ID: 2620y

Mr. Brian Gill
Senior Manager
Certification Department
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
100 West Alondra Boulevard
P. O. Box 50
Gardena, California 90247-0805

Dear Mr. Gill:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 Honda Acura NS-X car line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Acura NS-X vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Acura NS-X car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Honda showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on February 5, 1990, and appeared in the Federal Register on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4746).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Honda plans improvements in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Acura NS-X in two ways: First, the new antitheft system would be armed by using the auto door lock system control to lock either door. Honda states that in the system that was the subject of the exemption from the theft prevention system, it was necessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. According to the attachment provided in your letter, this change would make it possible to arm the the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked. Second, the radio would now be included in the alarm system. Thus, the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal or the coupler is disconnected, or if the radio's wiring is cut.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Honda to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Honda does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Honda notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in a May 16, 1990, telephone conversation between Brian Tinkler of Honda and Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Tinkler confirmed that Honda was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking / ref:Part 543 d:7/ll/90

ID: 2621y

AIR MAIL

Mr. Ed McCarron Western Star Trucks Inc. 2076 Enterprise Way Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1Y 6H8

Dear Mr. McCarron:

This responds to your letter asking about the application of Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to a particular mattress design, and how the mattress would be tested under the standard. I regret the delay in responding.

Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 302 sets forth a listing of the vehicle occupant compartment components that must be certified as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. Paragraph S4.1 includes a reference to "mattress covers." You ask whether NHTSA would consider six components of your mattress design to be included in the term "mattress cover" and thus subject to Standard 302. (The first five components you ask about, and a portion of the sixth, satisfy the criterion in S4.2 of being within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment air space.)

As we understand your sketch, the first three components (which you called the "cover," "foam" and "foam backing") encase the mattress core, or filling. As such, if our understanding is correct, these three constitute the mattress ticking, which we consider as the fabric case permanently enclosing the filling of a mattress. NHTSA has said in past interpretations of Standard 302 that the term "mattress cover" includes both a removable covering put over a finished mattress and the mattress ticking. Thus, the first three components would be subject to the standard.

These three components, which you said in a telephone conversation are quilted together, would be tested separately under S4.2.1 of the standard if they do not adhere to other materials at every point of contact. (The fact that these three are quilted, or stitched, indicates to us that they do not so adhere.) If any of these components adhere to other material at every point of contact, then it would be tested as a composite with the other material.

The fourth component in your sketch is the mattress "fill." Paragraph S4.1 of the standard lists mattress covers only. NHTSA has consistently interpreted S4.1 as not including the mattress filling.

The fifth component is a fabric "corner reinforcement" that appears to be approximately two inches in length and stitched on the outside of the mattress cover. NHTSA indicated in interpretative letters of Standard 302 dated December 15, 1972 and May 1, 1972 that a component that is "incorporated into" a component that is listed in S4.1 is subject to the standard. (The agency said in the December 1972 letter that "mattress cover" includes tufting, since tufting is incorporated into mattress covers.) Since the fifth component is sewn to the corner of the mattress and appears to be made part of the mattress cover, we believe that the corner reinforcement is incorporated into the mattress cover. Thus, the fifth component would be subject to the standard. If it does not adhere to another material at every point of contact, it is tested separately under S4.2.1.

The sixth component is the "fill backing" which appears to be an internal divider between the mattress fill and the springs. It appears from your sketch that the fill backing is not part of the mattress ticking, because the backing is inside the mattress and is separate from the mattress ticking. Thus, we conclude the sixth component is excluded from the standard.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:302 d:7/ll/90

ID: 2622y

Herr Hanno Westermann
Hella KG Hueck & Co
Postfach 28 40
4780 Lippstadt
W. Germany

Dear Herr Westermann:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency with respect to "multi bulb devices", specifically "how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure lb have to be interpreted. . . ." You have asked this question because "Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have --opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb." Your question assumes that Standard No. l08 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-compartment lamps.

We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September l988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, l990, an amendment to Standard No. l08 was published, effective December 1, l990, the effect of which is to restrict Figure 1b to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

Your question relates to "signalling devices" for new motor vehicles, and Figure 1b shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December l, l990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width. SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width. In the May l990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for "Multiple Compartment Lamp". Such a lamp is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens." The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition.

SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5.1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395 applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections". Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:8/22/90

ID: 2623y

Mr. Jack Rademacher
Chief Engineer
Polar Tank Trailer, Inc.
12810 County Road 17
Holdingford, MN 56340

Dear Mr. Rademacher:

This is in reply to your letter of May 8, l990, to Stephen P. Wood of this Office, asking for reconsideration of a recent interpretation of Standard No. l08.

We assume you mean our letter of January 9, 1990, to Howard Kossover of Oklahoma City. That interpretation stated that if rear lamps on a semi-trailer were mounted 27 inches forward of the rear edge of the vehicle, they were not mounted "on the rear", the location specified by Standard No. l08. We also observed that compliance with the 45-degree visibility requirements in that location appeared questionable. You say that it has long been the practice of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) and its members that "if the 45 degree visibility requirement of these lights were met 'on the rear' of the trailer both inboard and outboard, the manufacturer met the intent of the standard." You inform us that the liquid bulk transport industry is especially affected by this interpretation because of reasons of practicality unique to tank transports. On these vehicles, you state that the rear lamps have been "mounted as far as 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper", but that, in this location, they "still maintain the 45 degree visibility requirements." You therefore ask for reconsideration of the interpretation if the 45 degree visibility requirements are met.

The lamps in your letter (and Mr. Kossover's) are stop, turn signal, and taillamps. Only the taillamps are presence lamps. The stop lamps and turn signal lamps operate independently of the headlamps. That is to say, they are intended for use at all times and not just at night or under other conditions of reduced visibility. They indicate actions taken by the vehicle operator to signal his operational intentions to other drivers and pedestrians. Problems with depth perception of following drivers could result if the lamps are not mounted "on the rear" as the standard requires. We are willing to interpret "on the rear" as meaning the trailing edge of the rear fender, which may not extend as far rearward as the bulk tank container, provided the visibility requirements are met, but we conclude that a mounting location for stop and turn signal lamps that is 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper is not "on the rear" as the standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/22/90

ID: 2624y

Mr. Jeff Cornell
Engineering
The Bargman Company
129 Industrial Avenue
Coldwater, MI 49036

Dear Mr. Cornell:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for clarification of the amendments to Standard No. l08 which were published on May l5 of this year.

With reference to section S5.1.1.31, requiring photometric measurement of the entire lamp (and not its individual compartments), you have asked whether this includes the maximums because the preamble to the final rule discussed the requirement only in terms of the minimums.

Section S5.1.1.31 refers unqualifiedly to "measurements" of photometrics, and thus includes maximums as well as minimums. The preamble spoke of minimums only as an example, and was not intended to exclude maximums. I am sorry if this caused some confusion.

You have also pointed out that the preamble refers to a minimum luminous lens area of 12 square inches for certain lamps, while the applicable SAE standards that Standard No. l08 incorporates by reference state the minimum as 75 square centimeters, which is only 11.625 square inches. You request a clarification of this point.

The appropriate value is 75 square centimeters (11.625 square inches). As a general rule of construction, the text of a standard constitutes the legal requirements which apply. When a value is clearly stated, as in the SAE materials, it takes precedence over an inconsistent value appearing outside the standard, such as in the preamble to the May l5 amendments. The earlier versions of the SAE standards (which the new SAE materials supersede for new motor vehicle equipment) spoke in terms of 12 square inches, and the agency retained this non-metric terminology for purposes of discussing in the preamble the difference between the old and new requirements. Although the SAE could have adopted a value of 77.42 square centimeters (12 square inches) in its new materials, it chose to round the value off to 75 square centimeters, thereby reducing its previously specified minimum luminous lens area by .375 square inch. With respect to another concern, you have presented the hypothetical of the use "in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap" of three identical single compartment stop lamps per side, none of whose individual luminous lens areas meets the 75 square centimeter requirement, but which, in combination, would exceed it. You have asked whether this would comply with the new requirements.

Our answer is no. On May l5, Standard No. l08 was also amended to add a definition for "Multiple lamp arrangement."(S3). This is "an array of two or more separate lamps on each side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signal." Paragraph 5.3.2 of the newly-incorporated SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 for stop lamps on wide vehicles states in pertinent part that "The functional lighted lens area of a single lamp . . . and each lamp of a multiple lamp arrangement shall be at least 75 square centimeters." The configuration you describe is a "multiple lamp arrangement" and each lamp in the array is subject to the minimum specified requirement.

You further ask, if "the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing", whether this would create a "multiple compartment lamp", and if so, "then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap." The definition of "Multiple compartment lamp" adopted on May 15 states that it is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens."

Multiple lamps cannot be combined to create a "multiple compartment lamp". If the individual lamps are mounted in a molded housing, they remain "an array of two or more separate lamps on the same side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signal", that is to say, a "multiple lamp arrangement." The "lighted areas" of a "multiple compartment lamp" are something less than a complete lamp, but, when joined by common parts become a single lamp. The configuration you describe is not a "multiple compartment lamp."

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:l08 d:8/22/90

ID: 2625y

Mr. Vaughn Crawley
Vice President
Monitor Manufacturing Co.
1820 South Cobb Industrial Blvd.
Smyrna, GA 30080

Dear Mr. Crawley:

This responds to your letter seeking an explanation of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., "the Safety Act"). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particularly concerned with van converters' certifications of compliance with Standards No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that, in a van conversion, the pedestal, the seat, and the safety belts may all be supplied by different manufacturers. You also stated that each of these components might be accompanied by test reports and engineering analyses showing that the component will, if properly installed, comply with the requirements of the safety standards. You asked whether the test reports and engineering analyses of each of the individual components could be combined to form the basis for certifying compliance with Standards No. 207 and 210, or whether the assembled seating system, as installed in the vehicle would have to be tested. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards.

With respect to your question about whether additional testing needs to be done by your company for the vans you manufacture or if you can simply rely on the tests done by the component manufacturers, this agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. NHTSA would look to such things as the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter, the installation of those components by your company, the quality control procedures used by your company, and any other relevant factors to determine whether your company had exercised due care to ensure that your vans complied with all relevant safety standards.

However, it is not clear that a manufacturer could show that it exercised "due care" based solely on the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter. As explained above, a van converter is required to assure that its vans will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the procedures specified in the standards. It would be difficult to establish that a manufacturer had exercised "due care" to satisfy its responsibilities under Standards No. 207 and 210, unless the manufacturer had some evaluation of the performance of the assembled seating systems and safety belts installed in the vehicles in question. Test results for the individual components of the seating systems may not give a van converter enough information about the seating system as a whole to make such an evaluation.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "due care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles or items of equipment do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Kenneth Weinstein, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, at (202) 366-5263 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA d:8/l5/90

ID: 2626y

Mr. David J. Blackwell
Operations Manager
Liquidus Limited
37A Shorncliffe Road
Toronto, Ontario
48Z 5K2, Canada

Dear Mr. Blackwell:

This is in response to your letter asking whether a certain vehicle that you plan to export to the United States would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You state that Liquidus has "designed a system" by customizing an existing road tanker for "overhead" loading. The vehicle you plan to export would be used for "aircraft de-icing storage" and "loading of aircraft de-icing tarmac vehicles while in a fixed location." The road tanker used in your system was originally built in Canada by a firm that has since gone out of business. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, your vehicle is subject to the safety standards only if it is considered within the definition of "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are also not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., certain airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In addition, items of mobile construction equipment which use the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site are not considered motor vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered motor vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

We would apply these principles to the vehicle identified in your letter as follows. Your letter stated that this vehicle will be immobilized after it reaches the airport. Assuming this immobilization occurs, this vehicle would appear to be designed and sold solely for off-road use, just like certain other airport runway vehicles. In this case, it would not be a motor vehicle, even though it is operationally capable of highway travel before the immobilization.

However, if the vehicle were not subsequently immobilized, and were moved from airport to airport with only a limited stay at any job site, this vehicle might be considered a "motor vehicle." This conclusion would be even more likely if a significant percentage of the vehicle's purchasers were to use the vehicle by moving it from airport to airport, notwithstanding your company's intent that the vehicles not be so used. This situation would be analogous to the classification of dune buggies.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact John Rigby of this office by mail at the above address or by telephone at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:8/20/90

ID: 2627y

Mr. Tony Llama
President
Davenport Enterprises
4705 Granada Boulevard
Coral Gables, FL 33146

Dear Mr. Llama:

This is in reply to your letter of June ll, l990, with respect to the allowability of a temporary importation of a vehicle from Panama that does not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Specifically, the vehicle is a "van" manufactured in the Soviet Union. Its Panamanian owner has requested that your company design and install a dual air conditioning unit for the vehicle. Once you have built and installed the unit, the van will be returned to Panama for evaluation and testing. You anticipate that the van will be in the United States for at least 90 days.

After our review of this matter, we have determined that it would be appropriate for you to enter the van pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(j), under the declaration that the vehicle is being imported solely for the purpose of research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations. This declaration appears as Box 7 on the HS-7 importation form under which the vehicle will enter the United States.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:59l d:8/2/90

ID: 2628y

Donald C. J. Gray, Commissioner
Federal Supply Service
General Services Administration
Washington, DC 20406

Dear Mr. Gray:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your letter noted that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not apply to vehicles that are "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications." You asked if this exception could be interpreted as applying to school buses purchased by the General Services Administration for the sole use of the Army. The answer to your specific question is "yes." Those buses would be regarded as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces.

The exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c) reflects a balancing of competing interests. On the one hand, Congress specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that all new motor vehicles sold in the United States must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. On the other hand, NHTSA recognizes the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles. When the Armed Forces include specifications in a contract stating how the vehicles shall be produced and as a result the vehicles do not conform with some safety standards, this presumably reflects a judgment by the Armed Forces that the specialized capabilities needed in the vehicle are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the general interest in ensuring that Armed Forces' vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards.

To reflect both of these competing interests, NHTSA tailored a narrow exception to the broad requirement that all motor vehicles sold in the United States be certified as complying with the safety standards. This exception, reflected in the language of 49 CFR 571.7(c), provides that the safety standards do not apply to vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that are:

manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications.

We would regard the buses as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces despite the fact that the purchasing was performed by the GSA instead of some element of the Armed Forces. The essential element of this criterion is that the Armed Forces be the principal. In this case, the Armed Forces would be the principal, and the GSA would simply be acting as its agent. We see no meaningful difference between a sale to an element of the Armed Forces and one to the GSA acting as agent for the Armed Forces, as long as the vehicles are for the sole use of the military. Our conclusions in this regard are consistent with several 1975 agency interpretations informing brake hose manufacturers that brake hoses manufactured according to military specifications and sold to military contractors for incorporation in vehicles to be sold to the military could be regarded as equipment sold directly to the Armed Forces.

Please note that to qualify for this exemption, the buses must be manufactured for the Armed Forces "in conformity with contractual specifications." In the interest of safety, we strongly recommend that the GSA or the Army, as appropriate, include the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses in those specifications, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended usage of the buses.

I hope this response is useful. If you can provide me with further information, I would be happy to provide further guidance.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref: 571 d:8/23/90

ID: 2629y

Ms. Carol Zeitlow
Manager, Engineering Services
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
P.O.Box 2566
Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566

Dear Ms. Zeitlow:

This in reply to your letter of August 1, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

You ask for confirmation that "the hazard warning light should always over-ride the stop lamp" when they are "together on a vehicle." I am pleased to provide that confirmation. Under the relevant SAE materials on stop lamps that are incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08, when a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing. Because the hazard warning system operates through the turn signal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use.

You have also noted that in your version of Standard No. l08, no reference is made to SAE Standard J1395. It was not until May l5 of this year that Standard No. l08 was amended to incorporate SAE J1395 (with an effective date of December 1, l990). I enclose a copy of that amendment for your information.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure /ref:l08 d:8/27/90