ID: nht88-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: AMNON SHOMLO -- PRESIDENT, A.A.S.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-25-88, TO ERIKA JONES-NHTSA, FROM AMNON SHOMLO, OCC-1783

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1988, enclosing a "Peace" decal designed to be affixed to the center highmounted stop lamp. The letters and design are in white, printed on transparent plastic, "in an effort to preserve the basic requirement s for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specified candela." You have asked what "Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating that we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product."

There are no regulations that apply directly to the decal, nor any Federal restrictions on its sale. Thus you cannot state in any sales materials that the product meets Federal requirements, for there are none. If a center highmounted brake lamp would continue to meet all applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 after installation of your decal, there are no restrictions on its use.

Although you intend the product to preserve the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, it is not certain that this will occur. The decal has the potential of obscuring light from some of the 13 test points at distances where cand ela photometrics must be measured and the specified minima met. However, its actual effect can be determined only through laboratory tests on lamps of different sizes and lens and reflector designs. Although you have no liability under Federal law for selling this decal, a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act will result if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer before the first sale of the vehicle. A violation will a lso occur if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied after the vehicle's first sale by any of these persons or by a motor vehicle repair business. There is no violation of Federal law if the decal is applied by a person other

than those named above, such as the vehicle owner. In the absence of a violation of Federal law there may nonetheless be State statutes restricting the application of the decal under any circumstances. We are unable to advise you on State laws.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht88-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: M. ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING, HOMOLOGATION SECT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-31-88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM M. ARISAKA-STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 31, 1988, asking about the acceptability of installing an additional red reflex reflector on the rear of a passenger car. The reflector would be centered between the two red reflex reflectors required by the standar d. In your opinion, the additional reflector will not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

As you have properly noted, supplementary motor vehicle equipment including reflectors is permissible under paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard requires. The determination of whether supplementary equipment, in fact, impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle upon which the supplementary equipment is to be installed, and who certifies compliance with all applicabl e Federal motor vehicle safety standards including paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration neither approves nor disapproves of specific vehicles designs, and unless there are reasons to believe that the s upplementary equipment will, in fact, impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment this agency accepts the manufacturer's determination.

The drawing you attached shows the location of the two required rear reflex reflectors, and the supplementary one, but does not depict the location or types of other required rear lighting equipment, i.e. stop lamps, center highmounted stop lamp, taillam ps, turn signal lamps, license plate lamp, and backup lamps. However, in your opinion the reflector will not impair the effectiveness of these lamps and the required reflectors, and the agency has no reason to believe that the third reflector will, in fa ct, impair the effectiveness of them.

I hope this answers your question, and that the guidelines given in this letter will encourage you to reach satisfactory determinations without the necessity of submitting them to this agency for comment. We appreciate your continuing interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht88-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PETER CAMERON-NOTT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/01/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM PETER CAMERON, OCC-2120; LETTER DATED 11/13/86 TO PETER CAMERON FROM FRANCIS ARMSTRONG, NEF 32GSH

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cameron-Nott:

This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1988, with reference to importation of motor vehicle equipment included in an incomplete vehicle.

You have stated that the kit will include brake hoses, brake fluid, and glazing, and that these items will conform with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 106, 116, and 205 respectively, and that they will all carry the DOT symbol certifying compliance. You ask whether these items may be entered under Box 2 on the HS-7 importation form.

The answer is yes. Box 2 (implementing 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(ii)) allows importation without bond of motor vehicles and equipment manufactured to conform with, and certified as conforming to, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN BORKOWSKI

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/24/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM STEPHEN BORKOWSKI, OCC - 2243

TEXT: Dear Mr. Borkowski:

This is in reply to your letter of June 24, 1988, asking about the legality of your "Bimmer Dimmer Safety Stop Light Concept". The concept has as its goal to lessen the chance of rear end collisions, by governing "the intensity of brake light brightness to indicate the degree of braking being applied to a vehicle."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment governs the legality of your concept. SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, has been incorporated by reference, and specifies appropriate photometric requirements. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires in pertinent part that "the stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes". We believe that this means that the lamp shall display the intensity that is designed into it to meet the photometrics of J586c. The photometrics are expressed in terms of a minimum for each test point and while there is not a corresponding maximum for each point, there is an overall maximum for the lamp. Thus, a lamp of variab le intensity could fall below the minimum at one or more test points or exceed the overall maximum. This, of course, would result in a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

The agency examined the problem of rear end collisions and concluded that the most appropriate way to address it was through the center highmounted stoplamp, required equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. This is inten ded not only to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions but also their severity. We are interested in the possibility of further reductions in rear end collisions. Because your concept may be of interest to that Office, I am forwarding a copy of yo ur letter to the agency's Associate Administrator for Research and Development for such further correspondence as may be warranted. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SCOTT A. SNYDER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-10-88 TO NHTSA FROM SCOTT A. SNYDER

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1988, 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 aske d 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 co ntinues 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 incr easing 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, o r 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 cou ld 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 devi ces 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.

ID: nht88-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: ROBERT L. RIPLEY -- PRESIDENT KNAACK MANUFACTURING COMPANY

TO: ERICA JONES -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/28/88 TO ROBERT L. RIPLEY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32; STANDARD 556

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I am enclosing copies of our three catalogs of products which we manufacture. I would appreciate it if you would review these catalogs and tell us whether we are required to file under Part 566, which requires motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers to supply NHTSA with information identifying themselves and describing products.

I will await your reply. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: J. MIKE CALLAHAN -- PRECISION IMAGES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/14/87 TO TAYLOR VINSON FROM J MIKE CALLAHAN; OCC-409; LETTER DATED 11/19/87 TO ROGER M. COX FROM ERIKA Z JONES, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 09/03/87 TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY, FROM ERIKA Z JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Callahan:

This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1987, to Mr. Vinson of this office with respect to your representation of a company "that will be selling plastic name plates which would be installed behind the red-lens of the third brake light." You stated that "these are to be sold to new car dealerships. When the driver of the car steps on the brake the dealer's name lights up." You ask for letters regarding the legality of the name plates for 24 States.

We regret the delay in responding to your request. When Mr. Vinson tried to reach you by phone this week he was told that you had already received a letter, and that the answer was negative. Perhaps that letter came from one of the 24 States listed in your letter. We are unable to advise you of the legality under State laws, but I have enclosed representative interpretation letters of this agency on the legality of similar devices under Federal law.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JAY V. WRIGHT -- PAGE AVJET CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/21/88, TO CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA, FROM JAY V. WRIGHT, OCC - 1930

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wright:

This is in response to your letter of April 21, 1988, asking whether a vehicle produced by your company is a motor vehicle subject to the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This vehicle, referred to as a hydrant truck, consists of a chassis-cab with an equipment platform mounted on its rear. According to your letter, the platform would be equipped with accessories that allow the vehicle to be used to filter and meter aircraft fuels as fuel is pumped from airport storage tanks i nto aircraft.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 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 veh icle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. On the one hand, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. In add ition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use are not motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Examples include airport runway vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, jeep-type utility vehicles are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road oper ation. We have found vehicles to be motor vehicles if their on-road use is substantial, even though these vehicles' predominant intended use is off-road. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public road s by a substantial number of vehicle owners, NHTSA has found that the

vehicle is a "motor vehicle." This finding was made in the case of dune buggies, regardless of the manufacturers' stated intent that the vehicles were to be used off-road only.

You stated in your letter that this vehicle is not "perceived as being moved over public roads or from airport to airport in its daily use." It appears that this vehicle is intended and sold solely for off-road use, even though the vehicle appears operat ionally capable of highway travel. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that your company's "Hydrant Truck" does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the ve hicle is regularly being used on the public roads.

We note that if your vehicle ever came to be regarded as a motor vehicle, there are probably few changes that would have to be made to bring it into compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). NHTSA encourages (but cannot require ) you to make these changes. The chassis-cab used to produce the hydrant truck already has been certified by its manufacturer as an incomplete vehicle. Therefore, in order to achieve compliance, it is likely that few standards would require any changes by your company. One such standard is FMVSS 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Additional changes might also be required if the weight added by the equipment platform exceeds any weight maxima specified by the chassis-cab manufa cturer in making his certification.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DOUGLAS H. BOSCO -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 08/03/87 TO DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 TO JERRY K. YOST FROM L. F ROLLIN; LETTER DATED 03/28/88 TO C-MORE-LITE JERRYS SERVICE FROM DO N O. HORNING RE TEST REPORT NO 92606; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM JERRY SERVICE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bosco:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1988, with reference to your constituent Jerry Yost of Occidental. Thank you for enclosing our previous correspondence on Mr. Yost's C-More Light invention. This device is a relay which would allow a headlamp 's lower beam to remain in operation when the upper beam is activated. In my reply of August 3, 1987, I advised you that the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard explicitly prohibits simultaneous activation of upper and lower beams in four-lamp headl ighting systems other than the one we call Type F (S4.5.8 of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). I explained that our historical concern has been that the maximum candlepower limitations of the Federal standard might be exceeded.

In your latest letter, you have enclosed a copy of a test report by Industrial Testing Laboratories and a letter from the California Highway Patrol. You have asked the steps, if any, that Mr. Yost should take to market legally his device. The test repor t is intended to show that maximum candela will not be exceeded when the device is used in a four-lamp headlamp system. California advised that the device appeared legal to install on vehicles equipped with Type F headlamp systems, and that "this system is also permitted by California law as long as the photometric output is within the standards established for any other type of headlight. The ITL tests appear to show compliance".

We have reviewed the ITL test report, and find it indicative of the features and limitations of Mr. Yost's system. The test report shows a failure of the dual filament 2A1 lamp (second column from the left) at test point 4D-V where 3490 candlepower is m easured. Note the maximum limitation of 2500 candlepower at that test point (third column from the right, same line). Contrasted with this is an unusually low reading of 2540 candlepower for the same test point with the single filament 1A1 lamp (third column from the left) when up to 5000 candela is allowed (fourth column from the right). The net result, however, is that the combined maximum of 6030 candlepower (fourth column from the left) is well within the allowable 7500 maximum of Standard No. 10 8 (first column from the right). In essence, the test report indicates that the light at

2 test point 4D-V produced by the system under test does not achieve the balance contemplated by the standard, although the light at other test points meets the requirements of the standard.

While the test report indicates that a system using the lamps tested might conform to Standard No. 108, this was achieved by using what appear to be two lamps of moderate performance. The agency believes it likely that replacement headlamps for such a s ystem would more likely approach the maxima prescribed for 4D-V and other test points for Type 1A1 and 2A1 headlamps with the result that simultaneous operation of upper and lower beams would exceed the established limits. In other words, although an or iginal equipment headlighting system using the relay might meet Federal photometric specifications, there is no assurance that replacement lights would. Type F systems have been designed to preclude exceeding the maxima. Thus, our concern remains for l ighting systems using lamps other than Type F. The agency's views on simultaneous operation are discussed in further detail in a Federal Register notice published in 1986, a copy of which I enclose (Docket No. 81-11; Notice 14).

As I indicated before Mr. Yost's device may be legally installed as original or aftermarket equipment on any passenger car equipped with a Type F headlamp system. Use with any other original equipment headlighting system is expressly prohibited by Stand ard No. 108. As for aftermarket applications other than Type F, he should be aware of the statutory section (15 USC 13979(a)(2)(A)) prohibiting manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whol e or in part, any equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard if installation of the relay would result in a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

We are providing a copy of this letter to the California Highway Patrol so that it may be aware of our views on this subject.

Mr. Yost and the agency share a common desire to improve foreground lighting, a subject currently under study at NHTSA. We appreciate his interest in motor vehicle safety.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BYUNG M. SOH -- MARKETING DIRECTOR TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 6-20-88 TO NHTSA FROM BYUNG M. SOH, TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC. OCC-2196

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1988, with respect to two motor vehicle lighting products which you intend to import into the United States. You have asked "whether these devices require approvals from D.O.T."

First let me explain that the Department of Transportation does not "approve" or "disapprove" specific products. It does advise whether a product appears allowable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Your letter does not indicate whether you wish to market these devices as original equipment to be installed before initial sale of a motor vehicle, by either its manufacturer or dealer, or whether you intend to market them solely through the aftermarket. I shall address each situation. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to original equipment is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 allows additional motor vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lamps and reflectors required as original equipment. Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard. In addition, a motor vehicle must remain in conformance with Standard No. 108 (and all other safety standards) until its first purchase for purposes other than resale. There is no Federal standard that applies to your devices as aftermarket equipment, but the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, original lighting equipment.

Your first device is called a "foglight converter." The advertising literature attached states that its function is to turn "the existing

headlights...into foglights...." In our opinion, such a device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 by rendering the headlamp function unavailable when the fog lamp converter is in use. We shall assume that the headlamp would be converted into a fog lamp meeting the specifications of SAE Standard J583 MAY81 Front Fog Lamps. None of the photometric test points of SAE J583 coincide with those specified for headlamps. Our further concern with this device is that a driver might fail to return to the headlamp mode from the fog lamp mode, and operate the vehicle with reduced frontal lighting.

The situation differs with respect to the aftermarket. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment such as headlamps added pursuant to a Federal safety standard. We believe that the installation of the converter could affect the operability of the headlamp within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. However, we note that the foglight converter is advertised as "easy for any driver to attach to any vehicle." As an owner is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is not restricted under Federal law from modifications to his vehicle. He is, however, subject to the laws of the States in which his vehicle is registered and operated. We are not conversant with how State lighting laws might affect use of the foglight converter, and you may wish to obtain an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

We have several other comments as well. The literature you enclosed depicts the foglight converter attached to what appears to be the European-designed H-4 bulb. Standard No. 108 does not permit headlamps with H-4 light sources to be sold for use on 4-wheeled motor vehicles. In addition, the application of the device where motion is translated from the lamp's exterior to the interior by a linkage in the bulb base would affect compliance with the requirement that the bulb base withstand a pressure differential of 10 psi. Additionally, creating a hole or passage for a linkage has the potential of rendering the headlamp noncompliant with Standard No. 108's requirements for certain environmental tests, such as resistance to dust, corrosion, and humidity.

Your second device is a "headlamp intensity modulator," adjusting a headlamp beam "automatically from low to high beam through a middle beam." According to your literature, when a sensor notes the beams of an oncoming car 500 meters ahead the upper beam gradually passes through a middle beam and diminishes into a lower beam when the vehicles are 150 meters apart. This device is also advertised as capable of owner installation, and without the modification of any vehicle parts. The system appears to operate by a switch. This device directly conflicts with Standard No. 108, and its use would create a noncompliance with it. Headlamps are defined as producing upper and lower beams, and means must be provided for switching between these beams. Use of the device would alter upper and lower beam characteristics from those required by Standard No. 108, and in effect create an infinite number of beams while passing from a conforming upper beam at one extreme to a conforming lower beam at the other. This precludes its use as original equipment. We

believe that its aftermarket legality would be limited. Although Federal law would not preclude an owner from installing it, the instructions are sufficiently complex that in our opinion many purchasers would seek to help from a "dealer" or "motor vehicle repair business," which could not be legally given. There would also remain the question of legality with State laws.

These appear to be innovative devices and we regret that we cannot be more encouraging.