ID: nht92-9.46

DATE: January 21, 1992

FROM: William H. Spain -- Touch Wood

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to William H. Spain (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We have developed a lighting device for heavy duty trucks which may or may not fall under the purview of NHTSA statues.

We have very briefly discussed this with your Mr. Britell and Mr. Cavey, who suggested that we submit the information to you.

I am attaching a description of the device and as a separate item the way we feel the statues may or may not apply to it. Please be patient and understanding as I am not a lawyer.

I want to be clear in that we are not seeking an endorsement or even an opinion as such. We do not want to put you in the position of having to make a ruling. All we ask is your initial first impression as to whether or not we might have a problem. We have spent quite a bit of time and money on this device and are to the point of manufacture. If we have a problem then we need to stop now and back away from it. We do not intend to get into an argument over it, we will let it die first. We do however think it is a needed device that is totally in harmony with the stated purpose of 571.108 and that the device will save lives.

Realizing how very busy you must be as well as needing an indication at your earliest convenience, I have tried to keep the attached as brief as possible.

Your assistance is very much appreciated and we will be looking forward to hearing from you.

AUXILIARY LIGHTING DEVICE

As you are aware on trucks both the left and right turn signal circuits are separate from the tail lamp circuit. This device uses both the left and right turn signal circuit to act as either emergency/auxiliary tail lamps or as fog lamps. When in use neither of these new functions will interfere with normal operation of the turn signals. Each function shall be described separately.

These two new functions are controlled by a normal toggle switch mounted on the vehicle dash. In the toggle switches normal position, it is off.

It is not an uncommon occurrence for a tractor/trailer to lose its tail lamps due to a circuit or wiring malfunction. A obvious contributing factor is the constant switching of trailers between trucks. When this occurs the driver's only choice on the road is to switch on his hazard flashers which is not their intended purpose and is disconcerting to other motorists. It also defeats his normal turn signal circuits.

If our toggle switch is flipped upward to a position marked (on a nameplate) "EMERG T/LMPS", then two things happen. Firstly the center of the toggle switches lever, or paddle is illuminated and glows red. This is to remind the driver that he has something on that is not normal and to remind him to turn it off when it is no longer needed. Secondly a reduced voltage is fed through both right and left rear turn signal circuits to cause both turn signal lamps to illuminate at a reduced brilliance equal to that of a normal tail lamp. If either turn signal is activated then the full voltage is fed to that particular (left or right) lamp and the lamp flashes at its normal turn signal brilliance. To an observer the net effect is the same as normal turn signal operation (which it is).

In the event of a failure of the normal tail lamps this device provides a means of normal illumination on the vehicle's trailer and allows the driver to proceed in a safe manner to a location to have the failed, regular tail lamps repaired.

Another problem with all vehicles is reduced visibility in fog. In heavy fog the only present choice is for a motorist or trucker to activate their hazard flashers for increased rear visibility. Again this practice is disconcerting and defeats the use of normal turn signals. The European countries allow and on some trucks require a rear special fog lamp of increased brilliance for use in fog.

If our switch is flipped downward to a position marked R/FOG again two things happen. First the center of the switch will illumine red. Second a higher voltage is fed through both rear turn signal circuits to cause them to burn at approximately their full brilliance. If however either turn signal is activated then that particular (right or left) side reverts to normal turn signal operation. Therefore normal turn signal operation is not defeated.

The circuitry of our device is so configured that it automatically adjusts for the particular number of turn signal lamps on a particular truck/trailer.

STATUTES

First it shoUld be noted and considered that this device is totally in harmony with the stated purpose of 571.108.

There are obviously two directions to take in considering application of 571.108 to this device. It is very likely that 571.108 does not apply to this device. This is an auxiliary device. It does not affect those items which are required by 571.108 and auxiliary devices of this nature are not addressed by 571.108.

This device in its emergency tail lamp mode would be used only upon failure of the vehicle's regular lighting system. Its effect would be no different from the driver calling a wrecker which after hooking up would place the wrecker's own emergency tail lamps upon the rear of the towed vehicle. Obviously the wrecker's portable emergency/auxiliary tail lamps do not have to comply with 571.108 although they become the towed vehicle's tail lamps. Just as obviously they are needed on the rear of the towed vehicle on a temporary basis.

This device in its rear fog lamp mode would be two auxiliary lamps on the rear which do not interfere with normal operation of either the vehicle's normal tail lamps or turn signals. For that matter all new Jaguar automobiles imported into the U.S. come with two rear fog lamps as standard.

If however the position were to be taken that this device does fall under 571.108 then it becomes more complicated. S5.1.1.11 refers to minimum candlepower for turn signal LAMPS. This does not apply as it is common practice for manufacturers to utilize a common LAMP for both tail lamp and turn signal function. Although they do this by utilizing a dual filament bulb and dual circuits, there is no section of 571.108 requiring that this particular method be used. The net effect of our device would be identical to that of a dual filament bulb/separate circuit.

As our device does not impair the operation of any lamps required by 571.108 then we are in compliance with S5.1.3.

Whereas the normal location of rear turn signal lamps on any vehicle is assumed to be in compliance with 571.108 then these exact same lamps would also be in compliance when illuminated by our device (S5.3.1.1).

it is possible that we may have to configure our circuit in such a manner that when our switch is in the up position for emergency tail lamps it wold be on whenever the vehicle's headlamps were on. (S5.5.3).

Reference S5.5.10 (a) and when the turn signal lamps are used in conjunction with our device they are wired to flash. The lamps do not however become turn signal lamps until such time as the turn signal function is selected (by the operator). Prior to that time, the circuit, filaments, lamps, etc. can be used for other purposes as they are not turn signals until activated for that function and purpose. An example of this is the use of the turn signal circuit, filaments and lamps as stop lamps on many cars. The circuit, filaments and lamps are used in stop lamp mode until they are activated as turn signals at which time the stop lamp mode is interrupted on the appropriate side and they become turn signal lamps.

ID: nht74-1.12

DATE: 06/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Amerace Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1974, with questions as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to your operations, and its relationship to a contract provision requested by General Motors (GM) requiring that you certify compliance of the hoses you deliver to it.

Your primary responsibility under the Act is to manufacture brake hoses that conform to 49 CFR @ 571.106, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. On and after September 1, 1974, pursuant to S5.2, Labeling, of that standard, each hydraulic brake hose, end fitting, and assembly shall be marked with "The symbol DOT, constituting a certification" by the hose manufacturer, fitting manufacturer, and hose assembler that each item "conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." Since the symbol is a permanent mark on the product, certification will be furnished to anyone through whose hands it passes, whether or not it is required by @ 114 of the Act. In our view, the symbol DOT is also a "certificate" within the meaning of @ 108(b)(2) since it is the manufacturer's representation of compliance upon which other persons may rely. The contract language suggested by GM is therefore not something required by the Act.

I note however, that the amendment requested by GM is to take effect July 1, 1974, two months before you are legally required to use the DOT mark. With respect to your obligations in the interim: Under @ 114 and the certification notice published November 4, 1967, (32 F.R. 15444) an equipment manufacturer must certify conformity to "dealers" and "distributors" by a label or tag on the item itself or on the container in which it is shipped. Obviously this includes dealers and distributors to whom you sell directly.

We also consider that the manufacturer of a vehicle, such as GM, into which a hose is incorporated is a distributor of brake hoses to whom @ 114 certification must be provided. Any further requirements specified by GM in your contract would be, of course, purely a matter of contract law.

Because you are required to manufacture hoses to conform to Standard No. 106 you are legally responsible for any violation directly attributable to the manufacturing process, irrespective of any certification provided GM. The question whether that certificate relieves GM of liability cannot be answered in the abstract. As of January 1, 1975, Standard No. 106 will also apply to motor vehicles, and we do not interpret @ 108(b)(2) in this context as relieving a vehicle manufacturer of his obligation to exercise due care. Certainly, at a minimum, GM would be liable for violations attributable to installation.

You have also asked for guidance on the recall provisions of @ 111 and (Illegible Word) notification provisions of @ 113. The repurchase provisions of @ 111 come into effect upon a determination by either NHTSA or a manufacturer that there exists either a safety-related defect or a nonconformance. This section is not enforced directly by NHTSA, but affords redress to distributors and dealers in the event a manufacturer refuses to repurchase substandard vehicles or equipment items. Since a @ 108(b)(2) certificate covers only compliance and is not a guarantee of freedom from safety-related defects, it cannot have been intended "to pass the expense of recall from GM" to you when @ 111 is invoked. The @ 108(b)(2) certificate was intended only to provide protection to certificate holders from civil penalty liabilities. Liability for expenses under @ 111 or @ 113 is a contract matter between GM and you.

As for @ 113, your understanding of Mr. Vinson's remarks is essentially correct. There is a direct notification obligation under @ 113(a) only upon manufacturers of vehicles and tires. But a @ 113(e) proceeding can involve any motor vehicle equipment manufacturer as a party, who could be ordered to proceed with a @ 113(a) notification campaign upon a finding that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance exists. A brake hose manufacturer upon such a finding would be required to provide notification to aftermarket purchasers. If the component is used as original vehicle equipment the vehicle manufacturer would normally also be a party to a @ 113(e) proceeding and required to furnish notification to vehicle purchasers.

SINCERELY,

AMERACE CORPORATION,

May 17, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to a conversation with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office, I am requesting a written opinion relating to certain questions I have concerning the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to our operations.

Our Swan Hose Division manufactures brake hose for, among others, the Chevrolet Motor Division of GM. We have been asked by Chevrolet to certify that the act of making each shipment pursuant to our contract constitutes certification as referred to in Section 108(B)(2) the Act (copy of certification enclosed).

Specifically, I would like to know what is our general responsibility under the Act as a manufacturer of brake hose? Does this request for certification add anything to what we are already obligated to do by the Act? I note that Section 114 apparently requires us to certify to distributors and dealers but not to manufacturers, such as GM. Do we have to certify if we sell to dealers or distributors directly?

Section 109 of the Act provides for civil penalties in situations where there is a violation. Does our certification to Chevrolet, in effect, pass the responsibility for violation on to us directly and insulate Chevrolet? Is is likely that the Administration would proceed against us directly in the case of a defect whether or not we have given the Section 108(P)(2) certification?

There are provisions in Section 111 of the Act for the recall of vehicles prior to the sale by a distributor or dealer. Is the Section 108 certification intended to pass the expense of recall from GM to us? Mr. Vinson advise me that recall is otherwise never mandatory. Can I assume that since recall is not mandatory the liability and expense for recall is a matter of agreement between Chevrolet and us and is unaffected by the Section 108 certification?

Mr. Vinson indicated that in the case of a safety-related defect the (Illegible Word) pursuant to Section 113(A) would be on the vehicle manufacturer to notify with no notification obligation on the hose manufacturer. However, in the event Chevrolet refused to recognize the safety defect, then a Section 113(E), Administrative Proceeding, might be brought against Chevrolet in which we would then be a party to the proceeding. Is there ever a situation where we have to notify dealers of a defect? Does the Section 108 certification pass the expense of notification from GM to us?

I wish to thank you, Mr. Vinson, and the other members of your staff who have been extremely helpful in assisting us in interpreting the Act.

I await your office's reply on the above questions and comments.

J. C. Vecchio Assistant Counsel

Enclosure

cc: N. P. Beveridge

AMERIACE CORPORATION SHAN HOSE DIVISION (Illegible Word) W SQUARE LK RD POB 249 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH. 48013

CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.: 38550

Amendment Effective Date: 7/1/74

Date: 4/3/74

(Illegible Words) Date: 6/30/75

The (Illegible Word) contract is hereby amended as follows: FOB DUNS-017560988

Contract No. CO-23064

PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONTRACT:

"BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACT OR PURCHASE ORDER, IT IS AGREED THAT THE ACT OF MAKING EACH SHIPMENT PURSUANT THERETO CONSTITUTES CERTIFICATION, AS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 108 (B) (2) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966, THAT EACH ITEM IN SUCH SHIPMENT CONFORMS WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD." ALL SHIPPING CONTAINERS (INDIVIDUAL OR BULK), EXCEPT (Illegible Word) TIRES AND GLAZING MATERIALS (GLASS), PROVIDED THE ARTICLES INDIVIDUALLY HEAR THE CERTIFICATION SYMBOL SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDING: - CONFORMS TO APPLICABLE U. S. FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS -

THE PARTS IN THIS CONTRACT IDENTIFIED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) MUST BE PRODUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED."

BUYER 03

Reason for Change: ADDING CLAUSES TO CONTRACT

Accepted:

AMERCE CORPORATION SWAN HOSE DIVISION

CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION General Motors Corporation Central Office

ID: nht76-3.44

DATE: 01/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Wagner Electric Corporation's October 21, 1975, question whether a trailer would satisfy the requirements of S5.2.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to provide a reservoir "that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system," if the reservoir provided is either of two service brake system reservoirs on the vehicle, equipped with a pressure protection valve directly adjacent to each reservoir. The drawings enclosed in your letter indicate that the "protected tank" that is normally provided, separate from the service brake system, would be eliminated and either of the service brake system reservoirs would be used to satisfy S5.2.1.1 in the event of a parking brake application.

Your interpretation of S5.2.1.1 is correct. That section calls for a reservoir of air as an energy source that is used to release the vehicle's parking brakes after an automatic or manual application. In requiring that this reservoir be "unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system," the NHTSA means that a single failure of the service brake system would not result in loss of this air supply. With the pressure protection valves located as described in your enclosures, it appears that the system would comply with Section S5.2.1.1.

This "single failure" requirement must be distinguished from the requirement of S5.6.3 that the energy source for application of the parking brake be "not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system." The NHTSA has interpreted this requirement to require an uninterrupted energy source despite loss of all air pressure from the service brake system. We recognize that the language of the two passages is substantially identical, and should be changed for clarity.

In a recent proposal to revise the parking brake requirements of the standard (40 FR 56920, December 5, 1975), the NHTSA inadvertently failed to make this distinction clear in its newly-proposed definition of "parking brake system" and intends to publish a correction of the proposal in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

October 21, 1975

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: 49 CFR 571.121

Dear Sir: The early or first generation systems for FMVSS 121 complying trailers have completed almost a year of evaluation. Serious consideration for more economical systems has naturally evolved in this period of time.

In comparing tractor air brake systems and trailer air brake systems it is apparent that a good level of safety is provided on two axle tractors which employ only service reservoirs, i.e., do not have an isolated reservoir for the parking brake system. This introduced the probability that a (Illegible Word) axle trailer could benefit from a similar system schematic.

Our review of FMVSS 121 indicates that the equipment requirements are minimal - in keeping with the NHTSA policy of issuing performance oriented requirements. The system to be discussed later in this document meets all of the equipment requirements and will satisfy the related performance criteria.

In addition, all of the benefits for commercial or non-regulated necessities are maintained.

For introductory purpose we have reproduced the section from FMVSS 121 that deals with trailer equipment requirements:

S5.2.1.1 A reservoir shall be provided that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system.

On single axle trailers utilizing one service reservoir, a separate reservoir or protected reservoir compartment for parking brake control is clearly required to meet S5.2.1.1.

Tandem axle trailers afford other opportunities for system considerations. The system shown on Figure 1 introduces a new set of operating parameters which will in fact eliminate the expense of adding a third (parking brake control) reservoir on tandem axle trailers. We interpret S5.2.1.1 to mean that a single loss of air pressure in the service brake system following pressurization of the reservoir system to 90 psi shall not prevent a single release of the parking brakes.

The system shown on Figure 1 provides a separate reservoir and anti-lock system for the service brakes on each axle. Failure of system A will not reduce the pressure in service reservoir B or vise versa. The presence of one service reservoir pressurized to 90 psi will permit a full release of the parking brakes when the supply line is pressurized to the maximum 45 to 48 psi. The supply line pressure will be limited to this value by the pressure protection valve [which has an integral check valve] in the supply line immediately adjacent to the failed service reservoir. The four parking chambers will then receive a pressure of approximately 66 psi as delivered by the amplifying relay valve which receives air from the intact service reservoir.

This evaluation is based on the venting of one trailer service reservoir to atmosphere after the system is charged to 90 psi. We consider this to be the most extreme service brake system failure which can occur on the trailer. Note that a pressure loss in both service reservoirs would require two service brake system failures. Functional requirements following multiple service system failures is not required in any other section of FMVSS 121 and is not required in S5.2.1.1. We, therefore, conclude that the system shown on Figure 1 meets the intended requirements of S5.2.1.1.

The proposed system provides an opportunity to reduce the cost of the brake system required on tandem axle trailers. A comparison of the proposed system, which is Figure 1, with the existing system as shown on Figure 2 will show that the modification entails the addition of two check valves, one tee and three short lines to the amplifying relay valve and permits the elimination of the large parking brake reservoir, reservoir drain cock, supply line to the reservoir, and the cost of installing the reservoir on the vehicle. All of the parts shown on the schematics are currently being supplied for production FMVSS 121 trailer systems. The cost reduction can not be accurately defined by Wagner, but we estimate that the saving could range from $ 20.00 to $ 30.00 per vehicle depending on variable labor costs, reservoir cost, and vehicle configuration.

We encourage any NHTSA comments or questions regarding the system shown on Figure 1 and the requirements of S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS 121. It has been customary for requests for interpretation to the Chief Counsel's office which seek system or product "endorsement" to be answered by stating that the requesting party should be able to make that determination themselves.

In the instant case, we have made the determination that the dual service - two reservoir brake system for tandem axle trailers (Figure 1) is functionally acceptable and in compliance, and are therefore reporting it as such.

The dual service - two reservoir brake system for tandem axle trailers will be entering production in the immediate future. We would appreciate an acknowledgement of receipt of this letter and are anxious to answer any questions or supply additional information.

If you have any concern for the performance of the dual service - two reservoir brake system for tandem axle trailers or its compliance with respect to FMVSS 121 an early response from you will avoid the possibility of economic loss to the depressed trailer industry if, for some reason, they would have to reconvert this more economical system to earlier configurations.

Very truly yours,

John W. Kourik -- Chief Engineer, Automotive Products

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 1

DUAL SERVICE - TWO RESERVOIR BRAKE SYSTEM FOR TANDEM AXLE TRAILER

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 1

DUAL SERVICE - TWO RESERVOIR BRAKE SYSTEM FOR TANDEM AXLE TRAILER

(Graphics omitted) FIGURE 2

DUAL SERVICE - THREE RESERVOIR BRAKE SYSTEM FOR TANDEM AXLE TRAILER

ID: Wallach.3

ID: NCC-231121-001 Autoliv (Veoneer) Spotlight Interpretation 1

June 27, 2024

Richard Seoane 

VP Operations and Business Development 

Thermal Product Area 

Veoneer 

420 South Fairview Avenue Goleta, CA 93117 

Dear Mr. Seoane: 

This responds to your request dated October 10, 2016, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, to a lighting system you describe in your letter. As I explain below, based on your description of the system we agree that it is supplemental lighting, but disagree with your assertion that it would not impair the effectiveness of any of the required lighting equipment. 

In responding to this request, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Description of the Marking Light and the Request for Interpretation 

In your letter, you request an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 as applied to an auxiliary light designed to prevent nighttime crashes (the Marking Light). As you describe it, the Marking Light consists of two auxiliary spotlights operated independently of the headlighting system. The spotlights are mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline of the vehicle, below the headlamps, and pointed down at a fixed angle. The Marking Light operates independently of the upper and lower beam headlamps to produce a narrow, white-light beam pointed down to highlight the path to an object (such as a pedestrian) in or near the forward roadway so that the driver can see it. The Marking Light is activated and controlled by Autoliv’s Night Vision System, which has an infrared camera that detects pedestrian, bicyclist, and animal hazards up to 100 meters in front of the vehicle. The Night Vision System alerts the driver with in-vehicle 

Page 2
Richard Seoane 

visual (e.g., head-up display icon and/or dash icon) and audible signals indicating activation of the Marking Light and directs the Marking Light to illuminate the path over the ground to the hazard to visually alert the driver of the presence and location of the hazard. The system does not engage vehicle steering or brakes. The Marking Light cannot be activated manually by the driver or continuously operated; it is activated only by the night vision system when a hazard is detected to assist the driver in seeing the hazard but does not assist the driver in seeing the roadway. You state that the Marking Light is disabled in the presence of oncoming and preceding traffic so that it does not glare drivers on a wet or shiny roadway. 

You explain your position that the Marking Light is a supplemental lamp, not a required lamp such as a headlamp. You then make a variety of different arguments (and provide data) to support your view that the Marking Light does not impair the effectiveness of any of the required lighting. We summarize these arguments in more detail where relevant in the discussion below. 

Applicable Requirements 

FMVSS No. 108, which is codified at 49 C.F.R. § 571.108, sets requirements for vehicle lighting. The standard requires a variety of types of lighting, depending on vehicle type and size, and specifies requirements for these required lighting elements. The standard also sets requirements (referred to as “if equipped” requirements) for some non-mandatory lighting devices, such as daytime running lamps. 

Lighting devices that FMVSS No. 108 does not require or regulate as “if equipped” lighting devices are considered supplemental (or auxiliary) lighting devices. Supplemental lighting is generally permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment required by the standard. See FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1 (also referred to as the “impairment” provision). 

FMVSS No. 108 applies only to original equipment and lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108. The standard does not directly apply to supplemental lighting devices sold in the aftermarket. Instead, supplemental lighting offered as an aftermarket accessory is subject to the “make inoperative” prohibition (49 U.S.C. § 301222), which prohibits certain specified commercial entities (such as dealers or repair shops) from taking a vehicle out of compliance with an FMVSS. In applying the “make inoperative” prohibition to aftermarket accessory lighting, NHTSA typically asks whether the accessory lighting would impair the effectiveness of any required lighting. Generally, if an item of accessory lighting would not be permitted as original equipment, commercial entities will not be permitted to install the lighting as an aftermarket accessory for a vehicle in use. 

While the vehicle manufacturer has the legal responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 108 and all other applicable FMVSS, as a practical matter, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet federal standards. The judgment of impairment is one made, in the first instance, by the person installing the device. That decision, however, may be questioned by NHTSA if it appears clearly erroneous. 

Page 3
Richard Seoane 

Discussion 

The threshold issue presented by your request is whether the Marking Light is part of the required headlighting system and thus subject to the requirements applicable to headlighting systems, or supplemental lighting that is regulated by FMVSS No. 108’s impairment provision. We agree with you that the Marking Light would be considered supplemental lighting. 

FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting systems.1 Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and associated hardware. The purpose of headlamps is primarily to provide forward illumination.2 In determining whether lighting equipment that provides forward illumination is part of the required headlighting system or supplemental lighting, NHTSA looks at several factors. These factors have included, among other things: (1) where the lamp directs its light; (2) whether it uses a headlamp replaceable light source to emit a beam that provides significantly more light flux than supplemental cornering lamps or fog lamps; (3) whether the lamp is intended to be used regularly, or is limited to more narrow driving conditions and situations; or (4) whether there is a manual on/off switch.3 

None of our previous interpretations appear to have addressed a frontal lighting concept precisely like the Marking Light. We agree with you, based on the information you have provided us, that it is supplemental lighting because it is not intended to be used regularly, but is instead a narrow beam that is activated only when there is a hazard forward of the vehicle such as a pedestrian or animal near the roadway. 

Because the Marking Light would be considered supplemental lighting, it is permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by the standard. In its previous interpretation letters, NHTSA has identified a number of different ways that a supplemental lamp could impair the effectiveness of the required lighting.4 

With respect to the Marking Light, there are two types of impairment that are potentially relevant. One is the potential to confuse other drivers arising from the Marking Light’s color, location, or activation pattern.5 The other potentially relevant type of impairment is the potential for glare to other road users due to the intensity of the Marking Light. We address each of these potential types of impairment below. 

1 FMVSS No. 108 Table I-a; S10.
2 FMVSS No. 108 S4 (“Headlamp means a lighting device providing an upper and/or a lower beam used for providing illumination forward of the vehicle.”).
3 See Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to [Redacted] (Jan. 21, 2004). Prior to the 2004 interpretation letter, NHTSA issued several interpretations concerning auxiliary driving beams in which the agency treated those lamps as supplemental lighting without expressly considering the issue. See, e.g., Letter from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, to P. Soardo, Instituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale (May 22, 1987). If the lamps in question in those earlier interpretations would be considered supplemental lighting under the factors set forth in the 2004 interpretation, they may be consistent with that later interpretation. There is not, however, sufficient information about the lighting systems at issue in those earlier interpretation letters to allow application of the factors from the 2004 interpretation. In any case, the 2004 interpretation has been, to date, NHTSA’s view of the issue.
4 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019).
5 See id. 

Page 4
Richard Seoane 

Color and Location 

The impairment provision prohibits auxiliary lamp colors that are likely to confuse other road users.6 For auxiliary lamps located on the front of the vehicle, colors that could cause confusion include red (which could be confused with a tail lamp), green (which could be confused with a traffic signal), and blue (which could be confused with a law enforcement vehicle).7 

You state that because the Marking Light is white, it cannot be confused with a turn signal and would not conflict with the emergency (hazard) lamps or parking lamps. 

We agree that because the Marking Light is white and mounted below the headlamps, it would not likely be confused with the front turn signal (which is amber8) and would not conflict with the vehicle hazard warning (which consists of all required turn signal lamps flashing simultaneously9) or the parking lamps (which must be white or amber10). I therefore agree that the color and location of the Marking Light would not cause confusion with the vehicle’s signal lamps. 

Activation Pattern 

FMVSS No. 108 requires that all auxiliary lamps be steady burning except for auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals.11 This requirement means that the lamp must be steady burning when activated, not that it is prohibited from being activated or deactivated automatically.12 However, the (de)activation of the lamp cannot be so frequent or random that the lamp would distract or confuse other road users. For example, a lamp that activates and deactivates on an extremely short time interval due to sensitivity to slight changes in conditions would not be considered steady-burning.13 NHTSA has also interpreted the steady- 

6 Id.
7 Id.
8 FMVSS No. 108 Table I-a.
9 Id. S6.6.2; S4 (definition of vehicle hazard warning signal flasher).
10 Id. Table I-a.
11 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019); Letter from Anthony Cooke, Chief Counsel, to Kerry Legg, New Flyer, Inc. (Feb. 21, 2008). Before 2007, FMVSS No. 108 included an explicit requirement that, with certain exceptions (e.g., turn signal lamps), all lamps on a vehicle, including auxiliary lamps, must be steady burning. In 2007, NHTSA implemented an administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 which, among other things, converted the blanket “steady burning” requirement (and its exceptions) into individual activation requirements for each type of required lamp. See 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). Although the reorganized rule no longer includes a blanket “steady burning” requirement, NHTSA stated in the preamble to the reorganized rule that its “rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 is considered administrative in nature because the standard’s existing requirements and obligations are not being increased, decreased, or substantively modified.” Id. Moreover, NHTSA continues to believe that flashing auxiliary lamps would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by distracting or confusing other road users.
12 See Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019).
13 See id. 

Page 5
Richard Seoane 

burning requirement to mean that headlamp intensity may modulate, but only if the changes in intensity are not detectable by the human eye.14 

You state that the Marking Light is steady burning in that it does not flash (cycle on and off). You state that the Marking Light is activated when the night vision system identifies a pedestrian, bicyclist, or large animal in or near the forward roadway as a hazard. When the object is no longer deemed a hazard, the night vision system switches off the Marking Light. We also understand that the intensity of the Marking Light does not modulate. 

We agree that, based on the facts represented to us in your letter, the Marking Light is steady burning and would therefore not violate the impairment provision in this respect. This conclusion assumes that the Marking Light does not activate and deactivate frequently (which could confuse or distract other road users) or change intensity while activated in a way that is detectable to the human eye. 

Brightness (Photometric Intensity) 

Supplemental lighting can also impair the effectiveness of the required lighting if it is so intense that it glares other road users15 or, relatedly, masks any of the required signal lighting.16 As a point of reference, we note that FMVSS No. 108 specifies two upper beam (or high beam) maxima, at H-V and 4D-V.17 The magnitude of the specified maxima depends on the type of upper beam system; for the purposes of this letter, we will compare the Marking Light to the highest specified maxima at each test point, which are 75,000 candela (cd) at H-V and 12,000 cd 

14 See, e.g., Letter from Stephen Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, to Kiminori Hyodo, Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Nov. 5, 2005); Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Joe De Sousa (Mar. 10, 1994) (stating, in the context of a modulating motorcycle headlamp, that “there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam”).
15 See, e.g., Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, to Yoshiaki Matsui, Stanley Elec. Co., Ltd. (Sept. 20, 1995) (fog lamp supplementing lower beam) (“Finally, as a cautionary note, we believe that Stanley should evaluate the glare potential of the headlamp when the fog lamp and lower beam are operating simultaneously, as it is important to safety that oncoming drivers not be distracted or discomforted in the operation of their vehicles.”). Cf. Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to Rusty Riggin, Willow Development (Aug. 2, 2002) (explaining that a supplemental rear cornering lamp could violate the impairment provision if it was so intense that it “create[d] distracting glare”).
16 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019) (“NHTSA has in the past stated that auxiliary lamps that were so bright as to ‘mask’ adjacent required turning signal lamps would be prohibited due to impairment.”); Letter From Samuel Dubbin, Chief Counsel, to Richard Russell (Dec. 22, 1995) (“[W]e would regard the vehicle manufacturer’s certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver’s ability to perceive the front turn signals.”).
17 FMVSS 108 Table XVIII. The photometry requirements specified in Table XVIII consist of test points at which the intensity of the light is measured. The requirements at each test point consist of minima and/or maxima. The test points are defined with respect to an angular coordinate system relative to the headlamp. Thus, H-V identifies a test point zero degrees up and zero degrees down relative to the headlamp, and 4D-V identifies a test point 4 degrees down relative to the headlamp. See also Letter from Erika Jones, Chief Counsel, to Byung Soh, Target Marketing Systems (Sept. 13, 1988) (“Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard.”); Letter from Erika Jones, Chief Counsel, to George Ziolo (Sept. 12, 1988) (vehicle equipped with two upper beam headlamp systems would violate the impairment provision because it would exceed the upper beam maxima at H-V and 4D-V). 

Page 6
Richard Seoane 

at 4D-V. We consider the upper beam maxima as proper comparators because the Marking Light, like the upper beam, is designed to activate when no other cars are nearby.18 Just as upper beam headlamps are subject to maximum intensity limits, even though they are designed to turn off in the presence of oncoming traffic, the same concerns apply to forward-facing auxiliary lighting. 

You argue in your letter that the Marking Light will not glare other road users or mask any of the required signal lighting. You state that the Marking Light is disabled in the presence of oncoming traffic, so that its downward angle does not glare other drivers on a wet or shiny roadway. You also state that because the Marking Light is low to the ground and produces very little light above the horizontal plane of the headlamps, it cannot glare another driver or pedestrians. You state that because of these features, the Marking Light does not impair an oncoming driver’s ability to perceive the front turn signals. In a meeting with our office, you also indicated that the spotlamps on each side of the vehicle are generally not additive (combined). 

You also provided data on the intensity of the Marking Light (an iso-candela plot) based on on-vehicle measurements at a test laboratory. The photometric testing indicates that the Marking Light’s maximum intensity is 113,440 cd (at approximately four degrees down). You noted that the test setup resulted in higher estimated light intensities than what would be more accurately estimated by a goniometric component test conducted in a properly designed component lamp goniometry facility with appropriate stray light control. 

We believe that the Marking Light would violate the impairment provision because it would exceed—dramatically—the maximum permissible brightness of upper beams at 4D-V. This extreme intensity is a concern even if the Marking Light beam is aimed at a downward angle and the system is designed so that the light is disabled in the presence of oncoming and preceding vehicles, because it could still glare other motorists if the vision system does not correctly detect an oncoming or preceding vehicle and prevent the Marking Light from activating. This glare could happen, for example, if the vehicle crests the top of a hill when another vehicle is approaching, the vehicle encounters another vehicle at an intersection without detecting the other vehicle approaching from the side, or if the Marking Light reflects off wet pavement. 

We recognize that the photometric test setup led to overestimates of the Marking Light’s intensity. Nevertheless, the Marking Light is so intense that a more accurate estimate would likely still greatly exceed the upper beam maximum. We also note that the Marking Light’s intensity dramatically exceeds not only the upper beam maximum at 4D-V (12,000 cd), but also the maximum allowed for any individual upper beam headlamp (75,000 cd at H-V). This intensity presents a risk that other road users could be subject to significant glare. 

Conclusion 

I conclude that the Marking Light would be prohibited by the impairment provision in FMVSS No. 108 with respect to the Marking Light’s intensity at 4D-V.
18 FMVSS No. 108 S4 (upper beam defined as “beam intended primarily for distance illumination and for use when not meeting or closely following other vehicles”). 

Page 7
Richard Seoane 

If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza of my staff at (202) 366-2992. 

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/27/24
Ref: Standard No. 108

ID: aiam4525

"Dear Mr. Tokunaga: This letter responds to your inquiry in which yo ask a number of questions concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 124, Accelerator Control Systems. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you describe a new accelerator control system that operates through electrical rather than mechanical signals. You state that the moving components of this system are the accelerator pedal, stepping motor arm, linkage, and the throttle lever. When a driver depresses the accelerator pedal, a pedal sensor converts the displacement into a proportional electric signal. The signal goes through a control unit to a position switch, and then to a stepping motor. This stepping motor works to move the motor's arm and linkage, and they in turn work the throttle lever. Therefore, you say, the engine speed is controlled in proportion to the amount of accelerator pedal displacement. You further inform us that Isuzu already has distributed vehicles equipped with this system in Japan, and that the company would like to market this kind of vehicle in the United States. You present three questions and a diagram of the system components, and request an agency response. First, please be aware that in issuing this interpretation, NHTSA is neither approving, certifying, nor endorsing your new accelerator control system. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. However, based on the information you supplied in your letter, I have the following responses. Question I: In this vehicle, Isuzu considers the battery that drives the stepping motor to be one of the energy sources under S5.1, and the return springs (accelerator pedal and throttle lever return springs) the other sources. Is this interpretation correct? We do not have enough information to state whether the battery that drives the stepping motor, or the return springs would be considered energy sources under S5.1. Section S5.1 of Standard 124 requires, among other things, that there be a minimum of two energy sources capable of returning the throttle to idle whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force, or if there is a single severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. With respect to the battery, if all system elements are operating properly, then it would appear that removing the actuating force will cause the electrical circuit from accelerator pedal sensor to stepping motor to return the throttle to idle. On the other hand, if there is a failure caused by a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system between the pedal and the stepping motor, it is not clear to me whether the stepping motor will return to zero, and bring the throttle springs back to idle, or lock the arm and linkage in an 'open-throttle' position. Similarly, it is not clear to me that the accelerator pedal and throttle return springs are capable of returning the throttle to idle in the event of a failure caused by an ACS severance or disconnection. (While you include the throttle lever in your description of the accelerator control system, the agency considers it as part of the fuel metering device. However, as NHTSA explained in the preamble to 124, an energy source under the Standard may be attached to the fuel metering device. 37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972. ) Ordinarily, the agency would have no difficulty in finding that either of the throttle return springs is an energy source capable of returning the throttle to idle. But I cannot tell from your description and diagram whether a severance or disconnection in the electrical system would cause the throttle to lock in a position other than idle. I would make the same observation with respect to the accelerator pedal. I can not tell from the information you supplied what impact a severance or disconnection failure would have on the pedal. For example, it is not apparent whether some element in the electrical system senses a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system, so that a sensor transmits a signal to the appropriate energy sources that the throttle should return to idle. If the pedal and return springs can operate mechanically and in concert to return the throttle to idle in the event of a failure in the accelerator control system caused by a severance or disconnection, then together they may be an energy source under the Standard. Question 2a: Is a severance in electric wires in this system a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2? Isuzu considers negative because electric wires are not a moving part. A severance or disconnection of the electric wires in this system would be a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2 of Standard 124. Section S4.1 of Standard 124 defines a 'driver-operated accelerator control system' as 'all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.' You stated in your letter that, in this new system, when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, the mechanical displacement is converted into electrical signals. These electrical signals are transmitted by wires to a control unit that regulates engine speed in direct response to pressure on the accelerator pedal, again by means of wires that connect the control unit's electrical signal to the appropriate components. Thus, the control unit, all of the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make those connections are 'vehicle components ... that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.' Under S4.1, then, the control unit, the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make the connection are components of the driver-operated accelerator control system. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires that the throttle return to idle 'from any accelerator position or any speed...whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point.' Please note that this language does not limit the requirement to disconnections or severances of components that are moving parts. Thus, all severances or disconnections of any component of the accelerator control system are within the ambit of the standard. In this case, since the wires are a component of the accelerator control system, the throttle must return to idle whenever a wire is disconnected or severed. Question 2b: If a severance in electric wires were a severance or disconnection under S5.2, what about a short-circuiting that may result from such a severance? Does the Standard require that the throttle returns to the idle position even in such a condition? Yes. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position whenever any component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point, regardless of the other consequences of the disconnection or severance. In the case of this system, this language requires the throttle to return to idle when any wire is severed, even if the severance results in a short circuit. Question 2c: Our understanding is that a failure (other than severance or disconnection) of a system component itself (i.e. a failure in the accelerator pedal sensor with pedal position switches, control unit, throttle valve position switch, or stepping motor) is not subject to the throttle return requirement under the Standard. Is this correct? Your understanding is partially correct. Standard 124 addresses those circumstances where (1) the driver removes the opposing actuating force, and (2) a severance or disconnection in the ACS causes a failure. Therefore, you are correct that Standard 124 addresses only those failures resulting from a severance or disconnection within the system. However, for electrical systems, shorted or open circuits are the consequence of a change in one or more of the electrical components in the system. The agency would consider such a change a disconnection or severance in the context of this Standard. Question 3: It is our interpretation that the battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit are not a part of the accelerator control system under this definition. (That is, the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system.') Is this interpretation correct? No, your interpretation is incorrect. We have set out the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system' in section S4.1 above, in response to your Question 2a. With respect to your electrical accelerator control system, the electrical impulse that travels between the vehicle battery and the control unit is a direct consequence of the driver's applying an actuating force to the accelerator pedal. Given this aspect of your system's design, both the vehicle battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit fall within the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system.' I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5065

"Dear Ms. Schiavo: Special Agent Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. of your staf asked me to provide you with some information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations dealing with certification and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. This information should prove helpful in connection with an investigation of Bus Industries of America by your office in which Mr. Tucker has been involved. Mr. Tucker presented the following facts. A Canadian company (Ontario Bus Industries, Inc.) manufactured some buses at its plant in Canada. It certified these buses as conforming with all U.S. vehicle safety standards and affixed a label to that effect, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. These buses were then imported into the United States bearing the certification label that had been affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. After the vehicles were imported into the United States, the U.S. company that had imported the buses (Bus Industries of America) removed the Canadian manufacturer's certification label and affixed a new certification label that identified the U.S. company as the manufacturer of these buses. With respect to the information other than the name of the manufacturer, the certification label substituted by the importer was identical to the certification label affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. Mr. Tucker asked us to explain this agency's certification regulations as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and to comment on the assertion that the certification label placed on the buses by the Canadian manufacturer did not meet this agency's certification requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes the following provision at 15 U.S.C. 1403: Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. * * * In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle. NHTSA has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 567) specifying the content and location of, and other requirements for, the vehicle certification label or tag required by this statutory provision. That regulation is relatively straightforward with respect to vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The manufacturer must permanently affix a label containing specified information, including the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the vehicle identification number, and a certification that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in a specified location on the vehicle. The certification regulation becomes more complex in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and certified vehicles that are altered before they have been sold to the public for the first time. In those situations, there is more than one manufacturer's input needed for the certification of the finished vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA has included special provisions in Part 567 specifying the certification requirements for these vehicles and adopted a separate regulation at 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifying the responsibilities of the various manufacturers in ensuring conformity of the completed vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to the Canadian buses described by Mr. Tucker, those vehicles appear to fall into the category of vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The relevant certification requirements for such vehicles are set forth at 49 CFR 567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with 567.4. Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America had argued that it was required to affix its own certification label for two different reasons. First, for some of these buses, Bus Industries of America had produced various component subassemblies (e.g., frame, drivetrain, etc.) and shipped those component subassemblies to Canada to be used in manufacturing these buses. Because of this, Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify the vehicles in its capacity as the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. It is true that 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 impose responsibilities on incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and even allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to assume legal responsibility for the completed vehicle. See 567.5(e) and 568.7(a). However, a party that ships various component subassemblies to another party would not be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of NHTSA's certification regulations. The following definitions appear in 568.3: Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle. Incomplete vehicle means 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 manufacturing 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. Reading these definitions, it is apparent that a party could not be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer if that party simply produced certain component subsystems and shipped those subsystems off to another party to assemble into a motor vehicle. Based on the facts Mr. Tucker provided this office, the claim that Bus Industries of America should be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer of these buses has no merit. Second, Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify some of these buses because that company had performed minor finishing operations on some buses after it received them from Canada. It may be that Bus Industries of America is suggesting that it should be considered to be a final stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and therefore was responsible for certifying these vehicles per 49 CFR 567 and 568. Alternatively, Bus Industries of America may have been suggesting that it should be considered an alterer of these vehicles, and therefore required to certify them. Neither one of these arguments is supported by the facts. A final stage manufacturer is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as 'a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.' The relevant question then is whether these buses were incomplete vehicles. As specified in the definition of 'incomplete vehicle' quoted above, a vehicle that needs only minor finishing operations is not considered an incomplete vehicle. Instead, only those vehicles that need some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function are considered incomplete vehicles. Since the buses in question had been certified by the Canadian manufacturer as completed vehicles and driven over the public roads from the Canadian plant to the U.S., there is no indication that the buses needed some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function. Hence, Bus Industries of America was not a final stage manufacturer of those vehicles. To the extent that Bus Industries of America wishes to be considered an alterer of a previously certified vehicle, 49 CFR 567.6 expressly sets forth requirements for persons that alter vehicles by performing minor finishing operations. That section provides: 'A person ... who alters such a vehicle only 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, in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle.' The sample of the Canadian manufacturer's certification label that Mr. Tucker provided this office conforms to the requirements of Part 567. Hence, even if one accepts the argument by Bus Industries of America that it performed minor finishing operations on previously certified vehicles, it would have still been subject to an express regulatory duty to leave the Canadian manufacturer's certification label in place. The final point I understand Bus Industries of America to be raising was that only a U.S. manufacturer could certify that a vehicle met the U.S. safety standards. This point is incorrect. A vehicle to be imported into the U.S. must be certified as conforming with all U.S. safety standards before it enters the United States. Such a certification is routinely made by manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States. There is no regulation or law administered by this agency that requires the certification to be made only by a U.S. company. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Special Agent Gerard Tucker DOT Office of Inspector General Linpro Center 900 E. 8th Avenue Suite 201 King of Prussia, PA 19406";

ID: 001402rls

ID: 09-003935 217

ID: 07-007541as