ID: nht80-2.12

DATE: 04/22/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gas Alternatives Systems

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 1, 1980, letter asking what you must do to certify devices that you plan to import for sale in the United States. The devices to which you refer would convert an automobile's fuel system from gas to compressed natural gas or propane.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. To certify compliance to the standards, manufacturers must test or conduct some form of analysis of their vehicles or equipment. The Federal government does not get involved in the actual certification process. Once a manufacturer determines that its equipment or vehicles comply with the standards, it can then certify the vehicles or equipment without getting government approval.

With respect to the device that you propose to import, the agency has no safety standards applicable to this type of a device. Accordingly, as an importer of this equipment, you would have no certification responsibilities. However, the agency has a vehicle safety standard regulating fuel systems. If your device were designed to be installed in new motor vehicles, the manufacturer of those vehicles would be required to insure that your device would comply with the standard applicable to fuel systems. If your device would be installed on used vehicles, no manufacturer, dealer or repair business would be permitted to installed it if such installation would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards.

To help clarify these general guidelines further, I am enclosing a copy of Part 567, Certification, which describes how to certify a vehicle in compliance with the safety standards. Further, I am enclosing a copy of our Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, which details the fuel system requirements for motor vehicles. Finally, we have prepared a short letter that gives information on the installation of alternate fuel systems in motor vehicles and that is enclosed for your information.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.

ENC.

ID: 17040.ztv

Mr. Pat Riebalkin
Production Manager
Gorlan Trailer Fairing Inc.
112-A
12827 76th Avenue
Surrey, B.C. V3W 2V3
Canada

Dear Mr. Riebalkin:

This is in response to your letter of December 23, 1997, to this Office requesting "an official letter identifying the national regulations regarding conspicuity marking or lighting for our aerodynamic freight trailer fairing." Your company markets and sells fairings to trailer dealerships, who in turn, install them at their facilities, using their employees. The fairing is suspended one inch below the bottom of the trailer bed. You report that when the fairing is in place, it does not cover conspicuity marking or marker lamps. However, when the fairing is raised, it obscures the marker lamps and some conspicuity tape.

You have asked four specific questions:

"1. Do we need to add lights or conspicuity tape to our fairing?"

The answer is no. Under the applicable law that this agency enforces, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, Gorlan would be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, but Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not apply to equipment such as trailer fairings. If the dealer attaches the fairing to the trailer before its first sale, the dealer must ensure that the trailer continues to comply with Standard No. 108 before he sells the trailer. If the dealer installs the fairing on a trailer in use, it must ensure that its modifications do not make inoperative the trailer's original lighting equipment when the installation is completed. In essence, this means that the vehicle must remain in compliance when the installation is completed. Compliance is judged with a motor vehicle in its normal operating configuration (e.g., doors and decklid closed). When the fairing is in its intended operating configuration, you have indicated that the trailer continues to conform to Standard No. 108. Therefore, no additional lamps or tapes appear required for conformance purposes.

Even if a trailer did not conform when the fairing is in use, the responsibility for bringing it into, or retaining, conformity with Standard No. 108 would lie with the trailer dealer who installs the fairing, and not with the fairing manufacturer.

"2. Can we add reflectors for aesthetics?"

A trailer dealer may sell a trailer equipped with a fairing carrying "reflectors for aesthetics" if the reflectors do not impair the effectiveness of equipment required by Standard No. 108. In addition to the red and white segments of conspicuity tape, Standard No. 108 requires amber side marker lamps and reflectors to the front (and in the center if the trailer is 30 feet or more in overall length) and red side marker lamps and reflectors to the rear. We believe that effectiveness of side lighting devices is best preserved if the reflectors which Gorlan is contemplating installing are amber from the trailer midpoint forward, and red to the rear of the midpoint. This will prevent confusion to observers approaching the trailer from the side.

As noted earlier, a dealer may not install a fairing on a trailer in use if it makes inoperative the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because of the possibility of confusion (making the required reflectors and lamps "inoperative"), we believe that Gorlan's fairing reflectors should be amber from the midpoint forward, and red to the rear of the midpoint.

"3. Because this fairing will hang one inch below the trailer floor beams, will we need to replace any side marker lights that get removed? Should the light be then placed onto the trailer or the fairing? If an arrow lamp is removed can it be replaced with a DOT approved reflex side marker lamp?"

Yes, the trailer dealer will have to replace any side marker lamps that are removed in the course of installing the fairing, and the lamp should be installed on the trailer. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that any side marker lamp or reflector required by the standard must "be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle . . . that is not designed to be removed except for repair. . . ." The fairing is an accessory, added to the completed trailer and presumably as easily removed as added. We therefore do not consider the fairing to be a part of the vehicle not designed to be removed except for repair.

We are not sure what an "arrow lamp" is, but if it is a lamp required by Standard No. 108, it may be replaced in the same location and orientation by one performing the same function that bears a DOT certification mark on it (which does not signify "DOT approval" but is a mark of the manufacturer certifying that the lamp meets Standard No. 108's performance requirements).

"4. How do the Federal Motor Carrier Standards govern in respect to this type of product?"

The Motor Carrier Standards of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) apply to trailers in commercial use in interstate commerce. One intent of FHWA's standards is to ensure that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards continue to be met when a vehicle subject to its jurisdiction is in use. Therefore, the FHWA would also permit the fairing under the same performance conditions as we do: although the fairing may obscure lamps and conspicuity marking when a trailer is not being operated, when the trailer is in use, it must continue to show the conspicuity tape and marker lamps and reflectors, and in the same locations, as required by the NHTSA standards.

If you have any questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/8/98

ID: nht88-2.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88 EST

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

TO: ROBERT G. YORKS -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS GROUP, TRUCK-LITTLE CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-24-88, TO KATHLEEN DEMETER, FROM ROBERT G. YORKS, 25220; MEMO UNDATED, TO ROBERT G. YORKS, FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER

TEXT: We have received your letter of May 24, 1988, withdrawing your request for confidential treatment of your letter of March 31 concerning the legality of a new safety lighting device. This letter also responds to your inquiry of July 14.

The device is described as a "combination center high-mounted stop lamp and cargo lamp". The functions are optically separate. The cargo lamp can illuminate the cargo box on pick-up trucks, while on vans and utility vehicles it serves as a "utility lig ht". The device is intended to be used as either original or aftermarket equipment.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108. As you know, the center high-mounted stop lamp is required only for passenger cars. Further, there is no requirement that a center lamp intended for other types of motor vehicles meet the passenger car lamp requirements (for example, those requirements would prohibit combining the center lamp with the cargo lamp). As neither function of your device is required on lighting equipment for vehicles other than passenger car s, Standard No. 108 permits the installation of your device as original equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require. Whether impairment exists is initially a determination of the manufacturer of the vehicle who certifies compliance with Standard No. 108. However, the issue of impairment is ultimately subject to a determination by this agency. Types of impairment that can exist include functional interference with the wiring of o ther lamps, creation of ambiguous or confusing signals to such a degree that it may obscure the message of lamps and reflectors required by Standard No. 108, and reduction of photometrics below the minimum levels specified.

As an item of aftermarket lighting equipment, it is subject to a restriction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that its installation by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business must not render inoperative i n whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard. We construe this prohibition strictly and equate it with impairment. If performance is "impaired," it can be viewed as "inoperative" with respect to achieving the purpose for which it has been installed.

Assuming that installation of an aftermarket device is not restricted by the Act, it nevertheless remains subject to the laws of a State in which the vehicle is registered and driven. We are not conversant with State laws on combination rear lamps, but you may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht92-2.18

DATE: 11/19/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PAUL GOULD -- SENIOR ENGINEER - FRICTION MATERIALS, LUCAS HEAVY DUTY BRAKING SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM PAUL GOULD TO PAUL RICE DATED 9-1-92 (EST.) (OCC 7792)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term "average deceleration rate" and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as "only a target" in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force -- relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

With respect to your question about the meaning of "average deceleration rate," that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows: For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration.

We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are "only a target" in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +/-0.5 ft/s/s.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure:

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 2106y

Mr. John K. Moody
Moody & Moody Enterprises
1027 Lochmont Drive
Brandon, FL 33511

Dear Mr. Moody:

This is in reply to your letter of August 30, l989, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to your forward direction brake application indicator.

The device will be available as an aftermarket kit. The two front turn signal lamps are wired to be activated in a steady-burning mode when the brake pedal is depressed. If the turn signals are activated when the brake pedal is depressed, the lamp indicating the direction of the turn will switch from the steady-burning mode to the turn signal mode, while the other turn signal lamp remains steady-burning. This will provide an indication at the front of a motor vehicle as to whether or not the driver is attempting to apply the brakes. You have asked whether vehicles equipped with the device would be in conflict with the existing vehicle lighting standards of this agency.

There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to aftermarket lighting equipment of the nature that you describe. However, installation of the device would involve modifications to a vehicle certified as meeting the Federal standards, most particularly Standard No. l08, the vehicle lighting standard. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a vehicle owner may alter his vehicle with impunity; however, modifications to certified vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to the restriction that they not render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

We have two comments on your device. The first is that you have not described its effect, if any, on the hazard warning system. This system operates through the turn signal lamps, and is activated by a switch that is separate from the turn signal switch. When activated, the hazard warning switch causes the front and rear turn signal lamps to flash. The front turn signal lamps in the hazard warning system, when activated, must flash, even when the brake pedal is applied. If they do not do so when your device is installed, they would be "inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. Our second comment concerns the fact that in the turn signal mode the unused turn signal lamp would continue to be illuminated when the brake pedal is applied. Thus, an observer would see a flashing turn signal and a steady burning one, whereas with an ordinary vehicle, the observer would see only the flashing turn signal. Whether the presence of the steady burning turn signal on the side of the vehicle opposite the flashing turn signal would detract from the effectiveness of the flashing turn signal, and by obscuring its message make it "partially inoperative", is difficult to judge. Certainly, when a vehicle is signaling a turn, it does not appear necessary to also indicate, to the front, that it is stopping.

These remarks also serve as some comments of this Office as to "safety benefits" that might result from vehicles equipped with your device. Certainly, no standard lighting equipment on vehicles today indicate from the front that the brake pedal is being applied. This is an interesting concept, and we appreciate your interest in enhancing motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:ll/l/89

ID: 3199yy

Mr. Robert A. Nordmeyer
Nordic Associates
P.O. Box 925
Woodland Hills, CA 91365

Dear Mr. Nordmeyer:

This responds to your September 18, 1991 letter to NHTSA's Rulemaking office concerning your design for an aftermarket sun visor. Your letter has been referred to me for reply.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Act also authorizes us to require the recall and remedy of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety defect.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to an aftermarket sun visor. The safety standards relating to sun visors (Standard 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and 302, Flammability of Interior Materials) apply only to new motor vehicles and not to items of aftermarket equipment.

The sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Standard 201, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of that requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your sun visor were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor would have to comply with the visor requirements of Standard 201. I am enclosing a copy of the standard for your review.

Standard 302 requires sun visors in new vehicles to meet the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. The standard specifies that the material used on the visor must not burn at a rate of more than four inches per minute. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

Although your sun visor would be sold in the aftermarket, not as an item of original equipment, Standards 201 and 302 can nonetheless affect persons who install the visor. The Safety Act provides that a person who manufactures, distributes, sells or repairs motor vehicles cannot "render inoperative" a regulated device such as a sun visor or its mountings. If a repair shop were to remove a vehicle's sun visor and replace it with your visor, the shop would be in violation of the Act unless your visor complied with the standards. An individual owner may install a visor in his or her own vehicle without regard to the standards.

You should also be aware that our safety defect authority has a bearing on the manufacture and sale of your visor. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that the manufacturer's product contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:201#302 d:ll/l3/9l

ID: nht94-2.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Davis -- President, Russell Performance Products

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from Jim Davis to David Elias (OCC-9249), letter dated 10/22/93 from Jim Davis to NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, and letter dated 11/16/93 from Jim Davis to David Elias

TEXT:

This responds to your letters to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, about the requirements of Standard 106, "Brake Hoses," for labeling hydraulic brake hose assemblies. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain in your letters that Russell holds a license to manufacture brake hose assemblies from Titeflex Corporation, a manufacturer of brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies. Titeflex supplies Russell with braided hose, and Russell manufactures the end fittings that Titeflex designed, using Titeflex's engineering drawings. Russell assembles the Titeflex hose with the end fittings, and "markets these hose assemblies (in) the marketplace."

You ask about marking the hose assemblies with a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the assembly, pursuant to S5.2.4 of Standard 106. You ask whether both Russell's and Titeflex's designations are required to be labeled, or only the designat ion of Russell.

The answer is only Russell's designation is required to be marked. Russell is manufacturing the assemblies and will market the assemblies. Russell's designation will identify Russell as the manufacturer of the assembly in the event of a possible noncompl iance or defect with the assembly.

You also ask whether Titeflex's hose must be labeled with the information specified in *S5.2.1 and S5.2.2 of Standard 106. The first part of your question asks whether the labeling requirements apply to bulk brake hose "with a stainless braided outer cov ering." The answer is yes. The standard does not exclude braided brake hoses from the labeling requirements.

The second part of this question asks about the required labeling for hoses that are part of brake hose assemblies. You ask for confirmation that Standard 106 does not require the hose to be labeled once the hose is part of a brake hose assembly. Your u nderstanding is correct with regard to S5.2.2. The last sentence of that paragraph states: "The information (specified in S5.2.2) need not be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose assembly or a motor vehicle." (The quoted sentence was adop ted at 56 FR 50520, October 7, 1991, to replace the sentence you referred to.) Accordingly, the hose need not bear the labeling of S5.2.2 when the hose is part of an assembly. However, the hose must still bear the stripes required by S5.2.1 unless, to qu ote from S5.2.1, the hose is

"manufactured for use only in an assembly whose end fittings prevent its installation in a twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at the above address, or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-5.38

DATE: MAY 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Davis -- President, Russell Performance Products

COPYEE: Nicholas S. Copass

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from Jim Davis to David Elias (OCC-9249), letter dated 10/22/93 from Jim Davis to NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, and letter dated 11/16/93 from Jim Davis to David Elias

TEXT:

This responds to your letters to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, about the requirements of Standard 106, "Brake Hoses," for labeling hydraulic brake hose assemblies. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain in your letters that Russell holds a license to manufacture brake hose assemblies from Titeflex Corporation, a manufacturer of brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies. Titeflex supplies Russell with braided hose, and Russell manufactures the end fittings that Titeflex designed, using Titeflex's engineering drawings. Russell assembles the Titeflex hose with the end fittings, and "markets these hose assemblies (in) the marketplace."

You ask about marking the hose assemblies with a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the assembly, pursuant to S5.2.4 of Standard 106. You ask whether both Russell's and Titeflex's designations are required to be labeled, or only the designation of Russell.

The answer is only Russell's designation is required to be marked. Russell is manufacturing the assemblies and will market the assemblies. Russell's designation will identify Russell as the manufacturer of the assembly in the event of a possible noncompliance or defect with the assembly.

You also ask whether Titeflex's hose must be labeled with the information specified in *S5.2.1 and S5.2.2 of Standard 106. The first part of your question asks whether the labeling requirements apply to bulk brake hose "with a stainless braided outer covering." The answer is yes. The standard does not exclude braided brake hoses from the labeling requirements.

The second part of this question asks about the required labeling for hoses that are part of brake hose assemblies. You ask for confirmation that Standard 106 does not require the hose to be labeled once the hose is part of a brake hose assembly. Your understanding is correct with regard to S5.2.2. The last sentence of that paragraph states: "The information (specified in S5.2.2) need not be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose assembly or a motor vehicle." (The quoted sentence was adopted at 56 FR 50520, October 7, 1991, to replace the sentence you referred to.) Accordingly, the hose need not bear the labeling of S5.2.2 when the hose is part of an assembly. However, the hose must still bear the stripes required by S5.2.1 unless, to quote from S5.2.1, the hose is

"manufactured for use only in an assembly whose end fittings prevent its installation in a twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at the above address, or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht87-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada -- Manager, Automotive Lighting, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, with respect to a new headlamp and aiming adaptor design. The lens of the headlamp will be tilted 60 degrees from vertical. Although this is too extreme an angle - for use of mechanical aimers for headla mps, you have developed an adaptor for use with the aimer whereby the new headlamp may be mechanically aimed. You have asked whether mechanical aim using the new adaptor is permissible.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does prescribe the types of aimers to be used with replaceable bulb headlamps, but not the adaptors. As you have noted, the standard does require such headlamps to be capable of mechanical aim by incorporatin g on the lens face three pads which meet the requirements of the Standard's Figure 4. You have informed us that your headlamp design complies with this requirement, and furthermore meets the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.

However, there are some practical considerations that are important if you intend to market this headlamp. Although providing an aimer adaptor is not required by Standard 108, no adaptors for your unique lamp have been provided to service facilities. The only adaptors which exist today are those designed to accommodate sealed beam headlamps replaceable bulb headlamps with lens angles up to 50 degree for smaller lamps and 40 degrees for larger ones. Neither of these can accommodate the lamp you have prop osed.

In summary, the standard does not appear to preclude use of your new designs, and although not specifically required by the standard, an adaptor should be provided as original vehicle equipment since suitable adaptors do not exist in the service communit y.

Subsequent to August 4, we received your request for confidential treatment of the letter. We replied that it is our policy that substantive interpretations be made publicly available but informed you that we would be willing to delete all identifying re ferences to you and your company. You replied that this was agreeable to you. However, because this headlamp is the subject of SAE Technical paper 870064 Development of MR (Multi-Reflector Headlamp) and was discussed at SAE and was discussed at SAE meeti ngs in February 1987, Stanley has waived all considerations of confidentiality through its public disclosure of the matter. Consequently, this letter will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 4, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We have asked you an advice about permissibility of mechanical aiming with the additional adaptor by the letter dated August 4, 1986.

As for the above mentioned letter, we would like to ask a favor of you. We would like you to deal with this matter in strict confidence.

Since this headlamp is being developed as our new idea for customer satisfaction, we are trying to keep this information inside of our company. Therefore we would like you to maintain the secrecy of this information strictly against any other third party .

Your kind cooperation will be highly appreciated and as well we are looking forward to your reply to our problem.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

ID: nht94-4.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1994

FROM: R. C. Rost -- Minnesota Body And Equipment Co.

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO R. C. ROST (A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Dear Council:

In 1988 we wrote you asking for relief from installing roof lights on non yellow buses used for Head Start. You denied our request and I thought this battle was over, but it is not.

Again we are in between federal law and states rights. As you can see from the attached information Minnesota has passed a law stating a Head Start bus shall be non yellow, be lettered Head Start but cannot be equipped with flashing lights or a stop arm . This in direct conflict with your letter of 8/26/88.

We feel it should be up to you and the State of Minnesota to work this out. As sellers of buses and manufacturer's of buses we should not be placed in the middle of this type situation.

We have no feeling on this one way or another. We only ask for clarification as to our ability to sell this type of unit and your authorization for our bus manufacturers to legally build this type of bus for Head Start.

We request that you direct any correspondence not only to us but to Major Gramse who directs the inspection program for buses in the State of Minnesota.

Major Glen Gramse Minnesota State Patrol 444 Cedar St. St. Paul, MN 55101

We would appreciate your speedy response as this law takes effect very soon.

Attached letter:

11/8/94 Major Glen Gramse Minnesota State Patrol 444 Cedar St. St. Paul, MN 55101

RE: Buses used for Minnesota Head Starts after 12/31/94

Dear Mr. Gramse:

It is our understanding that Head Starts may choose from two different types of buses.

1. A yellow and black bus that meets all Minnesota standards for school bus and has an "MN" in the serial number certifying it meets Minnesota standards as well as federal standards.

2. A non yellow bus lettered Head Start with no roof warning lights and no stop arm, but with an "MN" in the serial number certifying it to meet all "school bus standards and Head Start bus bodies by law". This statement would include federal standards by law.

We have no problem with item 1, above yellow buses, it is item 2 non yellow buses that causes a problem. Attached you will find a letter for Chief Council for the U.S. Department of Transportation discussing the federal requirement for roof lights and t his also covers the 1992 federal requirement for a stop arm on a school bus, whether yellow or non yellow. We request an Attorney Generals opinion on this part of the Minnesota Head Start law and a hold harmless agreement from the state agreeing to defe nd any school bus seller who delivers a non federal standard bus into Minnesota that meets state but not federal standards. The hold harmless agreement should cover any cash awards whether federal, state of civil arising from any injuries due to omittio n of federal requirements on a Head Start bus.

Since federal law requires that we must deliver a non yellow school bus with lights and stop arm to the end user and they remove the lights and stop arm, we request the same hold harmless agreement for Head Starts as for bus sellers.

Since we must deliver the bus with lights and stop arms we request a hold harmless agreement from the State regarding the "MN" certifications false signing.

It is our feeling that in the event of a child's injury on any non yellow Head Start bus where the lights and stop arm have been removed that the person removing or disconnecting or ordering the items not to be used would be subject to civil and federal litigation and liability.

The letter from the Department of Transportation has been supplied to the Minnesota Department of School Transportation, The Highway Patrol Inspectors and the Department of Public Safety.

We request a speedy resolution to this matter and immediate notification to Head Starts and bus sellers.

R. C. Rost -- MINNESOTA BODY AND EQUIPMENT CO.

P.S. It is our feeling that activation of the 4 way hazard lights while loading or unloading Head Start children in no way alerts traffic that children are loading or unloading and does not give them the protection they are entitled to.