ID: nht91-2.16

DATE: March 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TO: Sidney A. Garrett -- President, Brown Cargo Van, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-25-90 from Stephen P. Wood to J. Douglas Smith (Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 2-15-91 from Sidney A. Garret to U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC 5732)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 15, 1991, asking the agency for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to the location of front clearance and identification lamps on truck van bodies.

Specifically, where the chassis-cab is equipped with clearance and identification lamps, you have asked whether this relieves you, as the manufacturer of the van body, from installing additional clearance and identification lamps on the van body. If the answer is no, you have asked whether the van body may be equipped with clearance lamps only, or must it be equipped with both clearance and identification lamps.

We answered a similar request on April 25, 1990, and I enclose a copy of our response for your guidance. With respect to your particular design, the clearance lamps mounted on the cab would not be as near the top of the completed motor vehicle as practicable, and therefore must be located on the van body. However, identification lamps may be mounted on the cab, and your lamps located as shown in your Exhibit 2 would meet Standard No. 108. Identification lamps may also be mounted on the van body, and Exhibit 3 would also meet the location requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht91-2.17

DATE: March 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry Rowe -- President, Show Trucks U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-11-90 from Terry Rowe to Office of the Chief Council (OCC 4889)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether your company would be considered a vehicle "alterer," within the meaning of 49 CFR Part 567 certification, and Part 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. I apologize for the delay in this response. Based on the statements in your letter that your company modifies only new vehicles before delivery to customers and that the modifications performed by your company do not affect the vehicles' gross axle or gross vehicle weight ratings, your company would be considered an "alterer, and would be subject to additional certification requirements, if the modifications involve something more than the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable" components. A more complete explanation of your responsibilities under NHTSA's laws and regulations follows.

S567.7 imposes additional certification requirements on "a person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with S567.4 or S567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ..." You stated in your letter that your company can provide features such as a 3-piece seating system, removable headrest, custom walnut steering wheel, and tinted windows. Your company is an "alterer" subject to the requirements of S567.7 to the extent that your modifications do not involve "readily attachable" components.

A determination of whether modifications involve readily attachable, components depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching these components. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable" components, the agency in the past has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. Absent extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats, headrests, and steering wheels to involve readily attachable" components. To the extent your company is involved in such modifications, then, it would have to affix an additional certification label pursuant to S567.7. Further, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and remedy for defects or noncompliances with the safety standards, and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

You should also note that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act sets forth certain prohibitions and requirements that would apply to these vehicle modifications, even if the modifications involved only "readily attachable" components. For example, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale, offer for sale,

introduction into interstate commerce or importation of any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This provision of Federal law means that all of the vehicles modified by your company must continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after the modifications have been made. In addition, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. Again I apologize for the delay in this response. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of may staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Information sheet from NHTSA dated September, 1985 titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-2.18

DATE: March 7, 1991

FROM: Liam J. Moran -- Hagans, Brown, Gibbs & Moran

TO: Steven Kratzke -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Brey v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc.; Our File No. : 3571

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-19-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Liam J. Moran (A37; Std. 213)

TEXT:

This letter will serve to confirm our telephone conversation today and constitute a request for a formal interpretation of Paragraph S5.6.3 of FMVSS 213. My inquiry to the Chief Counsel's Office is whether the manufacturer of a child restraint system is deemed in compliance with Paragraph S5.6.3 which requires that instructions affixed to the child restraint system "shall explain the primary consequences of noting (sec) following the warnings required to be labeled on the child restraint system" if the manufacturer affixes the statement appearing in Paragraph S5.5.2(g) which states as follows:

WARNING! Failure to follow each of the following instructions can result in your child striking the vehicle's interior during a sudden stop or crash. Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt as specified in the manufacturer's instructions located --.

As I explained to you in our telephone conversation, this firm represents Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc. in a products liability action. The plaintiff alleges that even though Evenflo's child restraint system had the warning stipulated in Paragraph S5.5.2(g) of FMVSS 213 affixed to it, Evenflo violated Paragraph S5.6.3 of the regulation by failing to include additional language explaining the "primary consequences of not following the warnings."

I request that the issuance of the Chief Counsel's interpretation be undertaken on an expedited basis given the time constraints of the pending litigation.

Should you have any questions concerning our inquiry, please do not hesitate to call.

ID: nht91-2.19

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. Kling -- Hamadbik, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-12-90 from A. Kling to U.S. Dept of Transport, NHTSA (OCC 5696)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about the color coding requirements in section S5.1.14 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids. (49 CFR 571.116). After noting that DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid must be colorless to amber, you asked what is the color coding range for amber. As explained below, the agency has decided not to specify a numerical or chromatic "range" for the color coding requirements. Instead, the appropriate method for determining compliance to the color coding requirements is through visual inspection.

The purpose of the color coding requirements is to permit easy identification of fluids before they are placed in a vehicle, in order to prevent the mixing of an incompatible fluid in a braking system. At one time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had proposed color requirements defined in terms of millimicrons. (38 FR 32142, November 21, 1973). However, when the agency later determined that visual inspection for color compliance was adequate, the proposed wavelength bands were deleted. (39 FR 30353, August 22, 1974)

In a subsequent notice, the agency explained that

The specifications for fluid colors are intended to refer to color ranges as generally interpreted in daylight by persons of normal color vision. No color coordinates are proposed, since the fluids may change color in storage or in use (without detriment to the performance of the fluids). (40 FR 56928, December 5, 1975)

Thus, the generally interpreted meaning for "amber" (which is defined as "yellowish-brown" by the Random House Dictionary of the English Language) should be used to determine if a brake fluid complies with the color coding requirements for DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid.

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

ID: nht91-2.2

DATE: February 26, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William J. Bethurum -- Patent Attorney

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from William J. Bethurum to Legal Counsel, U.S. National Highway Safety Commission

TEXT:

Your letter of December 14, 1990, to the "U.S. National Highway Safety Commission" for reply. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is the Federal agency responsible for establishing and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your client, Mr. E.D. Farnsworth, has asked about "when and how side lights adjacent to the main head lights came to be first used with head lights on automobiles." You have, in turn, asked to be apprised of the regulations which govern new headlamp designs for automobiles and other motor vehicles.

The Federal regulations that apply to motor vehicle headlamps are found in 49 C.F.R. 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The current version of the CFR volume (Parts 400 to 999) containing that standard is updated to October 1, 1990.

We are uncertain as to what you mean by "side lights adjacent to the main head lights". Standard No. 108 requires amber or white parking lamps on the front of passenger cars and other types of motor vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, amber turn signal lamps, and amber front side marker lamps. Other types of lamps that are sometimes found on the front, and on the side at the front, are fog lamps and cornering lamps. They are not required by Standard No. 108, and are permissible as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard.

Standard No. 108, which has been in effect for passenger cars since January 1, 1969 (the mandatory requirement for a side marker lamp replaced the earlier provision giving manufacturers a choice of lamp or reflector effective January 1, 1970), has always prescribed lamp location in general terms. Thus, parking lamps and headlamps are to be installed "at the front" and "as far apart as practicable" (Table IV of Standard No. 108). Similarly, turn signals are to be located "at or near the front and "as far apart as practicable." Amber side marker lamps are to be on the side but placed "as far to the front as practicable." Because Standard No. 108 does not otherwise specify lamp location, we surmise that the head lamp and adjacent side lamp relationship to which you refer resulted from the choice of the vehicle manufacturer within the overall general parameters of the Federal specifications. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht91-2.20

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TO: Billy S. Peterson -- President, Automotive Safety Testing, Inc. at TRC of Ohio

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-7-91 from Billy S. Peterson to Office of Chief Council (OCC 5709)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1991, to the Office of Chief Counsel asking for a clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

One of your clients wishes to mount "two-part" stop/tail lamps "so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid." Each part of the two-part lamp is a combination tail/stop lamp. You have asked whether the minimum photometric requirements must be met by "the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted on the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements."

Your "two-part lamp" would be treated as two separate lamps. For purposes of compliance, only one of these two adjacent lamps must be designed to conform to Standard No. 108, and this conformance must be independent of any "contribution" by the adjacent lamp. Although Standard No. 108 permits either the deck or the body mounted lamp to be the complying lamp, it would be our preference that the body mounted lamp be the one that complies, so that the benefit of a conforming stop/tail lamp would be realized during those occasions when the lid may be raised.

ID: nht91-2.21

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: 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; Also attached to letter dated 9-1-89 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to the acceptability under Federal law of your product, the "Instant Traffic Light. I regret that we do not appear to have a record of your earlier letters to the agency on this subject.

The "Instant Traffic Light" is a four-section unit intended to perform three functions, each indicated by a different color. A green light appears when the accelerator is applied, an amber light when the accelerator is released, and a red light when the brakes are-applied. The lamp's shipping carton shows the unit mounted on the rear parcel shelf behind the rear window. The text on the carton says that the lamp is easy to assemble. You have asked whether the product meets Standard No. 108, whether it would be "legal" in the U.S. "and her territories", and whether the product could replace, or be an option to, the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the center high-mounted stop lamp. Finally, of the 16 states that have responded to your inquiry, an equal number (six) have indicated that the lamp is and is not acceptable to them, while the remaining four "said they will follow the Federal requirement."

Standard No. 108 does not permit the center high-mounted stop lamp to be combined with any other lamp. This means that your product could not be used as original equipment on a passenger car, whether as standard equipment or as an option, or marketed and sold as replacement equipment for a center lamp on a passenger car that was originally equipped with it. However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to the "Instant Traffic Light" if it is marketed or sold exclusively for use on passenger cars that were not originally required to be manufactured with the center stop lamp, i.e., those cars that were manufactured before September 1, 1985. Under this circumstance, the question of the legality of use of the device is to be determined by the laws of the individual States. The "territories" are "States" for purposes of this discussion. Since there is no legal prohibition under Federal law for installation of your lamp only on older passenger cars, we presume that the four States that reserved their decision would permit it on pre - 1985 vehicles registered and/or operating within their borders.

We are aware that, nevertheless, there may be some owner interest in replacing original equipment center stop lamps with your product. We would like to advise that such replacement would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. There is no such restriction upon a vehicle owner who performs the

replacement of the lamp himself.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

ID: nht91-2.22

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ron Marion -- Sales Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from Frank Berndt (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Martin V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 5-12-81 from Frank Berndt to Doris Perlmutter; Also attached to letter dated 6-11-90 from Ron Marion to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 4915); Also attached to letter dated 11-11-77 from James Tydings to Roger Tilton; Also attached to letter dated 12-21-77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to James Tydings

TEXT:

This responds to your letter noting that Headstart facilities have been deemed by this agency to be schools for purposes of determining the applicability of this agency's standards for school buses asking whether "privately owned and operated preprimary school type facilities" for children are also considered to be schools. I apologize for the delay in this response. The applicability of these standards is not dependent on whether the ownership of a facility is public or private, but on whether the function of the facility is educational or custodial.

The definition of "schoolbus" set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically includes buses likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from preprimary schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a number of interpretations concerning whether specific types of facilities are preprimary schools, within the meaning of this definition. These include the December 21, 1977, letter to James Tydings of Thomas Built, a copy of which was attached to your letter, as well as a May 12, 1981, letter to Doris Perlmutter and a May 10, 1982, letter to Martin Chauvin (copies of the latter two are enclosed). The Perlmutter letter explains that nursery schools are considered preprimary schools, while the Chauvin letter draws a distinction between day care centers and preprimary schools. This distinction is based upon the function of the facility. Facilities that are primarily educational in nature are considered schools, while those that are primarily custodial in nature are not considered schools. Hence, day care facilities, being custodial in nature, are not schools, while nursery schools and Head Start programs, which are educational in nature, are considered schools.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-2.23

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: John E. Calow -- Sr. Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Chassis Division, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Chassis Division

TO: Dorothy Nacoma -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Supplying additional VIN tag to Final Stage Manufacturer

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-20-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John E. Calow (A37; Std. 115; Part 568)

TEXT:

Oshkosh Chassis Division "OCD" provides chassis to final stage manufacturers.

The final stage manufacturers are requesting OCD to supply a duplicate VIN tag with each vehicle. The additional VIN tag would be supplied in the "chassis document packet." The additional VIN tag would be affixed by the final stage manufacturer, so that it is readable through the vehicle glazing.

There is a possibility of the final stage manufacturer misrepresenting the vehicle by placing the incorrect VIN tag under the vehicle glazing. OCD would have no control of the final stage manufacturer correctly identifying the vehicle.

I would appreciate an answer in writing to the following questions:

-Is it legal for an Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer to supply the Final Stage Manufacturer with an additional "loose VIN tag"? -What are the legal responsibilities of the Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer if the incorrect VIN tag is affixed to the vehicle by the Final Stage Manufacturer?

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

ID: nht91-2.24

DATE: March 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Anne Lombardi -- Acting Director, Office of Passenger Enforcement and Facilitation, Department of the Treasury

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-14-91 from Anne Lombardi to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5710)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1991, asking for an opinion on kit cars.

Specifically, military and DOD civilian employees stationed on the Philippines

"frequently purchase automobiles which are composites of old chassis and engines, of U.S. manufacture, and new bodies and interiors, fabricated and attached to the chassis by local Filipino car shops.

Normally, the chassis and engines were not taken abroad by the importers, but were purchased in the Philippines from other sources.

In most cases the chassis are said to have been manufactured prior to January 1, 1969."

You have asked which DOT regulations apply to these automobiles, those applicable to the year the chassis was manufactured, or those applicable to the year the body was attached.

This is a question of first impression with us. Under the opinions of this Office relating to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if a person meeting the definition of a "manufacturer", "distributor", "dealer", or motor vehicle repair business" removes a body from the chassis of a motor vehicle and installs a new one, the resulting vehicle must continue to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that were in effect at the time that the vehicle was originally manufactured. If a person other than the above installs the new body, the vehicle is simply a used vehicle to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable (but which must meet State standards for vehicle registration). However, these interpretations apply only to modifications that occur within a "State" as defined by the Act. The Philippines is not included in the definition of "State."

Where such modifications have occurred outside a "State", and the modified vehicle is offered for importation into the United States, the vehicle is treated under the importation regulations (49 CFR Part 591) as a used vehicle which must be brought into conformity with Federal safety and bumper standards in effect at the time of its manufacture. We regard the date of manufacture of the original vehicle (i.e., chassis) as the appropriate date, because it may not be feasible to conform the assemblage to vehicle standards in effect at the later date on which the body was manufactured. If the original vehicle were manufactured before January 1, 1968 (the effective date of the original safety standards), then no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to the vehicle.

I must add an important caveat here. There are two types of Federal motor vehicle safety standards: those that apply to the vehicles as a whole (such as the so-called crash standards), and those that apply to individual equipment items. The equipment standards apply regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle. Thus, the tires, brake fluid, brake hoses, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and lamps and reflectors on any modified vehicle imported into the United States must meet the standards in effect at the time the items were manufactured, regardless of whether the modified vehicle must meet the Federal safety standards applicable to vehicles.

I must also add two other caveats. The Imported Vehicle Safety Act of 1988, which has been implemented by 49 CFR Parts 591-594, forbids the importation of a vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (e.g., this would apply to an assemblage of a new body placed upon a chassis manufactured on or after January 1, 1968) unless this agency has determined that the vehicle is capable of modification to comply with all applicable safety standards. This determination is made pursuant to a petition submitted by a "Registered Importer," who will undertake to conform the vehicle if a favorable determination is made. The second caveat is that the owner can import the vehicle only if (s)he has a contract with a Registered Importer to perform conformance work.

However, there is a limited exception to the two caveats of the preceding paragraph. They do not apply to any vehicle that will be imported into the United States on or before October 31, 1992, if its importer owned the vehicle (or had a contract to acquire it) before October 31, 1988, was employed outside the United States at all times between those two dates, and had never before imported a nonconforming motor vehicle. Under this exception, the owner may import the vehicle without the necessity of a determination or the intervention of a Registered Importer. (S)he must then bring the vehicle into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards, and present evidence of conformance to this agency. Under any circumstances of importation of a noncomplying vehicle to be conformed, its owner must acquire a performance bond to ensure that the work is, in fact, completed.

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