximately 24 hours). Based on your conversation with Mr. Feygin, it is our understanding that your question concerned materials that returned to their original shape immediately after impact.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:223
d.10/21/03





---

[1] See Preamble to the Final Rule, January 24, 1996 (61 FR 2004 at 2011).

ID: GF006498

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This responds to your facsimile dated August 29, 2003, seeking further clarification of our interpretation letter sent to you on August 7, 2003. In response to our August 7^th letter, you have reprogrammed the flash rate in your hazard warning signal flasher. You now ask whether the newly reprogrammed flash rate complies with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Standard No. 108).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

As previously discussed, SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966 (SAE 945), is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, as the Federal Requirement for Flashers. Paragraph 3 of J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash Rate and Percent Current On Time." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. This paragraph also specifies that:

"flashing rate . . . shall be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles." (emphasis added)

Your newly reprogrammed flash pattern operates as follows (in milliseconds):

ON	OFF	ON	OFF	ON	OFF
200	250	200	250	200	850

Our calculations indicate that the above flash pattern, taking into account the averaging procedure set forth in J945, is within the specified flash rate.

In considering this issue further, however, we believe this type of flash pattern is very different from what NHTSA contemplated in incorporating J945 by reference in Standard No. 108. As you know, existing flashers operate at an essentially constant rate. Moreover, while Figure 1 of J945 permits considerable flexibility in flash rate, our calculations indicate that the flash rate and percent current on time for each and every cycle of your flash pattern fall outside the figure.

As we have stated before, we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. The information currently provided by signal lamps, such as flashers, is well understood by the driving public, instantly recognized, and unambiguously informative. We are concerned that very different flash patterns have the potential to cause confusion. Therefore, we plan in the near future to modify Standard No. 108 in a way that would preclude your design.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/2/04

ID: 3268yy

Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef, Esq.
General Motors Corporation
Legal Staff
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Ms. Nowak-Vanderhoef:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). Specifically, you asked if General Motors Corporation (GM) could include the term "dynamically-tested" in the label required by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that GM may do so.

Prior to September 1, 1992, S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires a dynamically tested manual belt to be labeled with the following statement: "This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., front right) in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)). However, a November 4, 1991 final rule, published at 56 FR 56323, amended S4.6(b) by deleting the term "dynamically-tested" from the required label, effective September 1, 1992. GM would like to continue to include the term "dynamically-tested" on its labels.

NHTSA has often addressed the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on the product in the context of our safety standards that apply to tires. NHTSA has consistently stated that additional information may be included on tires, provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose." See, e.g., our May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. This is the same test we would apply in any of our safety standards for additional information that is provided along with required labeling information.

Applying this test to the situation at hand, the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209 is to minimize the likelihood of improper installations of dynamically-tested manual belts, by specifying the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed. GM's proposed labels would provide the information about the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed on the label of these belts. The only difference between GM's proposed labels and the exact language specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 would be that GM's proposed labels would describe the belts as "dynamically-tested seat belt assemblies," instead of "seat belt assemblies." We do not see how this additional description of the belts, which is accurate and consistent with the agency's use of the term "dynamically-tested," would obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose. Therefore, GM's proposed labeling would be permitted under the provisions of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 that take effect September 1, 1992.

Enclosed with your letter was a petition for reconsideration that you asked be considered if the agency determined that the current language of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 prohibited the additional information to be provided on the GM labels. Since NHTSA has concluded that Standard No. 209 permits the additional information, we are disregarding that petition for reconsideration and will take no action on it.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:209 d:12/20/91

ID: 7434

Mr. Eugene Welker
774 Harbor Island
Clearwater, FL 34630

Dear Mr. Welker:

This responds to your letter about a mirror system designed to improve a driver's view of areas behind a motor vehicle. You explained that a 35" vertical post would be bolted near a vehicle's rear bumper. This would result in a mirror being located a few inches above the top rear window stop light and facing forward at a 45 angle. You asked whether such a device would be legal. The following discussion and the enclosed information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," explain your responsibility under NHTSA's regulation.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve, endorse, or certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111, copy enclosed). Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that the vehicle manufacturer must certify that each vehicle it manufactures complies with the specified requirements. Standard No. 111 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror and a driver's side outside rearview mirror that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. A passenger's side outside rearview mirror is required in situations where the inside rearview mirror does not provide the specified field-of-view. Additional requirements for other vehicle types are set forth in S6, S7, and S8.

No provision in the Standard specifies requirements for a mirror that attaches to the vehicle's rear bumper. Accordingly, a mirror like yours would not be prohibited from being installed on any vehicle by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. Accordingly such a mirror would be permitted, but only as a supplement to the required mirrors.

In installing the mirror, one must take care to avoid obscuring the vehicle's lighting devices, including the center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL).

Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate vehicles while they are in use. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Blvd, Arlington, VA 22203 may be able to advise you about the laws of the individual States related to the use of equipment such as your own.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:111 d:8/7/92

ID: 7439

Ms. Mary C. Andrews
2510 Glengyle Drive
Vienna, VA 22181

Dear Ms. Andrews:

This responds to your letter asking whether a plastic cone design you are developing would comply with the Department of Transportation's requirements applicable to warning devices. You explained that your device is a 24 inch high inflatable cone with reflector strips on the sides. The cone would be weighted down with sand in an enclosed bottom. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed).

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

Standard No. 125 applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. See section S3. Your planned product appears to be such a device and would therefore need to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. As the enclosed copy of the standard indicates, your device would have to comply with specific requirements including those for minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements.

Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 125 U:\NCC20\INTERP\125\7439.mls cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 (MLS), NRM-01, NEF-01 Interp.: Std. 125, Redbook (2)

ID: 77-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1976, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment applies to fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

No requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to fog lamps and they are subject to regulation by the individual states. Pursuant to S4.1.3, however, they may be prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

You also asked that, absent inclusion of these lamps in Standard No. 108, your letter be treated as a petition "for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to include such lighting requirements . . . for optional use on passenger cars." Your submission does not meet the requirements of our procedural regulations, a copy of which I enclose. Specifically, pursuant to 49 CFR 552.4(c) you should "set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an order is necessary." Among these facts should be reasons why you are petitioning for "optional" rather than mandatory use on passenger cars, and why other vehicles are not included in your petition (if, in fact true).

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

December 21, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108

FMVSS 108 specifies performance requirements for certain lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment for use on passenger cars. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby requests interpretation as to whether or not this standard applies to the performance and installation of fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

This request for interpretation specifically concerns those fog lamps currently used in Europe and subject to EEC regulations, a copy of which is enclosed for your review.

These requirements include a minimum candela output of 150 cd to a maximum of 300 cd measured at any test point within +/- 10 degrees right and left of the lamp axis and +/- 5 degrees up and down on the vertical axis.

The effective projected luminous area for these types of lamps is 140 sq. cm (21.7 sq. in.) maximum. These lamps are wired so as to be switched on with the headlamps and front fog lamps. The color emitted from the lamp when lighted is red within the appropriate SAE-CIE coordinates. The lamp is installed on/or at the rear of the vehicle, left of the centerline, no closer than 100 mm from the stop lamp.

Should this type of lighting device be subject to the current requirement of FMVSS 108, an interpretation is requested as to which aspect of performance this lamp should be designed.

Should this type of lighting device not be subject to the above standard, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby petitions for rulemaking to amend Standard 108 to include such lighting requirements as previously described for optional use on passenger cars.

Samples of these types of lighting devices can be made available for review and testing. Should additional data be necessary to further evaluate this type of lighting system as currently regulated by EEC, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

HEINZ W. GERTH