ID: nht89-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

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

TO: H. HASEGAWA -- AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL SECTION STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/22/89 FROM H. HASEGAWA TO RICHARD L. VANIDERSTINE, RE REVISION OF FMVSS NO 108 [DOCKET NO 85-15 NOTICE 8

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hasegawa:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of May 22, 1989, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency.

You have two questions with respect to the amendment to Standard No. 108 published on May 9, 1989 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 8).

Your first question is the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1.(a), which you point out was not previously a requirement of Standard No. 108. You suggest the need for a delayed effective date (but give no reason why one may be needed).

Paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) will be effective June 8, 1989. Although the requirement is a new one (the restriction on motion of a headlamp when an external aiming device is applied to it), it was proposed as part of the December 29, 1987 NPRM, and no comments received indicated a need for a delayed effective date. Your supposition is correct; S7.5.5.1 will apply to all headlamps with an external aiming system, including those incorporating replaceable bulbs.

Your second question relates to paragraph S7.7.5.1(b), and you ask "whether the requirement of '0.1 in. max.' will be determined, either during the test or after the test". In pertinent part, subsection (b) states "nor shall the lamp recede more than 0. 1 in. (2.5 mm) after being subjected to an inward force...." This means that the measurement is determined after the test.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/89

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

TO: BRADLEY J. BAKER -- PRESIDENT CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/21/88 FROM BRADLEY J. BAKER -- CLASSIC MANUFACTURING TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; OCC 2717

TEXT: Dear Mr. Baker:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with reference to a product your company manufactures, a "car dolly used to tow a vehicle behind motor homes." You question whether the dolly is a motor vehicle, and if so, whether identifi cation lamps are necessary for it. I regret the delay in responding.

The car dolly appears to be a vehicle drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and thus a "motor vehicle" subject to the jurisdiction of this agency. Specifically, it would be a "trailer", since it is a motor vehicle without motive power, designed for carrying property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires identification lamps on all trailers whose o verall width is 80 inches or more. Therefore, if the overall width of your dolly is less than 80 inches, it need not be equipped with identification lamps.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 31, 1989

FROM: J. BRETTSCHNEIDER -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TO: RICHARD VAN IDERSTINE -- DOCKET SECTION, NHTSA

TITLE: PERFORMANCE OF THE IMPACT TEST ACCORDING SAE J1383

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-29-90 TO J. BRETTSCHNEIDER, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA.

TEXT:

According to the above-mentioned SAE Standard (recommended practice), Section 4.10.3, the impact test has to be performed ... along the mechanical axis ...

SAE Standard J 579, Section 2.14 defines the mechanical axis as ... perpendicular to the aiming plane through the geometric center of the lens.

Now the questions arise

- where is the geometric center of a lens without aiming pads?

- where is the geometric center of a lens which moreover covers two compartments, one for the lower beam and one for the upper beam?

Please give us your advice.

Thanking you in advance.

ID: nht89-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 31, 1989

FROM: CADWALLADER JONES -- PRESIDENT, JONES FORD INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-20-90 TO CADWALLADER JONES, JONES FORD INC., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; VSA 102(14); PART 571.3]

TEXT: We need some help in the interpretation of Section 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This involves the sale, lease or rental of Ford Motor Company manufactured Econoline Vans and Club Wagons. We understand that these vehicles having more than 10 designated seating positions are not intended for use as "school buses" and are not designed to comply with certain Federal Motor vehicle safety standards uniquely applicable to school buses. We understand that a school bus is defined in S ection 571.3 as a "Motorvehicle -- designed for carrying more than 10 persons -- that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed a nd sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation."

We have questions of further definition of "school bus" and of "student".

1. Is there an age limit or occupational definition of "student"?

A) Adults being transported to and from adult education classes by United Way.

B) College students-athletic teams, etc.

C) Churches that don't have day schools but transport children on occasions

D) Highschool students-athletic teams, etc.

E) Playground teams-no connection with schools

F) Day care center

We understand the prohibition against installing smaller size seats in a window van and painting it school bus yellow like we used to do in the '70s. It's these "fringe" uses that are not on a daily basis about which we are concerned.

We will appreciate your help in this area.

ID: nht89-2.93

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 1, 1989

FROM: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights

TO: NHTSA, Department of Transportation

TITLE: Re Vehicle Signalling System

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

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht89-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/89

FROM: MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH

TO: R. VAN IDERSTINE -- NHTSA

TITLE: HIGH MOUNTED STOP LAMP

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Iderstine,

Could you please answer to the following questions:

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

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

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

3. Must each bulb reach the required photometric values?

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

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

ID: nht89-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/89

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hudyma:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/89

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Commander:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Enclosures - Standards Nos. 111, 205

ID: nht89-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/08/89

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. Randle:

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

We wish you luck in your endeavors.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht89-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1989

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

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

You have asked the following questions:

1. "How do we get DOT approval?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Enclosures