ID: 1993y

Mr. Taylor Hong
President, Fair Sun Industrial Co., Ltd.
P.O. Box 36-570
Taipei, Taiwan

Dear Mr. Hong:

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

You have asked the following questions:

l. "How do we get DOT approval?" 2. "Should ask for an application forms from you and sent one lot of samples for your test?"

The Department has no authority to "approve" flashers, and no laboratory of its own in which it tests them. Under our law, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer of the flashers, not the Department, determines in the first instance whether or not they comply with the SAE materials incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. If the manufacturer is convinced that they comply, it certifies that the flashers meet Standard No. l08, either with a statement on the container in which the flashers are shipped, a tag attached to each flasher, or a DOT symbol on the flasher itself. From time to time, the Department buys flashers for testing. In this manner, the Department has discovered that a number of those manufactured in Taiwan have not met Federal requirements, and lacked the required certification. In some instances, civil penalties have been imposed against the manufacturer or importer of the flashers.

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

To aid you in reaching a conclusion whether the flashers are designed to conform with Standard No. 108, you may send samples to any test laboratory you wish. Although the standard deems a flasher compliant if not less than 17 of 20 flashers tested meet the requirements, we caution you that you should not accept such a result as a guarantor of compliance. Because of the tolerances involved in production of flashers, we believe that a manufacturer wishing to ensure that at least 17 of 20 flashers will pass whenever the government tests them should design its flashers to achieve a higher level of compliance with durability and performance requirements than the minimum acceptable number of 17. Once a higher level is reached, a manufacturer should ensure that the flashers will continue to meet Standard No. l08 over time. Accordingly, we urge flasher manufacturers to test their products periodically as an assurance that a minimum of 17 out of every 20 continue to meet the performance and durability requirements specified.

Although you have no obligation to obtain "approval" from the Department, there are two requirements that manufacturers of flashers must meet before offering their products for sale in the U.S. You must designate an agent for service of process (49 CFR 551.45) and file an identification statement (49 CFR Part 566). I enclose a copy of these regulations for your information.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:108 d:9/l3/89

ID: 2796o

Mr. Scott A. Snyder
117 South Keesey Street
York, PA 17402

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in reply to your letter of March l0, l988, to the Department's regional office in Philadelphia, asking for a response concerning "ornamental lighting." In your opinion "a few extra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night."

The agency is interested in the role that vehicle conspicuity plays in accidents and accident avoidance. With reference to motorcycles, we have amended our motor vehicle lighting standard to prescribe performance characteristics for headlamp modulation. We were prepared to amend the standard to require the activation of motorcycle headlamps when the ignition was turned on (but did not do so when we learned that almost all motorcycles were being wired to operate in that fashion). Some time ago we asked the public to comment on ways of increasing the conspicuity of large vehicles as our research had indicated that reflective tape applied to the side and rear of wide trucks and trailers might lessen crashes and crash severity, and our research still continues in this area. Most importantly we adopted the center highmounted stop lamp for passenger cars because of the ability it demonstrated in test fleets to reduce the frequency of rear end impacts.

The type of lights of which you speak are referred to as "presence" lamps (as contrasted with "signal" lamps), and the agency over the years has acted with respect to all motor vehicles by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps, and by increasing the lens area for stop lamps. As the Federal safety standards are by statutory definition "minimum" safety standards, the requirement that there be two taillamps, for example, does not mean that a manufacturer may not add two more if it wishes, or any lighting device not covered by the standard. The sole restriction is that lighting devices added by the manufacturer or dealer that are in excess of the minimum must not impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. This could happen, for example, if a fog lamp (not covered by the standard) was of an intensity and located so that it masked an adjacent front turn signal. With respect to nighttime operation, the critical issue would appear to be that additional lighting devices not create glare to oncoming and following drivers.

The owner of the vehicle is not under a similar Federal restriction, and may personally add such additional lighting devices as seems desirable, subject to the laws of the States where the vehicle is registered and/or driven. However, the owner may not have these devices installed by a motor vehicle dealer or repair business if the result is to render wholly or partially inoperative any of the vehicle's original lamps or reflectors.

We appreciate your suggestion for improving motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/ll/88

ID: nht78-2.26

DATE: 04/05/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: C. S. Ullman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 28, 1978, to Mr. A. P. Uccello, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints (copy enclosed).

In this Standard, under section 4(b)(1), the minimum height of the head restraint shall not be less than 27.5 inches above the seating reference point which is determined with a three-dimensional H Point Machine per SAE Standard J826B placed on the seat. Thus, we have specified a minimum dimension that the car builder must comply with, but we have no limit on the maximum dimension of the head restraint. This latter dimension is set by the builder to suit his requirements.

Certainly your height is a problem in this case and for future rulemaking actions along this line we are placing your letter and the Buick reply in the appropriate docket.

SINCERELY,

February 28, 1978

A.P. Uccello Transportation Dept.

Dear Sir:

You are impossible to get on the phone so I will resort to writing.

I have nothing but plaudits for my '77 Buick but I have written to them about the height of the head restraint (head rests). I am 6' 7" tall and the head rest probably would not prevent whip lash in my case. Previously the head rest was made so it could lock in at least three positions-the highest position was correct for me. Now the head rest only tranerses about 1 inch and does not lock so people getting in the back seat could depress the head rest.

Enclosed please find copy of my reply from Buick. I call your attention to the second paragraph. I would like to know what safety standard effects the head rest? If there is such a standard, then it should be corrected.

I welcome your comment and advice.

THANK YOU.

Charles S. Ullmann

BUICK MOTOR DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION January 31, 1978

S. C. Ullmann Associates, Inc. 94 Highland Road Scarsdale, NY 10583

Att: Mr. Charles S. Ullmann

Dear Mr. Ullmann:

Thank you for your recent note of January 23, 1978 addressed to our Zone Manager, Mr. R. G. Royer, and we appreciate the interest you have shown in bringing to our attention the characteristics of the front seat head rest supports in your 1977 Buick Electra Limited.

As you probably realize, your car was manufactured in compliance with many vehicle safety standards, and one of these considerations is the head rest suitability throughout the range and size of the car occupants.

However, since we welcome comments from all of our owners, it is with this thought that we are forwarding your letter to the attention of those parties responsible for these design caracteristics.

Thank you again for writing, and please be assured of our interest.

K. J. Mariano Manager, Zone Service Operations

ID: nht92-1.48

DATE: 12/01/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. KOUCHI -- DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT, DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-8-92 FROM T. KOUCHI TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7857)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 8, 1992, with respect to photometric test methods for a center high-mounted stop lamp using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

Your letter presents certain procedures and asks for associated revisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. After review, we have come to the conclusion that your method of proposed testing is allowable under Standard No. 108, but more stringent than what the standard requires.

In the section of your letter called "BACKGROUND", you state that you usually follow the technical guidance of SAE J1889 as a standard practice for LED lighting devices. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 or in any of the SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 that requires you to follow the test methodology of J1889. Thus, when you say that you "must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense", you are placing a burden upon yourself that does exist under J1889, but one which is not necessary for designing for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You have proposed a solution for the problem you have created by following J1889, and you provide three specific reasons in support. The third reason is based upon your interpretation of SAE J575's warpage test, under which you test operating cycles of 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off. However, you reference a version of J575 which does not apply to center high-mounted stop lamps. Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that J575e, August 1970, applies to high-mounted stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J186a. SAE J575, August 1970, simply specifies that the device is to be operated in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service, far different than the cycle method you employ.

Thus, you have requested that we revise Standard No. 108 by adding a new provision that center high-mounted stop lamps shall be energized for a minimum of 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minima. We note that nothing prohibits you from testing in such a manner, but we believe that an amendment of this nature is not required because the present allowable method of testing does not call for it.

You have asked for our comments on four steps of photometric measurement, and our permission to follow them. There is no reason you may not follow them, if you wish, but they are unnecessary to design for compliance under Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.

ID: nht94-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: William R. Willen -- Managing Counsel, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Honda Electric Vehicles in Accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c)

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 7/25/94: Letter from John Womack to William Willen (Part 555 & 591)

TEXT: This petition is being sought by American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 1919 Torrance Blvd, Torrance, CA, 90501, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Honda." Honda plans to field test no more than twenty (20) electric vehicles ("HONDA-EV") over a three (3) year period, in order to gather field information. These HONDA-EV's will not be sold, however; they will be driven by various drivers, including, but not limited to: electric utilities, media Honda employees, commercial fleet drivers and, po ssibly, consumers. The field test is necessary to obtain "real world" usage patterns as well as overall field experience with electric vehicles. The technical and qualitative feedback from these field tests will enable Honda to develop and market a bet ter electric vehicle.

In accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c), the basis for this petition includes: "the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle." The HONDA-EV for which Honda seeks an exemption meets all applicable regulations except the following FMVSS standards:

FMVSS Description Impact 103 As described in Attachment 1, a Operator instructions will make limited area on each side of clear the need to wait until the the windshield is only 87.5% clear, front glass is adequately compared to a standard of 95% defrosted prior to vehicle operation. The vehicles will clear, within the specified 40 be minute start period. This is operated mainly in California primarily due to the electrical where the milder weather should consumption requirements. minimize this concern. Additionally, vehicle parking is primarily indoors due to recharging requirements, where defrosting is even less of a concern. While these eight components do 302 PP plastic was used for several not prototype parts in order to meet the standard, all other minimize the tooling costs needed vehicle components do meet the to produce these few vehicles. PP standard, and the overall risk does not meet the fire-retardant of fire is not significantly increased. Additionally, the standard set forth in 302. risk of fuel-fed fire is greatly These components are described reduced in Attachment 2, and include: since there is no on-board gasoline or diesel fuel with Cover, Right Front Door; Cover, which Left Front Door; Console, Front; to contend. Lining, Rear Panel; Lining, Right Side, Lining, Left Side; Lining, Right Cowl Side; Lining, Left Cowl Side

These minor "non-compliances" will have no significant adverse affect on vehicle safety.

By providing this temporary exemption, field testing and evaluation will proceed rapidly. In addition, the full production version of this vehicle, currently scheduled for the 1998 model year, is planned to fully meet all FMVSS requirements, including t he above standards.

Enclosed: Attachment 1 (1 page) Attachment 2 (6 pages)

ID: nht93-8.14

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/93 from Ray Paradis to Pat Boyd (OCC-9151)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993, to Pat Boyd of this agency with respect to the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed literature and photos of several of your trailers, and ask for our comments in several areas.

Your first remark is "Deck heights are from 22" to 39 1/2"." We understand this to ask whether these are acceptable heights for mounting conspicuity treatments. Standard No. 108 was amended on October 6, 1993, to specify a mounting range as close to 375 to 1525 mm as practicable, i.e. approximately 15 to 60 inches. Your "deck heights" are within this range.

Your second remark is "(t)he rear design does not allow for continuous tape all models." Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. Paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps, breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps.

Your third remark is (t)he side extension model has fold-up sides #2." We understand this to ask whether striping must be applied so as to be visible only when the extension is folded, or whether striping must also be visible when the extension is in use, i.e., whether striping must be applied to both surfaces of the extension so that it is visible regardless of the position of the extension. Although Standard No. 108 does not directly address this question, we believe that motor vehicle safety requires visibility of conspicuity treatment at all times. The standard does require that striping not be obscured by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo, reflecting the agency's intent that striping be visible when the trailer is performing its intended work-related functions. This means that side extension model trailers should be equipped with conspicuity treatment that is visible both when the extensions are folded and unfolded.

Your final remark is "((d)oes the front require any stripe." Under the assumption that you refer to the front side of a trailer and not the front that is hidden behind the towing vehicle, the answer is yes. Standard No. 108, in pertinent part, requires conspicuity treatment to be applied as close to the front of a trailer as practicable. Goosenecks and tongues are part of the trailer front and are portions of a trailer requiring conspicuity treatment if practicable.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht93-3.45

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA (Signature by Stephen P. Wood)

TO: St. F. Steiner -- Consultant, AET Network

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-4-93 from St. F. Steiner to John Womack (OCC 8626)

TEXT: We have received your "Dear Mr. Van Orden" letter of May 4, 1993, which was addressed to me. You wish to import 3- and 4- wheeled vehicles from Europe "for research and exploration", and have asked several questions relating to U.S. laws and D.O.T. requirements.

Your first question is: "Are there any safety standards and regulations for the above mentioned automobiles?"

The answer is yes. All 3-wheeled motor vehicles are considered "motorcycles" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Depending upon their configuration, but not upon their weight, 4-wheeled vehicles are either "passenger cars", "multipurpose passenger vehicles", "trucks", or "buses" for purposes of the safety standards.

However, motor vehicles intended solely for purposes of research may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the safety standards under the terms and conditions that the agency has set out in 49 CFR Part 591.

Your second and third questions are whether there is a minimum speed standard regulation or weight limitations for the vehicles you wish to import. The answer is no. However, a motorcycle with 5-horsepower or less is considered a "motordriven cycle", and some of the motorcycle standards impose lesser requirements for motor-driven cycles, and motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.

Your fourth question relates to the conversions required to meet U.S. specifications and standards. As indicated previously, no conversion is required when the importation is solely for the purpose of research. If you wish to import vehicles that have been originally manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, the manufacturer will find those standards at 49 CFR Parts 571, 581, and 541, respectively. If you wish to import nonconforming vehicles for conversion after importation, then the agency must determine that the vehicles are eligible for entry pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593, and importation and conversion accomplished through a Registered Importer pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592.

Your final question is whether the vehicles will be permitted on highways. This is a question that is not answerable under Federal law. Each State determines the criteria for licensing motor vehicles for use on the roads under its jurisdiction. If a State does not license a vehicle for on-road use (all terrain vehicles, minibikes, golf carts are examples), a basis exists for a manufacturer to determine that its vehicles are not "motor vehicles." If a vehicle is not a motor vehicle, i.e. one manufactured primarily for on-road use, then no Federal safety standards apply to it.

If you have any further questions about the importation process, you should refer them to Mr. Van Orden at our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Enforcement.

ID: 7857

Air Mail

Mr. T. Kouchi Director & General Manager Automotive Equipment Development & Administration Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Kouchi:

This responds to your letter of October 8, 1992, with respect to photometric test methods for a center high-mounted stop lamp using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

Your letter presents certain procedures and asks for associated revisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. After review, we have come to the conclusion that your method of proposed testing is allowable under Standard No. 108, but more stringent than what the standard requires.

In the section of your letter called "BACKGROUND", you state that you usually follow the technical guidance of SAE J1889 as a standard practice for LED lighting devices. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 or in any of the SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 that requires you to follow the test methodology of J1889. Thus, when you say that you "must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense", you are placing a burden upon yourself that does exist under J1889, but one which is not necessary for designing for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You have proposed a solution for the problem you have created by following J1889, and you provide three specific reasons in support. The third reason is based upon your interpretation of SAE J575's warpage test, under which you test operating cycles of 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off. However, you reference a version of J575 which does not apply to center high-mounted stop lamps. Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that J575e, August 1970, applies to high-mounted stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J186a. SAE J575, August 1970, simply specifies that the device is to be operated in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service, far different than the cycle method you employ.

Thus, you have requested that we revise Standard No. 108 by adding a new provision that center high-mounted stop lamps shall be energized for a minimum of 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minima. We note that nothing prohibits you from testing in such a manner, but we believe that an amendment of this nature is not required because the present allowable method of testing does not call for it.

You have asked for our comments on four steps of photometric measurement, and our permission to follow them. There is no reason you may not follow them, if you wish, but they are unnecessary to design for compliance under Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/1/92

ID: nht95-6.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Bart Stupak -- Member of Congress

TO: Ms. Brenda Brown -- Congressional Liaison, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/26/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO BART STUPAK (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Brown:

I am contacting you on behalf of my constituent Mr. Kurt B. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium. Mr. Ries has requested my assistance with a matter regarding a new law on highway safety standards that would require all vehicles to have impact resistant sides, if they are used to transport students. This law is to become effective in 1996.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter I received from Mr. Ries regarding the new law. He believes that this law would be financially devastating to organizations because the cost to achieve this requirement would be astronomical.

As always, your attention to this matter is appreciated. Please direct your response to Margaret Richard at my Escanaba District Office at the address listed below.

enclosure:

July 21, 1995

The Honorable Bart Stupak United States House of Representatives 317 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Stupak:

Our organization currently uses thirteen (13) 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from various employment training programs, camps and jobs.

I have now heard from various sources and school officials that there is some new law on highway safety standards that would take effect in 1996. It is my understanding that this new rule would stop the use of these large vans, and demand that youth only be transported in buses with impact resistant sides (i.e., mini-school buses).

While this is admirable, it will have an absolutely devastating effect on our programs, as we simply don't have the financial resources to replace 13 vans with 13 minibuses. I would suspect that this will also be a huge blow to schools and church groups that currently use these vans to transport youth. The rule or law is probably well-intended, but it will drastically curtail youth activities, and instead of meaningful experiences and education they will stay home.

These are big, heavy commercial vans that meet all auto safety standards, and frankly I have not heard of huge numbers of fatalities from their use. Is there some national statistic that proves otherwise?

It seems to me that this is yet one more idea conceived in Washington that means well, but is not realistic. If funds were available to replace all vans with buses, fine. But they aren't and the adverse effect will be tremendous.

I'd appreciate any information, and urge that you take appropriate action to help provide relief if this is the case.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely, Kurt B. Ries Director NORTHEAST MICHIGAN CONSORTIUM

ID: nht95-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Bart Stupak -- Member of Congress

TO: Ms. Brenda Brown -- Congressional Liaison, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/26/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO BART STUPAK (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Brown:

I am contacting you on behalf of my constituent Mr. Kurt B. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium. Mr. Ries has requested my assistance with a matter regarding a new law on highway safety standards that would require all vehicles to have i mpact resistant sides, if they are used to transport students. This law is to become effective in 1996.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter I received from Mr. Ries regarding the new law. He believes that this law would be financially devastating to organizations because the cost to achieve this requirement would be astronomical.

As always, your attention to this matter is appreciated. Please direct your response to Margaret Richard at my Escanaba District Office at the address listed below.

enclosure:

July 21, 1995

The Honorable Bart Stupak United States House of Representatives 317 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Stupak:

Our organization currently uses thirteen (13) 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from various employment training programs, camps and jobs.

I have now heard from various sources and school officials that there is some new law on highway safety standards that would take effect in 1996. It is my understanding that this new rule would stop the use of these large vans, and demand that youth only be transported in buses with impact resistant sides (i.e., mini-school buses).

While this is admirable, it will have an absolutely devastating effect on our programs, as we simply don't have the financial resources to replace 13 vans with 13 minibuses. I would suspect that this will also be a huge blow to schools and church gro ups that currently use these vans to transport youth. The rule or law is probably well-intended, but it will drastically curtail youth activities, and instead of meaningful experiences and education they will stay home.

These are big, heavy commercial vans that meet all auto safety standards, and frankly I have not heard of huge numbers of fatalities from their use. Is there some national statistic that proves otherwise?

It seems to me that this is yet one more idea conceived in Washington that means well, but is not realistic. If funds were available to replace all vans with buses, fine. But they aren't and the adverse effect will be tremendous.

I'd appreciate any information, and urge that you take appropriate action to help provide relief if this is the case.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely, Kurt B. Ries Director NORTHEAST MICHIGAN CONSORTIUM